Re: Fwd: Re: Globalization as Social Darwinism, Workers' riskaversion, good policy and personal greed

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Dear David:

        I would like your response to my request to make a mutual hot link 
between
our web sites and connection of networks to diversify the discussants.

        Regarding real stakeholders, I think you will find Shann Turnbull has
given a great deal of thought to that subject and in his model uses a
definition which limits stakeholders to those with a direct stake in the
business as employees, suppliers, customers or neighbors. One issue we are
discussing is that of defining stakeholders.  We are concerned that
employee ownership, without stakeholder ownership, does not provide
employees with sufficient diversification of risk.

        Thanks for your interest.
Deb Olson
At 04:00 PM 1/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Seems an interesting discussion. As I've not followed the longer
>discussion and am not familiar with all the various proposals presented
>I hesitate to comment in any detail. As you may have found, in The
>Post-Corporate World I deal with stakeholder ownership as a center piece
>of my discussion of necessary action. The risk issues are real and ways
>must be found to deal with them. At the same time, it seems inevitable
>that issues of ownership are central to control and democracy. Two
>issues are key. One is whether ownership is by real stakeholders or only
>absentee owners. The other relates to the degree of equity. 
>
>With best wishes for a continuing fruitful discussion.
>
>Dave Korten
>
>Deborah Groban Olson wrote:
>> 
>> > >From sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu  Wed Jan  5 05:38:02 2000
>> > X-Sender: sturnbull@mail.optusnet.com.au
>> > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
>> > Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:38:50 +1100
>> > To: Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>,
>> > Homestead<Homestead@cog.kent.edu>,
>> >         Richard Ferlauto<rferlauto@cda.com>,
>> >         Per Ahlstrom <per.ahlstrom@vpress.se>,
>> >         Lynn Williams <Willi1829@aol.com>, Leo Gerard
>> > <lgerard@uswa.org>,
>> >         David Imbroscio <imbroscio@hotmail.com>,
>> >         David Wheatcroft <fieldgrass@lineone.net>,
>> >         Damon Silvers <dsilvers@aflcio.org>
>> > From: Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
>> > Subject: Re: Globalization as Social Darwinism, Workers' risk
>> > aversion,
>> >    good policy and personal greed
>> >
>> > Dear Deb
>> >
>> > I will respond to your last question first as some of the other
>> > issues then follow.
>> >
>> > You ask if we have any ideas better than what David Korten is
>> > proposing.  May I ask you to compare my proposal to introduce tax
>> > incentives to introduce a World wide Community Investment Code (CIC)
>> > which would accept globalisation on a basis that it introduced the
>> > localisation of ownership and control of corporations as described
>> > in my book I presented to you, Democratising the Wealth of Nations.
>> >
>> > Do you think Korten has any better ideas which could provide a
>> > convincing political mandate to enrich democracy from a majority of
>> > corporate stakeholders?
>> >
>> > The tax incentives to introduce Ownership Transfer Corporations
>> > (OTC's) would not only enrich democracy but do so in way in which
>> > employees, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders would not
>> > have to be exposed to risk as assumed by the distinguished law
>> > professor you quote.  OTC's do not require debt finance and if you
>> > don't borrow money you cannot go bankrupt!.  Corporate risk would be
>> > reduced because stakeholder, who are in the best position to manage
>> > the risk, would obtain both an economic incentive and the power to
>> > manage normal business risks.  Institutional owners do not have the
>> > incentive, knowledge, or committment to reduce the business risks of
>> > the companies they own shares, nor do they have any authority or
>> > business specific experience to make management accountable or
>> > direct strategy.
>> >
>> > The other Korten proposals you mention seem to me to represent
>> > second and third order concerns for improving the equity, efficiency
>> > and sustainability of corporate capitalism.  The core ideas on how
>> > OTC's could be introduced are contained in my article in the COG
>> > library on "Stakeholder Governane: A cybernetic and property rights
>> > analysis" at:  http://cog.kent.edu/lib/turnbull6/turnbull6.html
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > Shann
>> >
>> > At 06:07 PM 5/1/2000 , Deborah Groban Olson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Homesteaders:
>> >>
>> >>         I receive a lot books and articles related to our mission
>> >> and our efforts to develop policy. I want to share with you my
>> >> questions arising from a law review article given me by Ted St.
>> >> Antoine, a distinguished labor law professor at the University of
>> >> Michigan, and from David Korten's book, When Corporations Rule the
>> >> World. Both of these authors seem to share much of the world view
>> >> stated in the COG mission. Yet each of them raises issues that
>> >> have not been discussed to date in the COG discussions. I am
>> >> currently reading Korten's book The Post-Corporate World, and
>> >> would like any thoughts you may have about that as well.
>> >>
>> >> Theoretical Questions:
>> >>
>> >>      Based on Duke Law Professor Paul Carrington’s, 3 The Green
>> >>      Bag Law Journal1998 article “The New Social Darwinism” in
>> >>      which he equates globalization with a resurgence of the
>> >>      Social Darwinist views of the pre-progressive era:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ·       Is it unrealistic to propose that workers undertake the
>> >> risk of being capitalists, because human nature amongst the
>> >> working class is generally too risk averse?
>> >> ·       Is it wise for society to focus on a risky proposition
>> >> such a ownership, as a major social underpinning? Will it create
>> >> greater social unrest?
>> >> ·       Is the risk of ownership any greater than the current
>> >> periodic unemployment risk to the average worker?
>> >> ·       Is risk the  normal state of affairs for workers and
>> >> humanity, so why postulate life-long jobs as a serious option
>> >> (especially when they are disappearing in Japan)?
>> >> ·
>> >>
>> >>      David Korten’s book When Corporations Rule the World, lays
>> >>      out an agenda for social change aimed at meeting the basic
>> >>      COG goals of a sustaniable and just civil society which
>> >>      includes:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ·       a world-wide economic accounting system that counts all
>> >> the environmental and social costs of production,
>> >> ·       a tax system which actively encourages stewardship of
>> >> resources and communities and removes taxes on productive work and
>> >> basic consumption,
>> >> ·       a legal system which eliminates corporate political
>> >> contributions, requires the media to provide free air time for
>> >> political debates, bans political advertising, replaces the IMF
>> >> and WTO with a UN agency that will encourage more self-reliance
>> >> and less debt by current debtor nations, and seriously limits the
>> >> rights of corporations by removing their status as “legal persons”
>> >> for some purposes and exercising the right to grant or revoke
>> >> corporate charters and thereby set standards for corporate
>> >> behavior in civil society.
>> >>
>> >>           I like a lot of what Korten is trying to accomplish.
>> >>           However, much of it runs contrary to the narrow
>> >>           short-term self-interest motivations of many current
>> >>           players who have the power to make these changes.
>> >>           Is there anything  about what we in the employee
>> >>           ownership community do or are proposing, that is any
>> >>           more likely to accomplish these ends than what Korten
>> >>           proposes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  Does employee or broadened ownership provide more room for
>> >> accommodation between greed and accomplishing our mission?
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Deb Olson
>> >>
>> >> Deborah Groban Olson
>> >> Project Co-ordinator
>> >> Capital Ownership Group Project
>> >> Ohio Employee Ownership Center
>> >> Kent State University
>> >> c/o Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
>> >> 3163 Penobscot Building
>> >> Detroit, MI 48226
>> >> (313) 331-7821 or (313) 964-2460
>> >> (f) (313) 331-2567
>> >> email: dgo@esoplaw.com
>> >> web site: http://cog.kent.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Shann Turnbull
>> > P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
>> > Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
>> > Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
>> > Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international
>> > access code
>> > Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
>> > Alternate:sturnbull@optusnet.com.au
>> > http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html
>
>-- 
>David C. Korten
>PCDForum
>pcdf@econet.org
>http://iisd.ca/pcdf
>