One classic
example was the MP grilling the Chief Executive of Pfizer and demanding
guarantees about how many people would be employed in a specific location in
five years’ time. The Chief Exec looked and sounded evasive; but in reality,
how many companies, whether a take-over was in the offing or not, would be able
to give that sort of guarantee anyway?
The underlying assumption seemed to be that without a take-over,
everything would be certain to carry on as it is at present – but that’s a
hopelessly invalid assumption.
Any demand for
guarantees and binding promises from a multinatiional company will ultimately
be next to worthless, and I’m not at all convinced that attempting to make them
‘legally-binding’ will really make much of a difference. Under the
system of company law which all the politicians support, and which none of them
show any predilection to change, both Pfizer’s and Astra Zeneca’s prime legal
obligation is to maximise value for the shareholders. If legally cutting their
tax bill, reducing the number of employees, or shifting activity from one part
of the world to another helps, then not only are they free to do that, they are more-or-less
obliged to do so.
It’s not an
approach which I support, but it’s the inevitable result of a legal system
whose objective is to support and protect capitalism. The politicians
could promise to change the law to give other stakeholders – such as employees,
customers, and governments – more rights. But they won’t; indeed, most of
them would happily dismiss such changes as ‘more red tape’ – government
regulations standing in the way of ‘free enterprise’ and the ‘right’ to make
profits. But unless they’re prepared to tackle that question, all the
hand-wringing and pleading is ultimately just grandstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment