The rather communist ideal of having almost everyone contribute to society has previously had issues, primarily being the lack of proper motivation to do so other than philanthropism or government mandates. That said, the recent move by Fink and Blackrock neatly provides that motivation, for companies, at least. It’s certainly a pleasant ideal, but our economy is built to support personal gain over that of the society. With a system such as this, it’s a wonder people are confused at all as to why the major companies seem so “selfish”; our economy is specifically structured to reward such behaviors.
I will note that the generally positive opinion towards moves like Fink’s indicates a preference, if not for communism, at least for socialist ideals. If actions like this begin to gather steam, it will be interesting to see the possible effects of the general opinion, as we in America seem vastly opposed to any form of economy that isn’t strictly capitalist. Heaven knows how much we complain about the taxes that provide for amenities such as emergency response.
While it’s a nice idea, and one that may even prove fruitful, the implications of both the act itself and the opinion may require thought before we, as a nation, proceed.
All companies should give back to the community. It makes sense that if someone is making a profit by selling a product or service they made from global resources, then that someone should reciprocate the prosperity to those less fortunate. It is the duty of humanity to keep good going around, and large companies can implement that. In the article, the author discusses how some companies do already give back "but it is typically written off as a marketing gimmick aimed at raising profits or appeasing regulators." Some people may view this as greed or trickery, however, I believe that as long as the companies are contributing to the society positively, the intentions aren't as concerning. As for taking a stance on social and political issues, I don't think companies have to weigh in against their choice. These topics are very delicate and can cause controversy among the business' customers. This would overall be bad for the company, including their investors, like BlackRock. Of course, every company gets to make their own decisions, but rules like BlackRock's could greatly improve the relationships between big businesses and individual outsiders.
BlackRock is spot on. Companies do have a responsibility to society at large. Money/Capital is essentially ‘energy’ that stays moving & clean by circulating, sharing, cooperation. Spirit is matter in its highest form. Matter is spirit in its lowest form. Energy follows thought.
I believe Companies should have the responsibility to contribute positively to society. Consumers expect better business practices. It creates competitive immunity and makes your business more sustainable in the long-term. The quote from the article is "Contribute to society, or risk losing our support". To me that means, citizens need to help contribute to our society; it's not fair for just a few people to and then the people that are not helping get the same as the ones who did contribute.
I think it is up to the power on weather or not to but a warning label on People should know what they are but amd what they are getting the self in to
I think that the owner of a company is the one who choses weather his/her company is socially conscious. Some owners want to create a good name for themselves and for their company so they try to start programs or funds to better the community. Many companies have switched to recycling or reducing waste in order to help the environment and I think that is a very noble thing to do, it is much easier to throw everything away and not recycle but some companies don't want to be seen as taking the easy route.
On the other hand, some companies don't care how the public sees them and will do anything for a buck. That is why I think it is our duty as shoppers to chose what companies are good for our community. Should we shop at a store who employs local people and recycles or should we shop at a store who has their materials shipped in from a sweatshop and charges four times the price it costs to make their clothing. All in all, the customer is the one who decides weather a business stays open, does the customer want good or do they want cheap?
The extent to which corporate greed goes in America has shown itself for decades. From oil companies not holding themselves accountable for pollution and climate change to multi-billion dollar business representatives refusing to even breathe near political opinions for the sake of remaining neutral, it has made itself apparent that corporations value practices that "make short term sense" but eventually threaten their "long term viability," as said by Jana in the article. Whether they like it or not, businesses do have societal responsibilities as long as they involve themselves, interact with, and produce things for society. Businesses are not just huge faceless, unidentifiable, artificial entities - they are created by people, run by people, and comprised of working people. They should be held accountable for all products they manufacture and ensure that they are not detrimental to any groups of people in particular or any people in general. BlackRock's action to push Exxon into releasing climate impact reports was a smart move, and now says to the public, "We know that we're actively affecting the Earth in a negative way!", which gives them liability for any damage they inflict. I think all companies should be honest about whatever it is they provide for society; I've boycotted products and businesses for child/slave labor, or if their investors or presidents have openly supported prejudiced organisations against my personal beliefs. My life is better for it.
Milton Friedman said “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities”, but as a business is created solely for and by people, this statement seems a bit contradictory. Businesses have everything to do with people. People create businesses, work for businesses, purchase goods and services from businesses; all it is is a collection of individuals attempting to make a profit. As the influence and reputation of a business grows, their responsibilities grow as well, for they gain the ability to positively or negatively affect more people. Unfortunately in my city, one business decided their influence should be negative.
It was recently made public where I live that a chemical manufacturer had been dumping unregulated chemicals into our source of drinking water for years, most notably a substance called “Gen X”, which potentially causes cancer. For some reason, this doesn’t feel right to me. A business, as it is made by humans, should have responsibilities to other humans, if not in the advancement of society, than the preservation of it. For a business to take a risk (ex: dumping mystery chemicals in the river) that may harm a community of people for financial gain is unethical and immoral of every single person who runs it. We need businesses that respects their workers and customers and improves society, rather than be a detriment to it.
It may seem like a dream to have companies heavily contributing to society. However, companies should do more than making profit and they should be contributing to society and making positive impacts on it. Large companies such as Google, Apple, and others are the main source of electronic devices for people, and retail companies such as Target, Walmart, or other stores are providers of everyday needed items. For example, if companies were to focus on making the most profit instead of also focusing on helping and contributing to society, the economy would crumble. They could overprice their products and that would lead to fewer people being able to afford these items, leading to a loss for them. Balancing the social purpose of companies and maximizing their profits seems like a difficult task, if not impossible. To benefit society they should be more focused on giving some of their profits to help those who are in need, instead of hoarding their profit and only being focused on making more money. From my experience, most people are greedy and are focused on making the most money for themselves, and these companies are no different. Thus, they should be fighting to help those in poverty instead, and they should be held accountable for it. The government should hold them accountable because the government is there to protect people's’ rights, and they are also there to help people. The government can help people in need by enforcing companies to contribute to society.
Companies have been given many controversial rights that would normally be associated with people, such as being able to spend money in candidate’s elections. No matter one’s view on if companies should have these “people’s” rights, given that companies do have the rights, should they also take on people’s social responsibilities? I think that it is a fair price to pay, what is wrong with helping society. The only other debate is between the existence of a company (its product and workers employed) being enough added to society. I am not quite sure if BlackRock’s actions to make the companies they invested in serve a “social purpose,” however give there is success I do not see any harm in trying to make companies take on social responsibilities.
When it comes to shopping I am very picky on who I choose to buy from. Why would I want I want to sponsor a brand who only thinks about themselves? When companies give back to the community, I know they are making the product out of the kindness of their hearts rather than for money. Plus, it’s a win win when you order a product you love and donate to a charity all in one purchase. For example, I used to love Steve Madden shoes until I realized they had no ‘Our Story’ page on their website for what charities they donated to. It infuriated me that the company of the shoes I wore almost everyday in middle school choose to keep their profits and not think about the countless starving, homeless, and shoeless people around the globe. Here they are selling shoes when millions of impoverished people walk miles around barefoot.
That’s why I switched to Toms brand. Not only do they give a pair of shoes to a person who needs it, but the company also provides eye treatment, water, safe birth, and bullying response programs. I feel more than confident strutting around in appealing yet comfortable shoes that help other people who aren't as fortunate as me. I’m rejoicing in Mr. Fink’s decision to blackmail those cold hearted companies who need to be public-spirited. As Jeffrey Sonnenfeld said, an institutional investor has never done anything like this before. I hope this bold step will change our world for the better and cause companies not supported by BlackRock to follow in this path.
I think in the past, companies didn't really have to contribute to society since their employees could be paid a good wage to buy homes and promote economic growth. In the modern economic landscape, it is becoming imperative for companies to contribute to society. After the 2008 Great Recession, people all over the country are still struggling to make ends meet. As a result of the recession and a rapidly changing economy, income inequality worsened. Companies became richer while public disdain for large companies grew. To give credit where credit is due, many companies have taken their own steps to help society in a positive way. Some companies increased their wages and have invested in communities. One example would be Aetna, the healthcare company. The CEO of Aetna, Mark Bertolini figured out that his own employees were financially struggling and relied on government subsidies. He took action by increasing the company's wage to $16, help pay college debts, and promised to not pass downs the costs on the consumer. Bertolini has said that corporate leaders should step up and create "a new capitalism" by taking the time to understand their workers. Companies don't have a lot to lose in the current economic climate. When 18% of the American people believe that corporations are good, a serious conversation has to occur between corporate owners, workers, and communities in order for society to improve as the economy changes over the years.
1
It may sound idealistic to want big corporations to contribute to society. However companies should. BlackRock’s move to hold companies accountable for helping the world should not be so hard to follow, but it is. Thus showing why we needed regulations like this. Companies using excess money to help the less fortunate should be what happens without regulations, but that is not what is happening.
Issues like these should not be talked about with figueres and studies because when it comes down to it this is not an issue of companies and profits this a issue of very rich people not choosing to use their wealth to help the less fortunate.
Many people think the money used to help social change programs will mean lower wages and higher prices, but it should not be. It should be coming from the men and women who are becoming millionaires off these companies. The CEOs and owners of companies get the money to buy yachts and mansions because the companies make them lots of money.
I am not saying to force the rich to take a vow of poverty, but I am saying they need to have a little more heart. The president of Walmart, Doug McMillon, has a $19.4 million a year salary--to put that in perspective the average American family makes $50,000 a year. One twentieth of his salary is $970000 enough money to forever change someone life.
Thinking that cooperate heads should have a heart is not that idealistic. Having enough faith in company heads to help others on their own is naive.
Usually, such a question is formalized and put to a vote of shareholders, with the board’s recommendation.
The world, and its consumer market, is changing rapidly. America, I think, was once a child - a toddler with a spoon clenched in its chubby fist, squash and peas dribbling down its bib, screaming for more, more. Now, I think that consumers are more like the slightly more socially conscious ten-year-old - we have deviated, or are attempting to deviate, from the "give me this, give me that" norm and asking companies and businesses the Big Questions. "Where does this product come from?", "Is this brand cruelty-free?", "Does this company/manufacturer use sweatshops?", and "How does this company/business give back on a community scale as well as on a global scale?" are just a few questions I have seen pop up beneath ads on my social media feed. Even if a company isn't directly interacting with the public (through selling its products/goods/services, etc), it makes sense to give back and get more involved. People like that kind of thing - they like to see that if they cannot directly help society, at the very least, they are giving money to a company or business that does. However, as the world shifts from a place where all we do is take, to a place where we (at least give the illusion that we) are giving back, it only makes sense that companies and businesses evolve alongside us.
I feel that BlackRocks push for holding companies accountable is not only going to benefit the popularity of the company but it will also spread a wave of initiative among companies to be aware of their outreach on society. Companies should absolutely have the responsibility to contribute positively to society. A third party overseer might be the key to initially starting the movement of social awareness, however, the tight knit relationships formed in companies between employees, consumers, executives, and CEO’s should work in unison to ensure the positive contributions. Companies can have a social purpose. For example, CVS took the responsibility to stop selling tobacco products in 2014, last year they announced that they would remove certain chemicals from 600 beauty products by the end of 2019, and just recently they stated that they will “stop significant touch-ups of images”.
Every weekend when my mom goes to shop at Whole foods, I think about all the good that they have done in the community. They created the Local Producer Loan program that provides millions of dollars in loans to local producers. They promote nonrenewable resources and encourage the cleaning of the Earth. They also fight poverty all over the world, and I want to shop at a place that cares as much about their profits as they do for the world.
The move that Mr. Fink is making is one that is very needed. If major companies are not going to change their ways for being only profit motive, then someone with enough power like BlackRock need to force them to do so. As a major investor, if you want something down about a business, then you should be able to change how a business is run. If the executives don’t agree with you, then you can just stop investing in the operations. With all the profits that these businesses are making, then they should want to give back to the community even without outside pressure. This movement may change big businesses for the good and it will be beneficial to everyone.