Difference between revisions of "Part 2 - Chapter 4"
(→The company as property) |
(→The company as property) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Citing Ostrom as inspiration for a new public policy debate, the authors begin the process of introducing the differences between private property and commons. | Citing Ostrom as inspiration for a new public policy debate, the authors begin the process of introducing the differences between private property and commons. | ||
| + | |||
| + | They start with a discussion of the Gini coefficient (which measures inequalities in wealth, where 0 is equality, and 1 is all wealth held by small elites). Applying the Gini coefficient to ''companies'', rather than nations, the authors argue we can reveal wealth inequality between investors, executives and staff. If above 0.4 in a company, there is a danger of social breakdown (loss of the 'social license to operate'). Using this argument, the authors show the idiocy of defending 300:1 (or even 500:1) pay ratios of senior executives and front line staff. The authors suggest 15:1 might be a the kind of gap needed for a respectable Gini coefficient. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Incorporation and apartheid == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The authors frame existing approaches to membership and governance rights in business as the continuation of apartheid (outside state institutions). Under apartheid, populations of people were systematically disenfrancised (not deemed worthy of participating in governance or the wealth created by past labour) because of their position in society. In today's business, workers and customers (particularly in Anglo-America cultures) are not deemed worthy of participating in governance or the wealth created by past labour because of their position in the company. Having money - argue the authors - is not a good proxy for sound decision-making (when the goal is the maximisation of all six [[Capital|Six Forms of Wealth]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
------- | ------- | ||
Return to the [[FairShares Commons]] | Return to the [[FairShares Commons]] | ||
Revision as of 10:56, 4 May 2020
The company as property
Citing Ostrom as inspiration for a new public policy debate, the authors begin the process of introducing the differences between private property and commons.
They start with a discussion of the Gini coefficient (which measures inequalities in wealth, where 0 is equality, and 1 is all wealth held by small elites). Applying the Gini coefficient to companies, rather than nations, the authors argue we can reveal wealth inequality between investors, executives and staff. If above 0.4 in a company, there is a danger of social breakdown (loss of the 'social license to operate'). Using this argument, the authors show the idiocy of defending 300:1 (or even 500:1) pay ratios of senior executives and front line staff. The authors suggest 15:1 might be a the kind of gap needed for a respectable Gini coefficient.
Incorporation and apartheid
The authors frame existing approaches to membership and governance rights in business as the continuation of apartheid (outside state institutions). Under apartheid, populations of people were systematically disenfrancised (not deemed worthy of participating in governance or the wealth created by past labour) because of their position in society. In today's business, workers and customers (particularly in Anglo-America cultures) are not deemed worthy of participating in governance or the wealth created by past labour because of their position in the company. Having money - argue the authors - is not a good proxy for sound decision-making (when the goal is the maximisation of all six Six Forms of Wealth.
Return to the FairShares Commons
