The World Economic Forum (WEF) is in full swing, as the richest and most powerful people in the world congregate in the Swiss mountain town of Davos, to hobnob and conspire to control all our lives. The WEF was established in 1971, by a German engineer and economist, Klaus Schwab. Schwab is the originator of a theory called ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ in opposition to ‘Shareholder Capitalism’ a term coined by economist, Milton Friedman. Shareholder Capitalism suggests that businesses focus on returns to their investors.

Schwab’s Stakeholder Capitalism argues that ‘a company serves not only its shareholders, but all its stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large’. This philosophy means that those who control corporations are not answerable to their investors, but rather to what they perceive to be their moral duty.

We are all aware that anti-capitalist ideas are introduced and reinforced to our youth in their liberal arts degrees at universities. But surely not in an Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) Program at Australia’s oldest, and most prestigious university. A program that attracts senior executives from leading corporations and includes CBA CEO Matt Comyn as alumnus. I am a corporate executive working in a global investment bank. I recently completed my EMBA. One of the six modules of this program is dedicated to Stakeholder Capitalism. I was well aware of the leftist, woke rort in our universities. However, I did not expect it to dominate an Executive MBA program targeted at senior corporate executives, with over 15 years of work experience behind them.

Guest speakers at this Stakeholder Capitalism module included Chris Minns, Kevin Rudd, and Lisa Davies (former editor of the SMH). Other modules included lectures on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from Tim Soutphommasane, chief diversity officer and professor at the University of Oxford.

I believe in the traditional free-market capitalist model. I reject the concept of ‘social conscience’ of business. As Friedman argues, how can a corporation (entity) have a social conscience? Only humans have a conscience. Corporate leaders (as people) may have responsibilities and may choose to be charitable and effect social change on an individual level. Corporate executives (as an agent of the investors) may wish to solve social problems to the extent that this does not reduce the financial returns to shareholders; or raise prices to customers; or lower the wages of employees.

I discussed the disconnect I felt about the content of this module in the classroom. I realised that my beliefs were discordant with my peers. I was informed that we live in a socially conscious environment, where business seeks initiatives to positively contribute to the public, the economy and the environment. In short, I should ‘stop being a dinosaur’ and get with the times!

The Stakeholder Capitalism module is introduced by contrasting traditional, free-enterprise capitalism, ‘Liberal Capitalism’ (US, Australia, etc) with ‘Political Capitalism’ (China, Singapore, etc).

We are told that Political Capitalism, is a system with three unique features: (1) a professional bureaucracy focused on economic growth; (2) the absence of a binding rule of law; and most importantly, (3) the capacity of the state to override the private sector in the pursuit of the national interest. The course promoted a ‘Political Capitalism’ model, a contradiction in terms, I thought. State-sponsored capitalism is preferred, due to the inherent vulnerabilities in traditional capitalism, with headlines such as: ‘US multinationals book half of all foreign profits in just 5 tax havens’; ‘By 2006, 1 in 5 US mortgages were sub-prime, resulting in the GFC’; ‘By 2019, global debt to GDP ratio stands at 322 per cent’. Conclusion? Capitalism has failed, see: GFC. I argue that is the free market correcting itself. The lecturer advises me that unfortunately, we don’t have time to discuss this, as it is close to lunch. Ah, what a shame.

After lunch the anti-capitalism struggle session continues. We are told the vulnerabilities in traditional capitalism has resulted in 3 ‘global crises’: ‘Decline in trust in democracy; (Trump, Brexit, etc.)’; ‘Income Inequality’; and ‘Climate change’!

We are shown alarming headlines, such as: ‘Global dissatisfaction with democracy has increased 50 per cent since the GFC’; ‘Australian house prices have grown to outstrip full-time wages by 200 per cent’; ‘Global surface temperatures have increased 0.2oC per decade since the 1970s’.

At this point in the course, we understand that capitalism is failing us and causing interminable global crises. Sufficient fear and fervour has been roused in the classroom. We now pivot to social engineering.

The lecturer tells us that according to the data, consumers, employees and investors prioritise social outcomes when choosing a brand or company. Great emphasis is placed on millennials and their enthusiasm for issues of social conscience. So, as emerging corporate leaders, we are encouraged to apply stakeholder capitalism, as this is what consumers want, and employees seek.

I see no problem with adopting this social enterprise theatre, where it improves the bottom line, absent compulsion from the state. But this is the point in the course when we arrive at the legal and regulatory reform needed (read: state intervention) for businesses to successfully enact stakeholder capitalism. The state and big business. Hand in glove.

Hold on a minute. I was just informed that the data suggests that we have buy-in from: investors, consumers and employees. So why is reform needed? Why does the state need to intervene? Who could’ve seen this coming? (I did).

The lecture materials propose the following urgent reforms, along the lines of: ‘Updating the fiduciary duties of a Director under the Corporations Act to have regard to the impact of the company on the community and environment’; ‘Coordinated tax reform, for e.g. a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15 per cent’; and ‘Mandating Environmental and Sustainability Reporting Disclosure Standards’. A complete list of stakeholders in the Stakeholder Capitalism model was never provided. If corporations are not accountable to their shareholders, to whom are they accountable? Everyone, I suppose. A broader concept of corporate global citizenship emerges.

10,000 globally influential people show up at the WEF every year – the heads of major corporations and the heads of government. They come to pat each other on the back and explore what they have in common; namely, a belief that they are responsible for solving all of the world’s problems.

The discourse in the classroom focussed on influencing the population, by those in positions of power in large corporations. I sensed disdain for the common man, our culture and way of life.

Like the elites at Davos, my EMBA peers felt that same sense of superiority. They expressed that same desire to have top-down, command and control to shift behaviours in the vast population. Their paternalistic desire for ‘social good’ thinly veils the ulterior truth. They seek power to control the people and decide what systems prevail and what information we can see. After all, the everyday man cannot begin to understand the climate change crisis. He’s just worried about ordinary issues like the cost of living. How banal.

I didn’t have to leave my sandstone classroom in sunny Sydney to get a feel of the large conference room in Davos. I was there already.