Let’s Try To Be Fair

There has recently been much discussion in the British press about the book entitled “Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like?” by Daniel Chandler, an economist and philosopher at the London School of Economics. I included the title in my books-to-read list also because certain affirmations, reported in the press, decidedly sparked my curiosity. One of the topics that Chandler tackles in his quest for a fairer society is that of the concentration of power in organizations. According to the English economist-philosopher, there is an excessive concentration of power in the hands of top management, which needs to be be justified. He adds that the absolute power of stockholders should be reviewed in favour of the presence of employee representatives on the board. In Chandler’s opinion, it would only make sense to keep employees out of the control room if this led to real economic benefits. But the German experience in this sense demonstrates, to the contrary, that allowing workers a share in the decisional processes actually damages neither profits not the duration of the company.

I find it interesting that the topic of the presence of worker representatives on boards has gone back to being a focus of debate. In Italy, this was much discussed in the past because this kind of possibility is actually written into our Constitution. Article 46 of which states: “For the economic and social betterment of workers and in harmony with the needs of production, the Republic recognises the rights of workers to collaborate in the management of enterprises, in the ways and within the limits established by law.” But, among the many opportunities offered by our constitutional charter, this one has never been put into practice. In part because, in the course of time, the logic of contraposition has always prevailed: workers and companies, quite simply, could not share the same interests and, hence, nor could they share responsibility for strategic choices. The subject has come up again over the years, with periods of greater acceptance or refusal on the part of trade unions, without ever managing to formulate a co-management model like the Swedes have or that of the German Mitbestimmung, whereby a company cannot turn down a request for the presence of trade union representatives on the board if requested by the workers. In Italy, the path of “consultation” has always been preferred, which provides that the economic choices of government are made after a previous consultation between the employers and workers.

In the meantime, the perimeter within which board decisions are taken has decidedly become wider. ESG criteria implicate an evaluation of environmental, ethical and social impact. Shareholding is increasingly witnessing the presence of so-called activist investors who use their share quotas to apply pressure and to draw attention to ethical and environmental aspects. Workers’ “engagement” is, by now, universally held to be a determining factor in results, just as consumers are known to determine their purchase decisions on the basis of sharing the values of the company or brand.

In the light of all these factors, maybe the time has come for reflection and constructive debate on workers’ sharing in company management. This will probably not make us all become free and equal, as Chandler hopes, but it could be a stimulus to improve governance. And, maybe, we shall finally have greater coherence between what companies declare and what they actually do which, all too often, is the cause of contradictions and consequent disillusionment on the part of younger people. These latter, in fact, often retain that it is better to quit an organization perceived as “non-authentic”, rather than dedicate their time to building a career and future within a “box”, however nicely packaged, that is deprived of contents and consistent values.