If I sound a little too passionate about this subject, it's because I am.
Maximizing shareholder value has been taught in virtually all investment and finance related courses in school. The notion of maximizing shareholder value by cutting cost, reducing head count, increasing revenue, etc have been practiced and awarded in the corporate world. Manager bonuses are based on it, worker productivity is driven by it, and investor selection is reliant on it... However, is this the right thing to do for us as human beings? Has it become a sickness and maybe an obsession for us as managers, workers, and investors to maximize shareholder value?
The West Virginia mine that recently killed 29 people was operated by Massey Energy company. The company violated safety standards and was cited repeatedly by regulators due to safety concerns. Instead of spending money to correct the safety violations, the company fought the citations and ignored the high injury rate of the mineworkers. This kind of attitude eventually led to 29 deaths in 2010. Due to lack of safety precautions, in 2005, BP's accident at the refinery in Texas killed 15 people and injured 170. The oil spill today not only caused tremendous environmental damage, it also killed 11 workers. These are preventable 'accidents' that killed not just workers, but humans, one of us.
You and I will never hold a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger. If we did, we'd be arrested as murderers. We will never detonate an explosive to kill or injure anyone. If we did, we'd be hunted as terrorists. So, why is it acceptable for us as managers, workers, and investors to take others' lives in the name of maximizing shareholder value?
1 comment:
It sounds like you need to stroll on down to corp gov and have a chat with them regarding how Corporate Responsibility should be incorporated into a company's corporate goverance and the impact it can have on shareowner value. Oh, but they use the term shareowner - a change that (I believe) Mark Anson was responsible for.
Post a Comment