How Business Wins Over Our Mind

The debate on corporate purpose has an influence that goes far beyond the dichotomy between shareholder supremacy and stakeholder value.

For centuries religions, philosophies and politics helped us figure out the world. But business - by means of personalities, ideas and practices - provides a new playbook of how we should think and feel. It does so in the name of fulfilling the corporate purpose and exerts its influence not only on the professional sphere but on all parts of our life. Corporate leaders become the source of inspiration our societies turn to seek answers. Shareholder letters are considered as words of wisdom. Philanthropy tells us what we should really care about. Have we invented a new source of intelligence, or are we becoming more vulnerable to commercial manipulations?

The question on the purpose of corporation - rekindled by the announcement of Business Roundtable - is the latest stage in what appears to be a process of the corporate world’s increasing domination of public debate. Corporations finally acknowledged that their responsibilities do not end at office gates. But their emergence as social and political actors has long been in the making. The decline of trust in political institutions and absence of powerful civil society in most countries made multinational companies and their CEOs sought-after sources to provide guidance on a wide range of issues: women empowerment, income inequality, child vaccination, poverty eradication, environmental protection, education system, and so forth. So, when members of Business Roundtable said they were accountable not only to shareholders but also to stakeholders that their corporations affect, they took another step in subtly empowering themselves as the self-declared thought leaders in an almost unlimited domain. While the debate on corporate purpose has been exciting to watch since then, what is missing is the recognition of how businesses legitimized their influence in shaping our intellect beyond their core issues.

One reason why business can become so prevalent in our lives is its ability to provide pragmatic answers for a meaningful life. When faced with a tough question, why not learn from people who have built innovative products, gave back to society or simply became too rich? So, when an accomplished leader talks about work-life balance, the importance of exercising, benefits of meditation, principles of leadership or how to avoid misjudgment, we listen attentively. Over time, our reliance on business for personal growth translates into a self-proclaimed mandate for social and political issues. Their practical contributions to our lives underpin the cognitive supremacy of business by forming our daily thoughts and beliefs. And it becomes hard to question their sway when it comes to addressing broader issues.

Another reason is the rapid advancement of technology. Since governments and societies lag in tackling problems created by innovative products and services, creators of these technologies hold the prerogative to inform the public. But by doing so, they also become the shapers of our thinking on topics in which they have commercial interests. When owners of two social media giants Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg take different positions on the existence of political advertising on Twitter and Facebook respectively, they also set the new agenda on controversial issues such as freedom of speech and political communications. We try to answer questions posed by business with the concepts defined by business. Does it really matter which argument is on the winning side?

Companies have been the foremost drivers of innovation and technology for centuries. And their leaders have always interacted with governments and societies to deal with emerging challenges. It has never been easy to overcome disagreements, but in most cases, conflicting arguments competed on an equal footing. But the emerging intellectual dominance of business sets the new limits of how we think about - not only how we answer - questions that normally require a multidisciplinary reflection. As in the case of corporate purpose, we seem to have limited capability to expand beyond their conceptual boundaries.

Business may enrich our personal lives and contribute to social wellbeing by becoming more stakeholder-oriented. But its intellectual ascendancy also makes our societies and governments vulnerable to corporate influence, one that is less visible, more enduring, and highly impactful.