|
interesting, loquitor---but i don't think it's that straightforward---for example there's a movement (kinda) to force corporations to shift from generating reports (annual reports for example) framed around shareholders and to replace that with the broader category of stakeholders. the driver is corporate social responsibility audits (regardless of they end up being functionally) and the goal of this is to pressure corporations to reframe annual report data around stakeholders as a way of forcing corporations to integrate impact assessments with financial reporting.
the point of mentioning that is mostly that the way annual reports are framed is a political choice in itself--and it's obviously a political matter to the extent that, say, questions regarding workers are reduced to a variable cost reported only in terms of its impact on shareholder profits.
the legal framework is interesting in that a miltonfreidman view of corporate activity would say that what's legal is what's ethical--and so from that viewpoint, the meaning of the legal relation that you spell out would be as you say it is---but it's increasingly clear that this no longer flies for alot of corporations and that they're being forced to rethink how the present themselves to themselves. which includes how they present themselves to shareholders.
you could also say that during the period from 1945-1970 (to pick an end date at random) what you outline was also the case, but the political situation was such that it was not acceptable for a corporation to only view its workforce in terms of it;s impact on shareholder profits--because in manufacturing (for example, because it fits) there was a quite strong union presence and institutions like collective bargaining were in place and the combined effect of the two was to force a much wider political framework into place that prevented workers being reduced conceptually to a drag on investor profits.
so what you describe is an expression of the political climate that's been dominant since the 1980s, really--which is holds that the legal relationship and the ethical relationship and the political situation are more or less the same. (in that the legal requirements and the political expression of what a corporation should do are close to identical).
this is the political context that's enabled the massive transfer of manufacturing jobs out of the united states, for example. you can't argue it's not a politics.
of course, at issue here, as it often turns out, is what information is and is not included in the debate. but i figure that since this started off as a debate about minimum wage levels, it's kinda interesting to find so many posts about ceo compensation in the same thread. i take that as a sign of the times.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|