The statements themselves have no merit. They are so nebulous, so unnaturally and uniformly connotation-positive, that they defy measurement, and therefore acco

The statements themselves have no merit. They are so nebulous, so unnaturally and uniformly connotation-positive, that they defy measurement, and therefore accountability. They may be useful for virtue signalling. But none of the virtues signaled are particularly controversial. They may be useful for developing more enlightened self-interest among investors and the intermediaries that vote their shares. But they change nothing about the governance structure of the firms. Stockholders elect directors appoint officers who run the companies. Many of us have seen corporate "mission statements" or "core values" or "company principles" changed with great fanfare and no discernible effect on substantive corporate behavior. This is even fuzzier than that. This release announces a change to a kind of generalization of many corporate mission statements. Fuzzy in, fuzzier out. In the end, I have to be suspicious. The only meaningful signal I read here is an open, united affront to the principle of simple shareholder primacy. In the balance of power, that behooves executives, who experience simple shareholder primacy as an accountable constraint on their discretion. Business Roundtable is an interest group for executives. It is not an interest group for customers, workers, suppliers, communities, shareholders, or their representatives. It may choose to try and leverage customers, workers, suppliers, communities, and their representatives against shareholders. That has to be a far more delicate process when you're not the owner of a special class of stock that assures you stay in power.