Favoriser les actionnaires ou l'ensemble des acteurs ?

Les CEOs de certaines des plus grandes entreprises américaines décident de changer la définition de l'entreprise.  Elle ne doit pas maximiser les profits, mais plutôt chercher à satisfaire l'ensemble des parties prenantes.  Pas une mince affaire.

Dossier de The Economist.

Collective capitalism suffers from two pitfalls: a lack of accountability and a lack of dynamism. Consider accountability first. It is not clear how CEOs should know what “society” wants from their companies. The chances are that politicians, campaigning groups and the CEOs themselves will decide—and that ordinary people will not have a voice. Over the past 20 years industry and finance have become dominated by large firms, so a small number of unrepresentative business leaders will end up with immense power to set goals for society that range far beyond the immediate interests of their company. [...]  The second problem is dynamism. Collective capitalism leans away from change

Ce que fait face Walmart.

In the days following the shooting, Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times wrote an open letter to McMillon calling on him to use the company's influence and leverage, as it has in sustainability efforts over the years, to put pressure on the gun industry.  And a 23-year-old associate in California launched a petition at Change.org to stop the sale of firearms at Walmart.  At press time, the petition had garnered more than 73,000 signatures.  McMillon so far has resisted being drawn into the larger political and policy conversation.

L'opinion de Stiglitz.

But it is even true more generally: the market can drive firms to be shortsighted and make insufficient investments in their workers and communities. So it is a relief that corporate leaders, who are supposed to have penetrating insight into the functioning of the economy, have finally seen the light and caught up with modern economics, even if it took them some 40 years to do so.  But do these corporate leaders really mean what they say, or is their statement just a rhetorical gesture in the face of a popular backlash against widespread misbehavior? There are reasons to believe that they are being more than a little disingenuous.