Enlightened Capitalism
I had an interesting conversation with some friends and family members the other night. The question centered on whether capitalism can serve to promote societal well-being, or whether capitalism will always and everywhere be concerned solely with profit. A great deal of the conversation centered on the Wal-Mart model which, to me, represents some of the worst in American capitalism. This isn't to say that Wal-Mart hasn't done many wonderful things. In addition to providing millions of dollars to worthwhile causes, Wal-Mart has brought employment to several high unemployment areas and has provided many communities with access to goods and services that those communities might otherwise do without. And while I share the concern of many about the negative effects Wal-Mart has had on many local businesses, that isn't my primary objection. Rather, it's the manner in which Wal-Mart treats its suppliers and its employees that places them in the "capitalism gone wrong" category. (See, for example, Fast Company's December 2003 article by Charles Fishman entitled "The Wal-Mart You Don't Know" http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html).
I believe that there is a more "enlightened" form of capitalism: one that is focused definitively on a profitable bottom line but that is concerned equally with how that bottom line is achieved. Certainly companies like Wal-Mart are to be applauded for donating millions of dollars to worthwhile causes. Yet isn't a better model a company that treats its suppliers fairly (rather than using its market share to demand significant annual production cost cuts that drive employment overseas) and one that provides its employees with meaningful wages and benefits (rather than scheduling employees in a manner that doesn't grant them "full time" status so that the employer isn't required to pay benefits)?
I believe the answer is "yes." Moreover, I believe such a model is extremely realistic and need not rely on government regulation to be achieved (as some of my friends suggested). There already are dozens of companies that are looking beyond the single bottom line of profit and many of these double and triple bottom line firms are generating higher returns than more traditional companies (see, e.g., http://www.business-ethics.com/100best.htm).
What these companies share is not some "altruistic" motive. Rather, these more "enlightened capitalists" recognize that the long-term sustainability of their enterprise is inherently dependent on the long-term sustainability of its workforce, its suppliers, its community and the planet that we all need for our livelihood. Consciously or not, these firms approach reality from neither the traditional "capitalist" mentality of "the pie is only so big and my job is to grab as much of the pie for myself as possible," nor the socialistic view that all wealth should be distributed so as to make everyone as equal as possible. Instead, the underlying premise behind these many successful double and triple-bottom line firms is that their enterprise can not only compete and get a big slice of the pie, but that intelligent, capitalistic business practices can help make the pie bigger. To me, that type of thinking defines the "enlightened capitalist." It is that type of thinking that I believe will not only sustain capitalism as the most dynamic economic force known to man, but which will, in the end, serve to raise the standard of living and quality of life of all who are touched by it.
I welcome other points of view.
I believe that there is a more "enlightened" form of capitalism: one that is focused definitively on a profitable bottom line but that is concerned equally with how that bottom line is achieved. Certainly companies like Wal-Mart are to be applauded for donating millions of dollars to worthwhile causes. Yet isn't a better model a company that treats its suppliers fairly (rather than using its market share to demand significant annual production cost cuts that drive employment overseas) and one that provides its employees with meaningful wages and benefits (rather than scheduling employees in a manner that doesn't grant them "full time" status so that the employer isn't required to pay benefits)?
I believe the answer is "yes." Moreover, I believe such a model is extremely realistic and need not rely on government regulation to be achieved (as some of my friends suggested). There already are dozens of companies that are looking beyond the single bottom line of profit and many of these double and triple bottom line firms are generating higher returns than more traditional companies (see, e.g., http://www.business-ethics.com/100best.htm).
What these companies share is not some "altruistic" motive. Rather, these more "enlightened capitalists" recognize that the long-term sustainability of their enterprise is inherently dependent on the long-term sustainability of its workforce, its suppliers, its community and the planet that we all need for our livelihood. Consciously or not, these firms approach reality from neither the traditional "capitalist" mentality of "the pie is only so big and my job is to grab as much of the pie for myself as possible," nor the socialistic view that all wealth should be distributed so as to make everyone as equal as possible. Instead, the underlying premise behind these many successful double and triple-bottom line firms is that their enterprise can not only compete and get a big slice of the pie, but that intelligent, capitalistic business practices can help make the pie bigger. To me, that type of thinking defines the "enlightened capitalist." It is that type of thinking that I believe will not only sustain capitalism as the most dynamic economic force known to man, but which will, in the end, serve to raise the standard of living and quality of life of all who are touched by it.
I welcome other points of view.
posted by Chris Kenny at
10:36 AM
