(Further below, an analysis of "Stakeholder Capitalism," 1200 words)

Under pressure, the DNWE Board made a pretence of inviting members to engage in on-line discussions on the dnwe-intranet, i.e. internally, although not publicly. The competent board member Fetzer, who describes himself as a professor, sought reasons not to allow debate on the following subjects, and indeed they were never submitted to the membership as candidates for discussion. In their place the Board proposed for debate the happenings at a German drugstore chain that had already been discussed to exhaustion in the German media.
—
* ENQUIRIES & OFFERS How tenders are and how they should be handled, seeing that drawing up detailed offers & prices usually involves a great deal of work and indeed risk with, as a rule, no recompense for those who fail to receive an order. Although some formulations of the German Corporate-Governance code require that an appropriate payment be made for each performance received, in practice, in Germany, there is no such recompense. There is not even a report on the outcome of an invitation to tender, such as is allegedly the case in Scandinavia.

* CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS — how these may work counter to the market economy. An initial corrective would be to introduce a stamp fee of, for instance, ten thousand euro, for such agreements to obtain legal validity and with automatic expiry after five years.

* ADVERTISING as undermining and falsifying the market economy. Much mass advertising involves moreover imposing on all citizens the consumption of advertisements (visually, acoustically) against their will such that their civil rights are infringed. An initial counter-measure would be to end the tax relief on advertising expenditure and, as a second measure, to impose a tax on such spending. Prohibition of advertisements in most public space would be an ultimate aim, with as a first step the suppression of the use of sexual titillation and other offensive or obviously manipulative imagery.

* AGENCIES The unchecked spread of employment and service brokerage. The murky trade in working people is not restricted to temping companies, it also affects commerce with many professional services. In precisely which regards does this trade differ from people trafficking, in which regards are the two indistinguishable? How justified is talk of exploitation in this context? Why do major companies have resort to agencies, whether for employment or for the provision of occasional services? Why do they not employ people directly? Can members of the EBEN chapter provide matter-of-fact reports on these matters so that we are not dependent on attributing bizarre corporate conduct to bribery, the avoidance of statutory responsibilities, laziness in the human resources department, credulity towards supposed experts, etc.

* CULTURE How can culture (in contrast to entertainment) be enabled to pay its way? How do taxes and similar charges discourage the creative arts? Are subsidies justified?

* ALTERNATIVES TO PATENTS Discussion in German (for the purpose of subsequent dissemination in the media in Germany) about the Health Impact Fund (Initiator Thomas Pogge). This is an alternative to patents so that the pharmaceuticals industry can be rewarded for innovative and development work without poor people and countries being disadvantaged by intellectual property rights. (By the way: Why do dnwe-members not learn about such innovative ideas although the Kuratorium - the supervisory body - counts among its members the director of the Novartis foundation?)

* FINANCIAL CRISIS - WHO OWNS UP? The role of the major audit companies. So far these have excused themselves by explaining that they did meet their (very limited) statutory obligations (i.e. as guard dogs rather than bloodhounds). There has been no discussion within the German chapter of EBEN that they did, and do, have ethical obligations extending beyond those of strict ethical accountability. This is although - or is that rather, because? - the dnwe board contains a representative of one of the big four audit firms.

* LIMITED LIABILITY - FREE AS A FOOL? Should there not be a more extensive liability for managing directors of limited companies, both private and public, such that when they are found to have been grossly negligent they lose the major part of their personal and family assets, including their pension claims, and are excluded from any future management or advisory roles? Does such confiscation ever occur under the current legal system and, even if provided for, does it ever occur?

* MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS How often are their contributions constructive, competent and original? How often do they only create mischief? An intranet, with access only for members, would be - would have been - a proper place to discuss examples.

The remaining text in the German version provides incontrovertible and detailed evidence that those in charge of the DNWE internal forum chose to suppress any discussion of the above topics. It includes an open letter to a professor of psychology — Dr. Monika Eigenstetter — who, although unelected, chose to support this suppression of debate. The open letter accuses her, with detailed argumentation on the basis of her emails (these people systematically avoid going public with their positions and seek to impose their control by underhand means) of being thoroughly unqualified and ignorant; for example, she assumes as uncontroversial concepts of ethics and science that have been discredited for decades. She demands respect and pleasantness from others, but is herself in practice disrespectful, indeed she is the spitting image of arrogance. For example, she attributed to me, mockingly, a common opinion on a bioethical or environmental issue that is, in fact, the exact opposite of my actual view. I was not permitted to correct this misrepresentation. It was, moreover, a matter that had never been raised in our circles.

The board member, Fetzer, who originally blocked the discussion may, generously, be described as a control freak. The documentation runs to nearly 4000 words. It contains, with appropriately aggressive rhetoric, extensive presentation of basic ethical and academic maxims such as not attributing to others positions they have never adopted, not being patronising, and not arrogating to oneself powers one does not, by rights, have.

---

---

Stakeholder Capitalism

1200 words

The word "Capitalism" was hi-jacked long ago, and more recently the word "Stakeholder." (The proper word for much of what is decried as capitalism is “financialism,” but that is a separate topic.)

Before the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its allies began their abuse of the expression “Stakeholder Capitalism,” it had a defensible meaning. It contrasted with “Shareholder Capitalism,” which is the principle that corporate policy should be directed to benefit shareholders. Understandably, prioritising shareholders came in for much criticism since this came at the expense of others who had a vested interest in the running of an enterprise. Those others would be long-term employees, suppliers and the local community. These were called stakeholders. Hence a moral principle was instated, or upheld, that corporate policy should accommodate those with vested interests.

The trick that the WEF & Co. played was to expand the meaning of “stakeholder” from those with vested interests to anyone remotely or supposedly affected, indeed to anyone in the world and even in the world to come, i.e. future generations.

This was done by insinuation, and not by open debate. Many years ago this author attempted to engage those in the so-called “business ethics” movement in open debate on this and related topics, only to be met with arrogance, censorship and eventually expulsion. See www.contra-dnwe.com for extensive documentation.

There are a number of things which can be said here.

One is the nature of “shareholder” capitalism. Decades ago the idea (the ideology) took hold that shareholder value should be maximised.

This is nonsense. Leaving aside the obscure nature of “value,” questions can be asked about when and how it might be maximised, and whether it could ever be known to have been maximised. Effective management for the long term would involve motivating employees etc. to perform well and conscientiously. This can only be achieved if they have a vested interest. Designing their work to be reasonably satisfying and, for example, free of stress and haste, and paying them slightly above the going rate, will come at the expense of immediate shareholder dividends. As for the longer term, this cannot be known with any certainty, only on the basis of probabilities.

If, of course, only the short term is considered, then these factors may fall by the wayside.

Otherwise, the task of management becomes a balancing of interests.

The situation is further complicated if one considers the agency-principal dilemma. Management, equipped with power in the form of inside knowledge, may diverge from the instructions of the principals, i.e. the shareholders. And the shareholders may well differ among themselves.

Against this background, the easy contrast of shareholder against stakeholder capitalism becomes unhelpful — a matter of rhetoric rather than substance.

All of this said, there seems to be an argument in favour of expanding the horizons of a stakeholder capitalism focussed on the situation of the vested interests.

Why, it might be asked, should vested interests be afforded priority?

This is a big question, which is mirrored in many walks of life. One sees it, for example, when the shrinkage or increase in pay rates or else in prices comes under scrutiny. There is a presumption of no change, i.e. that any unfavourable change must be unfair, immoral, for whoever it affects. One sees it also in the outrage felt that people should be expelled, or overrun and outnumbered, by newcomers to their ancestral homeland. In the background here is the idea of property, property rights being claims that stem from habit and therefore the more distant past.

Experience, or history, teach that efforts to impose an ideal or theoretical justice end in disaster. They short-circuit.

Any conflict between shareholder and stakeholder interests is likely only one of timing. At any rate, these buzz words fail to capture the nuances of what is involved. What does count is the devotion, or not, of the decision-makers to a holistic balance. The decision-makers are then moral, or immoral, players. Stewards of good character, or bad.

The principle that the principal is the shareholder, rather than motley stakeholders, provides a practical focus and indeed aligns with the axiom of proprietorial privilege. (There is seldom a single shareholder.) It provides one focus, itself already complex enough, rather than many, which quickly become unmanageable.

In a well-ordered society, it is not the remit of a business leader to engage in political action by, for example, seeking to redress injustices or imbalances which are the preserve of political action.

Exceptions may apply. One might have the spare personnel and material to erect, free of charge, a much-needed playground, even tho erecting playgrounds is the task of local government and not part of one’s business. This would compensate for a breakdown in local government. In the medium term, tho, it is the failure of local government which needs to be exposed and addressed. Anything else would be mission creep.

Insofar as companies have duties beyond servicing their shareholders in accordance with market principles, it is to refrain from usurping political functions. It is the task of any of their employees who are suitably endowed to become politically active privately. This assumes that they have the spare time and resources to do so. A company which imposes excessive hours or leaves its staff with too little disposable income should not try to compensate for these shortcomings by deploying staff on projects for the supposedly public good.