Stakeholder Capitalism: The Case For and Against | London Business School

[@smahmud0]

The Key Stakeholders and Their Objectives: Profits, Purpose, Prosperity and Peace To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stakeholders play a crucial role. They are: governments (of countries, states, and local communities); civil society (from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups); companies (constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies); and the international community (consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN). All these stakeholders crucially consist of people and make use of the planet. It is no surprise then, that they should want to optimize the well-being of all of us as well as that of the environment. But equally, it should be clear they have specific objectives that make them distinct organisms in the first place. Governments focus on creating the greatest possibly prosperity for the greatest number of people Civil society exists to advance the interest of its constituents and to give a meaning or purpose to its members. Companies aim to generate an economic surplus, measurable in profits in the short run, and long-term value creation in the long run And the overarching goal for the international community is to preserve peace It leads to the stakeholder model as we know it today, valid anywhere in the world. When the well-being of people and planet are at the center of business, the four remaining key groups of stakeholders contribute to their betterment. As all of these groups and their goals are interconnected. One cannot succeed if the others fail.

[@sriharshareddymadireddy]

Where can we see all the questions.

[@dollarsex9020]

Initially it would seem Alex has the altruistic position but in fact he is actually supporting the Friedman/Chicago school by saying "No no we don't need government regulation we need stakeholder capitalism" which is basically banking on the moral virtues of corporate CEO's. I'd rather leave this responsibility to democratically elected governments, let CEO's focus on the efficient allocation of capital in order to generate profit which is their main incentive in both models anyway

[@coolkid9602]

when the government requires the company to surrender its part is it called a stakeholder or shareholder of the company

[@rushilkaul]

Google it.

[@coolkid9602]

@@rushilkaul i want to listen from great minds

[@rushilkaul]

@@coolkid9602 Google has a lot of great minds

[@shy7428]

If the government doesn't provide any financial capital (probably via shareholding) to that particular company, then it shall be deemed as a stakeholder of the company.

[@Itisme38]

Who comes up with the rules and ethics for the new Society? And who enforces penalties and makes judgements about changes in a company, and will stakeholders be chosen only based on Wealth status, if so....nothing's changed. Just rich people having a say in what a company does, and working employees harder to increase profits...I admit I don't understand it at All but I personally don't like change.

[@roberhs3168]

I didn't enjoy this debate. It seems they're both agree in all the terms. I think the interests of share and stakeholders are often Confronted and the gobernments take always bad decisions that affect badly to the companys.

[@mathewblackman2794]

Intellectuals are not necessarily smart. They somehow feel legitimate in their nihilistic and narcissistic perspectives based on their own beliefs, as opposed to real world experience. Who gets to determine what constitutes stakeholder benefit? Oligarchs? The one with the money makes the rules? Please. Do you take us for fools? Oh, Davos. You are so few and we are so many. Your days are numbered.

[@shin-ishikiri-no]

They have bio weapons (and vaccinations) to make the masses compliant. Control has never been easier.