Month: October 2019

Columbia Law School Symposium on Corporate Governance “Counter-Narratives”: On Corporate Purpose and Shareholder Value(s) II

Session II: Capitalism and Social Insurance

In what first of five sessions of a recent Columbia Law School symposium devoted to discussion of his new book, Prosperity—and The Purpose of the Corporation, Oxford University’s Colin Mayer begins by calling for a “radical reinterpretation” of the corporate mission. For all but the last 50 or so of its 2,000-year history, the corporation has combined commercial activities with a public purpose. But since Milton Friedman’s famous pronouncement in 1970 that the social goal of the corporation is to maximize its own profits, the gap between the social and private interests served by corporations appears to have grown ever wider, helping fuel the global outbreaks of populist protest and indictments of capitalism that fill today’s media.

In Mayer’s reinterpretation, the boards of all companies will produce and publish statements of corporate purpose that envision some greater social good than maximizing shareholder value. To that end, he urges companies to make continuous investments of their financial capital and other resources in developing other forms of corporate capital—human, social, and natural—and to account for such investments in the same way they now account for their investments in physical capital.

Although the author appears to prefer that such changes be mandatory, enacted through new legislation and enforced by regulators and the courts, his main efforts are directed at persuading the largest institutional owners of corporations—many of whom are already favorably predisposed to ESG—to support these corporate initiatives.

Marty Lipton, after expressing enthusiasm about Mayer’s proposals, suggests that mandating such changes is likely neither feasible nor desirable, but that attempts—like his own New Paradigm—to gain the acceptance and support of large shareholders is the most promising strategy. Ron Gilson, on the other hand, after voicing Lipton’s skepticism about the enforceability of such statements of purpose, issues a number of warnings. One is about the political risks associated with ever more concentrated ownership of public companies in a world where populist distrust of all concentrations of wealth and power is clearly on the rise. But most troubling for the company themselves is the confusion such proposals could create for corporate boards whose responsibility is to limit two temptations facing corporate managements: short-termism, or underinvestment in the corporate future to boost near-term earnings (and presumably stock prices); and what Gilson calls hyperopia, or overinvestment designed to preserve growth (and management’s jobs) at all costs.

With Jeffrey Gordon. Moderated by Merritt Fox

Columbia Law School Symposium on Corporate Governance “Counter-Narratives”: On Corporate Purpose and Shareholder Value(s)

Session I: Corporate Purpose

In what Jeff Gordon describes as “the great risk shift,” large U.S. companies have responded during the last 50 years to the forces of globalization and increased pressure from investors by transferring the risks associated with product and worker obsolescence from their shareholders to their employees. Layoffs have generally meant very large, if not complete, losses of “firm-specific investments” by displaced employees. And the problem is especially troubling in the U.S., where the employees of large companies lose not only their jobs and income streams, but also often their connection to their social network, to the entire system of social welfare and insurance that tends to be provided by large companies and the workplace.

In Mayer’s reinterpretation, the boards of all companies will produce and publish statements of corporate purpose that envision some greater social good than maximizing shareholder value. To that end, he urges companies to make continuous investments of their financial capital and other resources in developing other forms of corporate capital—human, social, and natural—and to account for such investments in the same way they now account for their investments in physical capital.

Although the author appears to prefer that such changes be mandatory, enacted through new legislation and enforced by regulators and the courts, his main efforts are directed at persuading the largest institutional owners of corporations—many of whom are already favorably predisposed to ESG—to support these corporate initiatives.

Marty Lipton, after expressing enthusiasm about Mayer’s proposals, suggests that mandating such changes is likely neither feasible nor desirable, but that attempts—like his own New Paradigm—to gain the acceptance and support of large shareholders is the most promising strategy. Ron Gilson, on the other hand, after voicing Lipton’s skepticism about the enforceability of such statements of purpose, issues a number of warnings. One is about the political risks associated with ever more concentrated ownership of public companies in a world where populist distrust of all concentrations of wealth and power is clearly on the rise. But most troubling for the company themselves is the confusion such proposals could create for corporate boards whose responsibility is to limit two temptations facing corporate managements: short-termism, or underinvestment in the corporate future to boost near-term earnings (and presumably stock prices); and what Gilson calls hyperopia, or overinvestment designed to preserve growth (and management’s jobs) at all costs.

With Colin Mayer, Ronald Gilson, and Martin Lipton

How Board Oversight Can Drive Climate and Sustainability Performance

The authors present persuasive evidence in their recent article that board leadership is essential for solving critical sustainability issues like climate change. As fiduciaries to investors and stewards of a company’s performance and success, corporate directors have a critical role to play in providing oversight of material risks to corporate strategy and performance, especially those posed by climate change.

Drawing upon a report by Ceres and KKS Advisors, the authors show that perhaps most important among best practices for companies intent on establishing effective board governance are the creation of formal board mandates for sustainability, the recruitment of directors with sustainability expertise, and the linking of executive pay to sustainability performance. The authors’ study also provides compelling evidence that when companies put in place such governance features, their sustainability performance improves notably. The international banking group BNP Paribas and the electric utility Iberdrola are held up as illustrations of governance systems that are likely to be effective in helping companies respond to climate change.

Authored by Veena Ramani and Bronagh Ward