By stoatphoto @Shutterstock
More than half a century ago, Milton Friedman declared:
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers.
Milton’s statement prompts James Freeman to focus his WSJ column on Disney’s shenanigans and its CEO Bob Chapek.
Chapek seems to have decided that some “stakeholders” should drive corporate activism while other “stakeholders” should be ignored.
The WSJ references “the eminently reasonable language of the new Florida law that Disney executives cannot abide:”
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate.
Mr. Chapek’s signature appears on the Roundtable’s current version of its policy:
Chapek’s Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation
Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity. We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.
Businesses play a vital role in the economy by creating jobs, fostering innovation and providing essential goods and services. Businesses make and sell consumer products; manufacture equipment and vehicles; support the national defense; grow and produce food; provide health care; generate and deliver energy; and offer financial, communications and other services that underpin economic growth.
While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.
Bob Chapek’s Pledge
Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.
“Time will tell how sustainable Disney’s business is over the long term,” Mr. Freeman reminds WSJ readers.
But how supportive and respectful is a company that presumes to tell the community of Florida parents that they must accept state-sponsored instruction in gender identity for six-year-olds?
In March, after the parental rights bill had passed Florida’s duly-elected state senate, Mr. Chapek issued a statement on behalf of Disney suggesting it was a “challenge to basic human rights.”
This column must have missed the section of the Constitution guaranteeing government employees the right to give sexuality lectures in kindergarten classrooms.
Does Chapek, asks James Freeman, not even wish to learn what the “stakeholders” in those other states want for their children?
Apparently not, and this should not come as a surprise given the lack of respect he’s extending to his stakeholders in Florida.
