tl;dr

The article advocates for a shift from the current corporate governance model, which prioritizes shareholder profits, to a stakeholder governance model that considers the interests of all parties involved, including workers and communities. This change aims to address economic inequality and ensure that corporations fulfill societal responsibilities.

The authors propose reforms such as making boards accountable to all stakeholders, requiring corporate purpose statements to benefit society, having diverse stakeholder representation on boards, and federalizing corporate governance.

This shift is seen as essential for creating a more sustainable and inclusive economy.

See also "co-determination", i.e., where unions have representation on corporate boards.

> current corporate governance model, which prioritizes shareholder profits, to a stakeholder governance model that considers the interests of all parties involved, including workers and communities

But the current model DOES consider the interests of all parties involved. Shareholders own companies (even workers or members from the community can!), and if we're going to respect private property...

Communities' interests are served by curtailing companies via regulations to behave in ways that the community finds acceptable.

Worker's interests are served because they can choose why they work for. And companies have to pay minimum wage, etc.

> public shareholders do not actually invest in the productive assets of corporations, because most purchase shares from other shareholders, and the capital “invested” never actually reaches the corporation.

Oh, not this argument again. How much less willing would the initial investors be to invest if they knew no one would ever buy their shares from them?

Secondary share purchases are absolutely part of the overall investing ecosystem, just as secondary house purchases support the initial sales of (and therefore the building of) houses.

Once again we see the "accountable" ad bacculum nonsense. Where accountable means "obey my whims or else" instead of anything approaching actual responsibility or accountability.

They never once consider asking how the hell they are supposed to resolve disputes, or consider the impact of the massive overhead they are asking for. Just the standard "nerd harder!" we are used to seeing from idiots in government dealing with cryptography.

As usual it is not said how it is guaranteed. Who decides if a company is good or bad? These will not be stakeholders. It will be some kind of board of policemen. It will be ESG judges. It will be Larry Fink from blackrock. They have the money. Now they want control.