Beyond Shareholders and Stakeholders: What Is Capitalism Supposed to Deliver?
The backlash does not necessarily empower shareholders
Japan as a challenge to financial capitalism
Where the two accounts meet—and disagree
A debate that needs clearer tests
Click here to subscribe to the ESM weekly e-newsletter.
Marion Plouhinec’s Carmignac article examines how political intervention is changing corporate governance. Andrew McDermott, founder of Japan-focused Mission Value Partners, challenges the assumption that Western financial markets provide the best model for organising business. Read together, they shift attention towards accountability, productive capacity and the distribution of economic rewards.
Their arguments overlap, but they should not be mistaken for a shared endorsement of stakeholder capitalism.
The backlash does not necessarily empower shareholders
Plouhinec describes a paradox in the American campaign against stakeholder capitalism. As shareholder influence weakens, executives may appear to gain freedom. Yet expanding government intervention means that management increasingly answers to political priorities.
Her regional comparison reinforces this point. South Korea is strengthening shareholder rights, Japan is encouraging greater attention to employees and investment, and Europe is wrestling with tensions between governance protections and competitiveness. The common thread is the growing influence of political objectives over corporate decisions.
The implication is that opposition to stakeholder capitalism cannot automatically be equated with support for shareholder control. Shareholders themselves may want companies to address workforce conditions, environmental exposure or long-term industrial risks. Limiting their ability to question management can weaken accountability while leaving governments greater room to intervene.
The relevant distinction is therefore between different sources of authority: investors, executives, affected communities and the state. Each has different interests, and none represents the others automatically.
Japan as a challenge to financial capitalism
McDermott approaches the issue through the purpose and performance of the economic system. In the supplied BigGo summary, he argues that Japan has retained manufacturing expertise, industrial capacity and a more equitable distribution of economic rewards while the United States has placed excessive emphasis on financial engineering.
His central distinction concerns how business leaders are selected and rewarded. He favours technical competence, continuous improvement and investment in products. He criticises arrangements that reward leverage, fees and extraction even when productive capabilities deteriorate.
Crucially, McDermott explicitly rejects interpreting Japan as an example of a European stakeholder “third way”. His defence of Japan rests on its ability to make things and sustain the institutions and skills that production requires. Wider social benefits are part of his assessment of that system, rather than proof that a stakeholder label explains its success.
BigGo’s account of the McDermott conversation
That distinction matters. A company can announce extensive social commitments while neglecting investment, workforce expertise or product quality. Conversely, sustained investment in engineering, training and supplier relationships may benefit multiple constituencies without being presented as stakeholder capitalism.
McDermott’s argument therefore challenges advocates of stakeholder capitalism to explain the practical mechanisms behind their promises.
Where the two accounts meet—and disagree
Both accounts invite scepticism about simple measures of corporate success. Political opposition to stakeholder initiatives does not establish that shareholders have gained influence. Strong financial returns do not, by themselves, establish that an economy is preserving productive capacity or distributing prosperity widely.
But there is a significant tension between the sources. Carmignac stresses the importance of shareholders exercising their voice. McDermott is suspicious of importing Western activist and private-equity practices into Japan, where he believes they could undermine valuable industrial capabilities.
The unresolved question is how to distinguish scrutiny that improves a company from pressure that weakens it.
An investor demanding that management explain an unsuccessful investment may strengthen accountability. Pressure to distribute cash can also be justified when executives have no credible use for it. But demands that sacrifice essential research, maintenance or training for immediate payouts can damage future earning power.
Equally, appeals to long-term thinking can protect complacent management. Industrial competence needs evidence: better products, stronger capabilities and investments that justify the resources committed to them.
A debate that needs clearer tests
McDermott’s account is an investor’s thesis, not a settled comparative assessment of national economies. The supplied summary identifies several sweeping claims—including assertions about wealth distribution and public balance sheets—that require independent support. His criticism of Western finance deserves consideration without treating every claim about Japan as established fact.
Nevertheless, the comparison yields a useful standard for evaluating stakeholder capitalism. Companies should explain how their decisions build durable productive capacity, how the resulting gains and losses are shared, and how those exercising authority can be challenged.
Stakeholder commitments become credible when they shape investment and create meaningful accountability. Shareholder discipline earns its justification when it improves the business’s capacity to generate lasting value. Political intervention should face comparable scrutiny over its objectives, beneficiaries and results.
The strongest lesson from these two accounts is that the labels alone settle very little. The debate becomes more useful when it asks what companies produce, whose lives improve, and who must answer when the promised benefits fail to appear.
Enterprise Engagement Alliance Services
Celebrating our 18th year, the Enterprise Engagement Alliance helps organizations enhance performance through:1. Information and marketing opportunities on stakeholder management and total rewards:
- ESM Weekly on stakeholder management since 2009. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
- RRN Weekly on total rewards since 1996. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
- EEA YouTube channel on enterprise engagement, human capital, and total rewards since 2020
Management Academy to enhance future equity value for your organization.3. Books on implementation: Enterprise Engagement for CEOs and Enterprise Engagement: The Roadmap.
4. Advisory services and research: Strategic guidance, learning and certification on stakeholder management, measurement, metrics, and corporate sustainability reporting.
5. Permission-based targeted business development to identify and build relationships with the people most likely to buy.
Contact: Bruce Bolger at TheICEE.org; 914-591-7600, ext. 230.
