From the perspective of the voting/idealistic shareholder, conglomerates make it very difficult to influence the activity of a company, since any individual act

From the perspective of the voting/idealistic shareholder, conglomerates make it very difficult to influence the activity of a company, since any individual activity is a small portion of their makeup. Another problem with conglomerates is that big players compete in nonproductive ways. Large companies tend to actively lobby and influence regulations. The goal is generally to protect their business model (by limiting innovation), and it has been shown to have a very high return on investment. Having a broad base also gives conglomerates a lot of leveraging points in negotiations as well. Conglomerates also concentrate your failure points in the economy. Infrequent major failures are more painful than frequent minor failures. Besides, companies should not be "too big to fail." On the other hand, when conglomeration increases efficiency, it can be a good thing. As a result, if a market is stable and further innovation unlikely, conglomerates can be better for society than independent competitors, assuming sufficient competition to limit profit.