IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/q4pfy_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Maximising Impact Optimising Profit

Author

Listed:
  • Gücüm, Selin
  • Özesmi, Uygar

Abstract

Humanity faces an imminent threat to its existence on this planet. The climate emergency and biodiversity crises are a direct result of our economic system. As the main instruments of our economic system, companies play a critical role in creating and solving this threat. Therefore, this book argues that if humanity is to exist on this planet, the economic system and companies, at its foundation, need to change. For this we propose an ecological and social purpose and impact driven company structure that uses profit to further the impact. A new law is needed and under this law all new and existing companies would need to structure themselves in this new way. If they cannot abide by this new law, then they will cease to exist by law, made by people, for people and this planet. This law would enable an economic system where companies instead of maximising their profits without regarding the environmental and social cost and damages, would maximize their impact, regenerating ecological and social resilience and integrity. Companies would not only have to “not harm the planet and people” but prove to be “benefitting the planet and the people” to exist and endure as an entity. Historically companies were not built on the sole purpose to maximize profit, and it does not have to be the essential component. When we look at the historical evolution of the company and company law in different geographies, from East to West, from Japan, to China, Turkey, Italy, Germany, France, the UK and the USA, we see that they were first given the right to exist to benefit society. However the rise of the chartered companies set the stage for the company as the exploiter. We see this clearly in the Dutch East India Company (VOC), East India Company, Compagnie des Indes Orientales and Hudson’s Bay Company. Unfortunately they are seen as the precursors of today's companies. Of course there have been counter measures to exploitation such as Anti-Trust Laws against Trusts being formed where and when chartered companies left the stage. Additionally, there were reform efforts against the “exploiting company” such as “Polluter Pays Principle”, the value based approaches – “Creating Stakeholder Value”, degrowth, solidarity economics, commons movement and the critique of companies, P2P – Peer to Peer, Social Enterprises and Prosumer Economy. However these reform efforts were not sufficient as we can see in the deepening of the climate emergency and biodiversity crises. Therefore a new company law is needed. As seen in our historical tour of company laws, almost all company laws in all nations have become extremely similar, therefore as an example we have amended the Turkish Company Code to reflect what we propose globally, a new company that maximises impact and optimises profit.

Suggested Citation

  • Gücüm, Selin & Özesmi, Uygar, 2022. "Maximising Impact Optimising Profit," OSF Preprints q4pfy_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:q4pfy_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/q4pfy_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/61f7e68f102f920592b177c1/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/q4pfy_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2019. "The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 94-117, Summer.
    2. Mendels, Franklin F., 1972. "Proto-industrialization: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 241-261, March.
    3. Balla, Eliana & Johnson, Noel D., 2009. "Fiscal Crisis and Institutional Change in the Ottoman Empire and France," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 809-845, September.
    4. Wallis, John Joseph, 2005. "Constitutions, Corporations, and Corruption: American States and Constitutional Change, 1842 to 1852," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 211-256, March.
    5. Fikret Berkes & Iain J. Davidson‐Hunt, 2007. "Communities and social enterprises in the age of globalization," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(3), pages 209-221, August.
    6. Ueda, Yoshifumi & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2002. "How to Solve the Tragedy of the Commons? - Social Entrepreneurs and Global Public Goods," Working Papers 02-13, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    7. Epstein, S. R., 1998. "Craft Guilds, Apprenticeship, and Technological Change in Preindustrial Europe," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 684-713, September.
    8. Abbott, Alden, 2021. "The Globalization of Antitrust: History and Prospects," Annals of Computational Economics, George Mason University, Mercatus Center, May.
    9. Frankl, Jennifer L., 1999. "An Analysis of Japanese Corporate Structure, 1915–1937," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(4), pages 997-1015, December.
    10. repec:sae:envval:v:22:y:2013:i:2:p:191-215 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lamoreaux, N., 2019. "The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1963, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    12. James Cicarelli, 2012. "Economic Thought Among American Aboriginals Prior to 1492," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 77-125, January.
    13. Meyer, Camille, 2020. "The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(5).
    14. Luppi, Barbara & Parisi, Francesco & Rajagopalan, Shruti, 2012. "The rise and fall of the polluter-pays principle in developing countries," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 135-144.
    15. Papadopoulos,Anestis S., 2010. "The International Dimension of EU Competition Law and Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521196468, January.
    16. Freedeman, Charles E., 1965. "Joint-Stock Business Organization in France, 1807–1867," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 184-204, July.
    17. Timur Kuran, 2011. "The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9273.
    18. Feldman, Gerald D. & Nocken, Ulrich, 1975. "Trade Associations and Economic Power: Interest Group Development in the German Iron and Steel and Machine Building Industries, 1900–1933," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 413-445, January.
    19. Amrita Chhachhi & Tim Forsyth & Craig Johnson, 2014. "Elinor Ostrom's Legacy: Governing the Commons and the Rational Choice Controversy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(5), pages 1093-1110, September.
    20. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2020. "When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: the case of the new French law on corporate purpose," Post-Print hal-02441287, HAL.
    21. Nicholas, Tom, 2015. "The Organization of Enterprise in Japan," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 333-363, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wing Man Wynne Lam & Jacob Seifert, 2023. "Regulating Data Privacy and Cybersecurity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 143-175, March.
    2. Babina, Tania & Barkai, Simcha & Jeffers, Jessica & Karger, Ezra & Volkova, Ekaterina, 2023. "Antitrust Enforcement Increases Economic Activity," HEC Research Papers Series 1488, HEC Paris.
    3. Naudé, Wim, 2024. "Entrepreneurship Is Dangerously Obsessed with Growth and Incompatible with Current Visions of a Post-growth Society," IZA Discussion Papers 17158, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2022. "The Breakup of the Bell System and its Impact on US Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 17635, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Iyigun, Murat & Rubin, Jared, 2017. "The Ideological Roots of Institutional Change," IZA Discussion Papers 10703, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2020. "Economic and Social Sustainability: The Influence of Oligopolies on Inequality and Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    7. Alberto Bisin & Jared Rubin & Avner Seror & Thierry Verdier, 2021. "Culture, Institutions & the Long Divergence," Working Papers 21-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    8. N. M. Rozanova, 2021. "Methodological Issues of Modern Competition Policy," Studies on Russian Economic Development, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 492-498, September.
    9. Tina Highfill & Brian Quistorff, 2023. "Measuring Digital Intermediation Services: Experimental Estimates of Gross Output for Rideshare, Travel Services, and Food/Grocery Delivery Service Platforms," BEA Papers 0119, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    10. Anthea Paelo & Simon Roberts, 2022. "Competition and Regulation of Mobile Money Platforms in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Kenya and Uganda," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 60(3), pages 463-489, May.
    11. Louis Rouanet, 0. "Competition is (still) a tough weed: A review essay of Thomas Philippon’s The great reversal: How America gave up on free markets," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    12. Alberto Bisin & Jared Rubin & Avner Seror & Thierry Verdier, 2024. "Culture, institutions and the long divergence," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-40, March.
    13. Ayse Y. Evrensel & Tiffany Minx, 2017. "An institutional approach to the decline of the Ottoman Empire," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1380248-138, January.
    14. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Price promises, trust deficits and energy justice: Public perceptions of hydrogen homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Christian Reiner & Christian Bellak, 2023. "Hat die ökonomische Macht von Unternehmen in Österreich zugenommen? Teil 2," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 49(2), pages 17-76.
    16. Randall G. Holcombe, 2022. "Creative destruction: getting ahead and staying ahead in a capitalist economy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 467-480, December.
    17. Kaoru Sugihara, 2007. "The Second Noel Butlin Lecture: Labour‐Intensive Industrialisation In Global History," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(2), pages 121-154, July.
    18. Kwon, Spencer Y. & Ma, Yueran & Zimmermann, Kaspar, 2022. "100 years of rising corporate concentration," SAFE Working Paper Series 359, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    19. Valentiny, Pál, 2024. "Mennyire innovatívak a Big Tech vállalatok? [How innovative are Big Tech companies?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 22-56.
    20. Louis Rouanet, 2022. "Competition is (still) a tough weed: A review essay of Thomas Philippon’s The great reversal: How America gave up on free markets," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 35(1), pages 115-128, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:q4pfy_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.