XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.disney, alt.disney.sucks   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa   
   From: weberm@polaris.net   
      
   If there’s any good to come from the Walt Disney Company’s opposition to   
   Florida’s new parental rights law, it may be in helping to expose the   
   misleading promises of the “corporate social responsibility” movement.   
      
   A Journal editorial notes the eminently reasonable language of the new   
   Florida law that Disney executives cannot abide:   
      
        Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual   
        orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through   
        grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate.   
      
   Disney’s intervention into Florida politics highlights again the problems   
   that arise when businesses stray from their central purpose of creating   
   long-term value for shareholders. This column has been criticizing the 2019   
   decision by the Business Roundtable to rewrite its principles. All but a   
   handful of the CEOs of large corporations that comprise the group’s   
   membership agreed that year that a corporation should not simply focus on   
   serving shareholders but instead commit to serving a larger universe of   
   vaguely defined “stakeholders.”   
      
   The Business Roundtable’s rewrite was a mistake because serving the long-term   
   interests of shareholders necessarily requires executives to treat non-owners   
   fairly—to attract and retain a talented workforce, to provide good value for   
   consumers, to deal reasonably with suppliers, and to respect the laws and   
   customs wherever a business operates. On the other hand, “stakeholders” are   
   often activists pursuing political agendas that they couldn’t persuade voters   
   to approve and for which they won’t have to pay. There’s no good reason to   
   elevate their gripes above the interests of others. Milton Friedman, who   
   would go on to win a Nobel Prize in economics, explained more than half a   
   century ago the flaws in such declarations:   
      
        What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social   
        responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is   
        not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is   
        not in the interest of his employers.   
      
   This brings us to Disney and its CEO Bob Chapek, who seems to have decided   
   that some “stakeholders” should drive corporate activism while other   
   “stakeholders” should be ignored. Mr. Chapek’s signature appears on the   
   Roundtable’s current version of its policy:   
      
        Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation   
      
        Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through   
        hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity. We   
        believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good   
        jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy   
        environment and economic opportunity for all.   
      
        Businesses play a vital role in the economy by creating jobs, fostering   
        innovation and providing essential goods and services. Businesses make   
        and sell consumer products; manufacture equipment and vehicles; support   
        the national defense; grow and produce food; provide health care;   
        generate and deliver energy; and offer financial, communications and   
        other services that underpin economic growth.   
      
        While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose,   
        we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.   
      
   The statement continues and specifically includes the following pledge:   
      
        Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in   
        our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable   
        practices across our businesses.   
      
   Time will tell how sustainable Disney’s business is over the long term. But   
   how supportive and respectful is a company that presumes to tell the   
   community of Florida parents that they must accept state-sponsored   
   instruction in gender identity for six-year-olds?   
      
   In March, after the parental rights bill had passed Florida’s duly-elected   
   state senate, Mr. Chapek issued a statement on behalf of Disney suggesting it   
   was a “challenge to basic human rights.”   
      
   This column must have missed the section of the Constitution guaranteeing   
   government employees the right to give sexuality lectures in kindergarten   
   classrooms.   
      
   Voters and shareholders beware, Mr. Chapek also announced that he will be   
   using Disney resources to promote his corporate social agenda nationwide:   
      
        Starting immediately, we are increasing our support for advocacy   
        groups to combat similar legislation in other states.   
      
   Does he not even wish to learn what the “stakeholders” in those other states   
   want for their children? Apparently not, and this should not come as a   
   surprise given the lack of respect he’s extending to his stakeholders in   
   Florida.   
      
   Also, how do Disney shareholders benefit from Mr. Chapek’s foray into   
   cultural politics? Some may want to sell their stakes and instead buy shares   
   in a business where the CEO demonstrates corporate responsibility—to the   
   owners.   
      
   --   
   Let's go Brandon!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)