Ancient Corporate Governance Doesn't Work

The method of one-vote-per-share doesn't serve the long-term best interests of corporations and the world they live in. It may serve to support short- term profitability for shareholders, for sure. However, that sometimes undermines what is best for humanity in the long run.

These two articles are cases-in-point of the issue I'm talking about:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/22/amazon-reject-facial-recognition-proposals/

Amazon shareholders have rejected two proposals that would have
requested the company not to sell its facial recognition technology to government customers.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/22/18635604/amazon-shareholder-meeting-2019-climate-change-proposal

Amazon shareholders just voted down a proposal backed by more than
7,500 Amazon employees asking Jeff Bezos to create a comprehensive
climate-change plan for the company

In both of these cases, there was dramatic support from employees, who have an underrepresented voice in how the company they support does its work. If there were more humane governance systems in the organization, things might have turned out differently. What if the corporation offered equal voices to those who do the work of the company, those who benefit from its work (the customers), the planetary environment, and shareholder profit? Would that force a tension that generates something even better than what these corporations have achieved thus far?

I'd like to think so.


Tags: humanity wellbeing