![]() But it's still underappreciated that he's created a model that can be replicated and help improve all of capitalism in a major way.There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” - even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. By now, it's become commonplace to hail Jeff Bezos as one of the greatest corporate chiefs in history. The Amazon model solves the quandaries of the theory of capitalism in an elegant and effective way. A company that really puts the interests of consumers first won't be good for shareholders or employees over the short run, but it will over the long run. ![]() Everything else - whether it's jobs or stock price appreciation - is a byproduct.īut this only works in tandem with another key idea in the Amazon playbook: a long-term orientation. Consumer capitalism actually aligns with what economic theory says corporations are for: delivering goods and services to customers. But stakeholder capitalism is too vague and fuzzy to work in the real world. Shareholder capitalism misses some of the key dimensions of what a company does. And as shareholders benefit, so do employees, since their compensation is tied to the stock price. As Bezos noted in his shareholder letter, shareholders who are long-term focused benefit from a customer-focused company since that company will do well, even if it does forsake some short-term profits in the process. This idea, that Amazon works for the consumer first, is woven throughout the company's culture.īut shareholders benefit, too: Amazon's stock has been one of the best performing in history. The point is that whenever someone works on something at Amazon, they should start from how the consumer will benefit and work backwards. Instead, Amazon would focus on one thing, and one thing only: consumers.Īt Amazon, any team that works on a new product must start by writing a press release announcing the new product to the world. Nor was he going to build a namby-fuzzy stakeholder company. In that letter to his shareholders, he told them he wasn't going to worry about them. When Amazon went public, its founder Jeff Bezos wrote a shareholder letter that all fund managers and all CEOs should read. He started a new company to prove that a different model could work. What to do? Well, a former hedge fund guy has the answer. So, neither of these systems really work. Stakeholder capitalism failed, and shareholder capitalism made a strong comeback.īut in the wake of a major financial crisis that was in many ways driven by financial greed, the idea that shareholder capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be has merit. And more often than not, the "someone" ends up being managers and union bosses who, since they're not being held accountable by the marketplace, mostly end up enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. The problem with stakeholder capitalism is that, while balancing the interests of all the stakeholders sounds nice in theory, in practice, someone has to do the balancing. When you have such economic surplus, spreading the wealth around was easy. But the '50s were a unique, non-replicable era in history: Half the world was under the thumb of communism, Europe was in rubble, there were significant trade barriers, plus the economic tailwinds of the Baby Boom, and war effort-driven technological innovations. ![]() In the heyday of the 1950s, large companies like General Motors could spread their profits between workers' unions, managers, shareholders, and customers and still deliver good products at a robust pace of innovation. The post-war era was the golden age of stakeholder capitalism (after a golden age of shareholder capitalism in the late 19th century, a period that made the Reagan era look like the Soviet Union). And yet, today, shareholder capitalism is resilient, and stakeholder capitalism sounds like a breath of fresh air.īut these things move in cycles. Meanwhile, shareholder capitalism sounds heartless and greedy. Stakeholder capitalism sounds so commonsensical and innocuous that someone coming from Mars might wonder why anyone would bother with any other theory. Stakeholder capitalism is the view that companies should balance the interests of their various stakeholders - shareholders, but also managers, workers, customers, the community, and government. Shareholder capitalism is the view that a company exists to maximize shareholder value - period. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |