Is the Purposeful company re-inventing the wheel?

Is the social responsibility of business to maximise profit for shareholders?

The question was asked more than 20 years ago when a pioneer of social business published his position paper. It opened with these words

“At first glance, it might seem redundant to emphasize people as the central focus of economics. After all, isn’t the purpose of economics, as well as business, people? Aren’t people automatically the central focus of business and economic activities? Yes and no.

People certainly gain and benefit, but the rub is: which people? More than a billion children, women, and men on this planet suffer from hunger. It is a travesty that this is the case, a blight upon us all as a global social group. Perhaps an even greater travesty is that it does not have to be this way; the problems of human suffering on such a massive scale are not unsolvable. If a few businesses were conducted only slightly differently, much of the misery and suffering as we now know it could be eliminated. This is where the concept of a “people-centered” economics system comes in.”

Challenging Milton Friedman’s assertion of shareholder primacy. It argued that a corporation can put the interests of other people before shareholders if that’s what’s agreed at inception and inserted in the company charter.

It was published online free to use in 1997.

I found that argument under new ownership this week when I read an entry for the RSA initiative on Economics is for Everyone, suggesting purpose should be incorporated in the articles of association. It is attributed to the research of the Purposeful Company.

If economics really is for everyone then as our founder put it in 2009, to an international conference on Economics for Ecology: “We all get to invent whatever new economic system that comes next, because we must”

Clearly some are more equal than others when the academics climb on board.

It is far from a one-off experience. The Aspen Foundation is typical of what known as the non-profit industrial complex of neoliberal ideology. Funded by foundations with names which include Gates, Rockerfeller, Carnegie and Ford, they too want in on the Purpose of Business.

Aspen say, there is a shift in business — from focusing on the bottom line to having a positive impact on society.

Writing of this New Bottom Line for McKinsey’s Long Term Capitalism challenge, I describe how it was applied to construct a ‘Marshall Plan’ strategy for Ukraine.

Sir Richard Branson say he always wanted to create business with a purpose beyond just making money. So why isn’t someone with his resources doing it? He and Paul Polman seem to have a lot of interest in Ukraine and an uncanny likeness in what they argue.

Are they going to join us in the trenches? I doubt it very much. Terry Hallman, who took his work to the cause of institutionalised children in Ukraine, had died being the change.

‘The author of breakthru report “Death camps for children” Terry Hallman suddenly died of grave disease on Aug 18 2011. On his death bed he was speaking only of his mission — rescuing of these unlucky kids. His dream was to get them new homes filled with care and love. His quest would be continued as he wished.’

So there you have it. Vulnerable children brushed aside in the name of profit are now being brushed aside in the name of purpose.

I’m not suggesting anyone should join him, but you can join the Linkedin group on The Purpose of Business, where I hope to cultivate authenticity.

I leave you with a thought from the 1996 paper, concerning who should be considered disposable, of no value to society.

‘This is a tricky question. Except in the case of self-defense, if for any reason we answer “Yes”, regardless of what that reason is, we are in effect agreeing with the proposition of disposing of human beings. Whether disposal be from deprivation or execution, the result is the same for the victim. If we agree that sometimes, for some reasons, it is acceptable and permissible to dispose of human beings, actively or passively, the next question is “Which people?” Of course I will never argue that one of them should be me, though perhaps it should be you. You respond in kind, it cannot be you, but maybe it should be me. Not only can it not be you, it also cannot be your spouse, your children, your mother or father, your friends, your neighbors, but, maybe someone else. Naturally I feel the same way. Maybe we come to an agreement that it shouldn’t be either you or me, or our families and friends, that can be disposed of, but perhaps someone else. While we are debating this — passionately and sincerely, no doubt — a third party comes along and without warning disposes of the both of us, or our families, or our friends. And there is the trap we have fallen into, because whether or not we approve of our or our families’ and friends’ demise is irrelevant. It is fair because we accepted the principle of human disposability. We just didn’t intend that it be us who are tossed, but if we or our families and friends die, it is in accordance with principles that we ourselves have accepted and so must live — and die — by.’