海角大神

In recent weeks, the managers, employees, and customers of a New England chain of supermarkets called 鈥淢arket Basket鈥� have joined together to oppose the board of director鈥檚 decision earlier in the year to oust the chain鈥檚 popular chief executive, Arthur T. Demoulas.

Their demonstrations and boycotts have emptied most of the chain鈥檚 seventy stores.

What was so special about Arthur T., as he鈥檚 known? Mainly, his business model. He kept prices lower than his competitors, paid his employees more, and gave them and his managers more authority.

Late last year he offered customers an additional 4 percent discount, arguing they could use the money more than the shareholders.

In other words, Arthur T. viewed the company as a joint enterprise from which everyone should benefit, not just shareholders. Which is why the board fired him.

It鈥檚 far from clear who will win this battle. But, interestingly, we鈥檙e beginning to see the Arthur T. business model pop up all over the place.

Pantagonia, a large apparel manufacturer based in Ventura, California, has organized itself as a 鈥淏-corporation.鈥� That鈥檚 a for-profit company whose articles of incorporation require it to take into account the interests of workers, the community, and the environment, as well as shareholders.

The performance of B-corporations according to this measure is regularly reviewed and certified by a nonprofit entity called B Lab.

To date, over 500 companies in sixty industries have been certified as B-corporations, including the household products firm 鈥淪eventh Generation.鈥�

In addition, 27 states have passed laws allowing companies to incorporate as 鈥渂enefit corporations.鈥� This gives directors legal protection to consider the interests of all stakeholders rather than just the shareholders who elected them.

We may be witnessing the beginning of a return to a form of capitalism that was taken for granted in America sixty years ago.

Then, most CEOs assumed they were responsible for all their stakeholders.

鈥淭he job of management,鈥� proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, 鈥渋s to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups 鈥� stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.鈥�

Johnson & Johnson publicly stated that its 鈥渇irst responsibility鈥� was to patients, doctors, and nurses, and not to investors.

What changed? In the 1980s, corporate raiders began mounting unfriendly takeovers of companies that could deliver higher returns to their shareholders 鈥� if they abandoned their other stakeholders.

The raiders figured profits would be higher if the companies fought unions, cut workers鈥� pay or fired them, automated as many jobs as possible or moved jobs abroad, shuttered factories, abandoned their communities, and squeezed their customers. 聽

Although the law didn鈥檛 require companies to maximize shareholder value, shareholders had the legal right to replace directors. The raiders pushed them to vote out directors who wouldn鈥檛 make these changes and vote in directors who would (or else sell their shares to the raiders, who鈥檇 do the dirty work).

Since then, shareholder capitalism has replaced stakeholder capitalism. Corporate raiders have morphed into private equity managers, and unfriendly takeovers are rare. But it鈥檚 now assumed corporations exist only to maximize shareholder returns.

Are we better off? Some argue shareholder capitalism has proven more efficient. It has moved economic resources to where they鈥檙e most productive, and thereby enabled the economy to grow faster.

By this view, stakeholder capitalism locked up resources in unproductive ways. CEOs were too complacent. Companies were too fat. They employed workers they didn鈥檛 need, and paid them too much. They were too tied to their communities.

But maybe, in retrospect, shareholder capitalism wasn鈥檛 all it was cracked up to be. Look at the flat or declining wages of most Americans, their growing economic insecurity, and the abandoned communities that litter the nation.

Then look at the record corporate profits, CEO pay that鈥檚 soared into the stratosphere, and Wall Street鈥檚 financial casino (along with its near meltdown in 2008 that imposed collateral damage on most Americans).

You might conclude we went a bit overboard with shareholder capitalism.聽

The directors of 鈥淢arket Basket鈥� are now considering selling the company. Arthur T. has made a聽bid, but other bidders have offered more.

Reportedly, some prospective bidders think they can squeeze more profits out of the company than Arthur T. did.聽

But Arthur T. knew may have known something about how to run a business that made it successful in a larger sense.

Only some of us are corporate shareholders, and shareholders have won big in America over the last three decades.

But we鈥檙e all stakeholders in the American economy, and many stakeholders have done miserably.聽

Maybe a bit more stakeholder capitalism is in order.聽