Traditionally, the role of a company was clear-cut; companies existed to maximise profits which would be returned to shareholders. US economist Milton Friedman was the face of this theory of shareholder primacy, which tended to reflect the consensus academic and corporate beliefs in the 1970s. This principle was also applied by courts across numerous jurisdictions, enshrining the corporate goal of profit maximisation over other considerations into company law.

In 1970, Friedman famously declared: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.”

However, by the 1980s this view was being called into question. The idea that a company’s  economic and social aspirations should not be viewed as separate aims started to gain traction, and there were growing calls for the social impacts of a company to be considered. This sentiment was reflected in a US court finding that shareholder interests in a company can be non-financial.[1]

In 1983, Canadian academic Henry Mintzberg summed up this view, stating: “There is no such thing as a purely economic strategic decision in big business… Only a conceptual ostrich, with his head deeply buried in economic theory, could possibly use the distinction between economic and social goals to dismiss social responsibility.”

More recently, since 2006, UK legislation has significantly expanded the duties of a company, from purely profit maximisation to considering employees, relationships with customers and suppliers, and the impact a company has on the community and environment.[2] This is far more closely aligned with modern-day expectations that companies consider a broad array of stakeholders. In this context, a stakeholder can be anyone or anything affected by, or with the ability to affect, a company, including people such as employees, creditors and consumers, but also governments, local communities and the natural environment.

A greater purpose?

From a broader societal viewpoint, consumers increasingly expect companies to stand for something, and are placing pressure on companies to consider their greater purpose. Quite often, we expect that our own values are shared by the companies that we chose to buy from. On the flip side, we are also observing the significant reputational damage that companies are suffering when profit maximisation is placed above other interests such as labour conditions, the healthiness of products or environmental impacts, to name just a few examples.

Most recently, we have seen this broader purpose of a company accepted by the US Business Roundtable, which last month published a statement on corporate purpose that no longer focuses on shareholder primacy, but instead considers all stakeholders.[3] This may well be very significant – 181 CEOs have signed this statement on behalf of some of America’s largest companies, which employ over 15 million people.

The statement makes a public commitment to all stakeholders, and specifically includes:

  • Offering value to customers and meeting expectations
  • Paying employees fairly, and creating a workplace of diversity, inclusion and respect
  • Transacting fairly with suppliers
  • Supporting local communities.[4]

Or just greenwashing?

While this statement doesn’t contain ideologically new concepts, it is undoubtedly significant that a market the size of the US is appearing to embrace the consideration of all stakeholders, rather than just investors, as part of corporate purpose.

However, there remains much to be nailed down about this new system of stakeholder-first capitalism, and the announcement has led to criticism from some groups.

Some have described the statement as pure ‘greenwash’, simply intended to placate a consumer that increasingly cares about environmental and social topics, with no real detail on how this might work in practice. Meanwhile, advocates of shareholder rights fear that the CEOs of the biggest US companies are not advocating for stakeholder primacy, but instead director primacy by another name: as one group has said “accountability to everyone means accountability to no one”. Another key question is how company performance should be measured if the objective of the company is not to maximise returns for shareholders.

Nevertheless, at Newton, where we have long believed ESG factors can have a material impact on a company’s share price, we see this announcement as a positive step. We’re pleased to see the leaders of these large, global, well-known companies publicly recognising the myriad factors that go into a company’s performance.

What we hope to see now is concrete action and commitments from companies.






Rebecca White

Rebecca White

Global ESG integration lead


Your email address will not be published.

Newton does not capture and store any personal information about an individual who accesses this blog, except where he or she volunteers such information, whether via email, an electronic form or other means. Where personal information is supplied, it will be used only in relation to this blog, and will not be collected or stored for any other purpose. Comments submitted via the blog are moderated, and, as a result, there may be a delay before they are posted.

This is a financial promotion. These opinions should not be construed as investment or other advice and are subject to change. This material is for information purposes only. This material is for professional investors only. Any reference to a specific security, country or sector should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell investments in those countries or sectors. Please note that holdings and positioning are subject to change without notice.

Important information

This material is for Australian wholesale clients only and is not intended for distribution to, nor should it be relied upon by, retail clients. This information has not been prepared to take into account the investment objectives, financial objectives or particular needs of any particular person. Before making an investment decision you should carefully consider, with or without the assistance of a financial adviser, whether such an investment strategy is appropriate in light of your particular investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances.

Newton Investment Management Limited is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence in respect of the financial services it provides to wholesale clients in Australia and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority of the UK under UK laws, which differ from Australian laws.

Newton Investment Management Limited (Newton) is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN. Newton is providing financial services to wholesale clients in Australia in reliance on ASIC Corporations (Repeal and Transitional) Instrument 2016/396, a copy of which is on the website of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, The instrument exempts entities that are authorised and regulated in the UK by the FCA, such as Newton, from the need to hold an Australian financial services license under the Corporations Act 2001 for certain financial services provided to Australian wholesale clients on certain conditions. Financial services provided by Newton are regulated by the FCA under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United Kingdom, which are different to the laws applying in Australia.

Explore topics