Corporate Finance: The Purpose of the Firm
The Shareholder Revolution That Ate the Corporation
For most of corporate history, the idea that a company exists purely to enrich its shareholders would have been considered a fringe position — until one economist made it the default setting of modern capitalism.
The Idea
In 1970, Milton Friedman published an essay in the New York Times Magazine arguing that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. It sounds almost banal now, but it was a provocation — a direct attack on the mid-century consensus that corporations owed something to employees, communities, and the broader public, not just to the people who owned their shares. Friedman's shareholder primacy doctrine gradually became the operating system of Anglo-American capitalism, enshrined most formally when the Business Roundtable adopted it as explicit policy in 1997. What's easy to miss is how philosophically radical this actually was. The older view — sometimes called stakeholder theory, associated with thinkers like R. Edward Freeman — held that a firm is a nexus of relationships, not just a vehicle for capital. Its purpose emerges from what it does for everyone it touches: workers, suppliers, customers, the places it operates in. Profit, on this view, is a consequence of doing those things well, not the point in itself. The shareholder-first model reframed the corporation as essentially a financial instrument. Managers became agents of shareholders, and any resource spent on workers or communities beyond what the law required was, in Friedman's word, a form of theft from the owners. This shift wasn't just theoretical — it rewired executive incentives, reshaped how companies were run, and quietly answered a question most people never knew was being asked: what, exactly, is a company for?
In the World
Jack Welch ran General Electric from 1981 to 2001 and became the most celebrated CEO of his era, in large part by implementing shareholder primacy with surgical precision. GE's share price rose by roughly 4,000% under his tenure. He laid off more than 100,000 workers in his first few years — earning the nickname 'Neutron Jack' — and pioneered the practice of cutting the bottom 10% of performers annually, a model widely copied across corporate America. Welch was feted on magazine covers, studied in business schools, and treated as proof that Friedman's doctrine worked. Then, in 2009, eight years after his retirement, he gave an interview to the Financial Times in which he called shareholder value 'the dumbest idea in the world.' The financial crisis had just exposed how short-term thinking — boosting quarterly earnings, buying back shares instead of investing in capacity — had hollowed out firms that looked healthy on paper. GE itself became one of the most striking post-mortem cases in business history. The empire Welch built slowly unravelled in the decade after he left: overleveraged, dependent on a financial arm that nearly collapsed in 2008, and stripped of the industrial depth that might have steadied it. By 2018, it was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, an index it had been part of since 1907. The man who had most zealously applied the shareholder doctrine ended up publicly repudiating it — though by then, it had already reshaped a generation of corporate behaviour.
Why It Matters
This isn't just corporate history. The question of what a firm is for quietly determines a great deal about the world most people live in — the quality and security of jobs, how companies behave during crises, whether a business invests in its people or treats them as a cost to be minimised. When you see a company announce record profits in the same breath as redundancies, or watch an employer resist raising wages while returning enormous sums to shareholders through buybacks, you're seeing shareholder primacy in action. It isn't a law of nature; it's a choice — one made by theorists, adopted by institutions, and embedded in contracts and incentives over decades. The more interesting question it leaves you with is whether we're at a turning point. The Business Roundtable quietly updated its statement in 2019 to include all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Whether that represents genuine change or sophisticated public relations remains genuinely contested. But the very fact that the argument needed to be made again suggests the old consensus is shakier than it looks. Understanding that this is a debate — not a settled fact — changes how you read almost every story about how a company behaves.
A Question to Ponder
If the company you work for, buy from, or invest in had to articulate what it is actually for — beyond making money — would its answer match how it actually behaves?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable