Companies should have the power to hire and fire whomever they like. Bell Potter Securities is well within its rights to let Angus Aitken go. But this episode raises concerns about the future of robust debate in Australia.
On Tuesday last week Gus Aitken sent an email to investors with a sell recommendation on ANZ stock. His assessment about the future of the bank was based partly on the appointment of a new chief financial officer, which he labelled "one of the dumber appointments I have seen".
Aitken's language was coarse. He certainly wasn't setting out to win friends in investment banking — the sector from which the new ANZ CFO was drawn — stating that "former investment bankers tend to be crap at most things in the listed world".
But this has always been Aitken's style. In January last year, he sent an email about mining giant Rio Tinto asking "what the f*** is wrong with these morons?" In another note in September 2015 his financial advice on Woolworths stock was supplemented with the statement that "The last few CEO's of Woolworths have been completely uninspiring as retailers in my view".
What this demonstrates is that Aitken has a history of brutal honesty, bordering on corrosiveness.
In the latest case, his analysis caused ANZ's head of public relations to tweet a copy of Aitken's note along with the comment "Sexism alive + well in stockbroking?" But readers of Aitken comments to that point may never have known the gender of ANZ CFO. He didn't refer to her gender, and he didn't use her name. Labelling his critique sexist is a long bow.
Despite these facts, Bell Potter decided to let Aitken go.
There must be space for robust debate. Robust debate means strong statements and strong responses. But following this episode questions have been raised about the appropriateness of Bell Potter's response to Aitken's conduct.
And it raises a serious point about the role corporate entities have come to play in controversial social and political debates.
Companies in 2016 are feeling more pressure than ever before to support fashionable political causes.
Back in 1970, when asked about the social responsibility of a corporation, Milton Friedman famously answered "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible". No doubt if he was still alive today his view would be strengthened by the sight of large companies falling over themselves to sign up to the latest social fad.
One of the best examples of this is Qantas' support for the proposal to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Australian Constitution. This is a deeply controversial political issue. And it is highly unlikely the company will be able to account for an increase in profits due to its support for this cause.
Another recent example is Telstra's support for gay marriage. In a statement earlier this year, Telstra CEO Andrew Penn could not have been clearer, declaring, "Telstra supports marriage equality".
What does this mean for Qantas employees concerned about dividing Australians according to race? Or Telstra employees who believe in the traditional definition of marriage?
One thing is for sure — as companies are increasingly used to pursue and enforce social change, so too will the instances of employees being let go because they don't comply with the accepted position on contestable political issues.
Aitken won't be the last to fall foul of this new form of corporate social engineering. And this development should concern us all. While a company ought to have the right to make employment choices free from encumbrances of the state, its major responsibility is as a vehicle for maximising profit. Friedman's dictum on the role of corporations should not be forgotten.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment