CEOs decide shareholder aren't their problem . . .

[KeithVH]

<mods, feel free to move>

This popped up today. I can't seem to find the complete list of signatories. Does anyone know if Iger was one of them?

If that were the case, a whole LOT of arguments here based around the raison d'etre of "shareholder value" became worthless. Then again, the tenet of "investing in our employees" isn't something I'm seeing either.

 

[danlb_2000]

<mods, feel free to move>

This popped up today. I can't seem to find the complete list of signatories. Does anyone know if Iger was one of them?

If that were the case, a whole LOT of arguments here based around the raison d'etre of "shareholder value" became worthless. Then again, the tenet of "investing in our employees" isn't something I'm seeing either.

"Rather, investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities are now at the forefront of American business goals" ... when these thing also help improve shareholder value.

The full list is here, Iger is not on the list, but he is also not on the "didn't sign list" so he must not be a member of this organization.

Our Commitment - Business Roundtable - Opportunity Agenda

 

[DisneyOutsider]

<mods, feel free to move>

This popped up today. I can't seem to find the complete list of signatories. Does anyone know if Iger was one of them?

If that were the case, a whole LOT of arguments here based around the raison d'etre of "shareholder value" became worthless. Then again, the tenet of "investing in our employees" isn't something I'm seeing either.

It's painfully obvious that Bob Iger acts primarily in the interest of his shareholders.

But regardless... a quick (and I mean QUICK) Google search shows that TWDC is not represented in this group, and even if they were, it's a toothless feel-good statement that means absolutely zilch in practice.

 

[danlb_2000]

It's painfully obvious that Bob Iger acts primarily in the interest of his shareholders.

But regardless... a quick (and I mean QUICK) Google search shows that TWDC is not represented in this group, and even if they were, it's a toothless feel-good statement that means absolutely zilch in practice.

Yeah, I would agree. I have worked for one of the companies on that list, and they push the feel-good stuff, but in the end it's all about the stock price.

 

[bUU]

This concept was originally floated over thirty years ago; I was working as a management consultant back then and it was all the rage to try to get corporations to think beyond just their shareholders.

It is dragged up every so often (probably when some Ph.D.'s don't have any new ideas for papers to write). I think most recently, it was floated in 2006 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/606a/828294dafd62aeda92a77bd7e5d0a39af56f.pdf and 2013 https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/201...-report-and-effective-stakeholder-engagement/. If you read those sources, you'll find references back to the original work, Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach (1984) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228320877_A_Stakeholder_Approach_to_Strategic_Management.

So far, it has never resulted in a long-term change in corporate behavior.

 

[deeevo]

Yeah, I would agree. I have worked for one of the companies on that list, and they push the feel-good stuff, but in the end it's all about the stock price.

My current situation and you are spot on.