When a word like "stakeholder" enters the lexicon, definitions are shifted and somehow the growth of the new misleading word seems like an inevitable corruption of language. Once journalists start using it, it gets cemented. Is there any way that this inevitability can be stopped?
I have been in the investment world for 40 years and have warned about this dumbing down of the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. Stakeholder is really a meaningless word. It is described as any person whose fortunes are affected by a Corportation a "stakeholder." In a sense it makes everyone a stakeholder in a huge company. Companies like Amazon, Exxon, Walmart, have some effect on almost everyone. This leads to activists, extremist, and anarchists promoting this idea that a certain company has a responsibility to its "stakeholders." In reality they only have responsibility to the law and to shareholders, those people who risk their own capital to be owners. The word "whiner" could be a synonym for "stakeholder," since activists are the only ones who use it, and increasingly leftist politicians.
The passage criticizes the concept of stakeholder capitalism, which is associated with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. It argues that stakeholder capitalism proposes companies should serve all stakeholders rather than just customers and shareholders. A key mechanism of stakeholder capitalism is ESG scoring metrics, which assess environmental, social and governance factors. However, the passage claims stakeholder capitalism and the ESG agenda are corrupt and filled with distortions. It encourages listening to a podcast episode by James Lindsay that analyzes documents from Harvard Law School and Klaus Schwab's book to understand how corrupt and dangerous ESG metrics and stakeholder capitalism truly are.
James,
When a word like "stakeholder" enters the lexicon, definitions are shifted and somehow the growth of the new misleading word seems like an inevitable corruption of language. Once journalists start using it, it gets cemented. Is there any way that this inevitability can be stopped?
I have been in the investment world for 40 years and have warned about this dumbing down of the difference between shareholders and stakeholders. Stakeholder is really a meaningless word. It is described as any person whose fortunes are affected by a Corportation a "stakeholder." In a sense it makes everyone a stakeholder in a huge company. Companies like Amazon, Exxon, Walmart, have some effect on almost everyone. This leads to activists, extremist, and anarchists promoting this idea that a certain company has a responsibility to its "stakeholders." In reality they only have responsibility to the law and to shareholders, those people who risk their own capital to be owners. The word "whiner" could be a synonym for "stakeholder," since activists are the only ones who use it, and increasingly leftist politicians.
And without good words and word discipline, people become dumber and more easily confused into submission.
The passage criticizes the concept of stakeholder capitalism, which is associated with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. It argues that stakeholder capitalism proposes companies should serve all stakeholders rather than just customers and shareholders. A key mechanism of stakeholder capitalism is ESG scoring metrics, which assess environmental, social and governance factors. However, the passage claims stakeholder capitalism and the ESG agenda are corrupt and filled with distortions. It encourages listening to a podcast episode by James Lindsay that analyzes documents from Harvard Law School and Klaus Schwab's book to understand how corrupt and dangerous ESG metrics and stakeholder capitalism truly are.
But it haz zhe word capitalism in it. Zo zhey vill never guess zat izz really socialism.
(Was what Klausi was thinking when he and Kissinger and the other German fascists came up with that term)