|
loquitor: interesting---i don't have time to spell this out more at the moment, so i'll just outline a couple counter-arguments.
a. for a corporation to operate at all it has to take account of its impact on its surroundings. one explanation for attempts to change reporting processes is that an emphasis on shareholder returns in reporting has demonstrated itself to not be adequate.
from a shareholder viewpoint, not only financial but brand considerations could very easily lead one to think that more comprehensive information, based on a wider range of inputs, provides more comprehensive information about corporate performance and so results in better business decisions. potentially.
underneath this, there's no reason to assume, as a freidman type might, that rational action only happens when one's money is on the line. nor is the flipside claim, that anything except profit generation runs beyond the competences of investors, a coherent viewpoint.
b. the argument that more inputs from more people opens up possibilities for more corruption is strange--it seems like an argument against public offerings of stock as much as one against a shift into stakeholder-based reporting.
by the way, notice how working people disappear again?
why is that?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|