At least in a sense, businesses are “machines” that crank out whatever you ask of them. Yet these machines are also invested with human beings, and can also effect the people and environment around them.

Traditionally, businesses were designed to produce one thing – profits for the shareholders. In more recent years, larger businesses seem to be designed to generate profits primarily for management. Either way, the focus is on financial profit.

But it is impossible to isolate most business activity from the environment it takes place in. And some of that activity can have profound effects on those people unlucky enough to be nearby when things go bad.

What we are talking about here is whether the concept that businesses can operate without a “social conscious”, purely for the pursuit of profit, is, or ever was, a legitimate approach to business.

We are also talking about whether we, as occasional participants in the business world (as stockholders in our 401(k) for example) want more than just profits from those who manage “our” companies.

The Bhopal incident was a terrible example of what happens when those who make decisions within a business fail to understand (or care) what effect that their activity has on the world around it.

Of course, it turns out that the decisions made in Bhopal not only hurt many people, but they were disastrous for the company, Union Carbide, as well. So it could be said that the pursuit of profit in a world that has a social conscious requires that management have such a conscious too.

It’s a fascinating and frightening subject. The real issue is, what do we want from the businesses that we own? And how do we hold them to those standards? And are “we” the actual owners of the business, or are “we” the community itself (via laws, etc.).

Thanks so much for a fantastic and thought-provoking piece.

All the best,

Hugh