Thanks for your comments. Brutha, you're right it's not an argument, it's just an opinion. Bad choice of words on my part.
As for making zero profits, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I'm talking zero profits after all expenses have been paid. I'm not just talking about factoring in the budgets of each department. I'm also talking about factoring in the company's commitment to shareholders, to community organisations, and to other third parties, and even an 'emergency fund contribution' (call it what you will), into the selling price of the goods/services.
What I'm saying is changing the definition of what profit means. Consider insurance against insolvency (in the form of a reserve fund) as an asset in the balance sheet (in total) and an expense in the p&l statement (for each year). Consider payment of dividends to shareholders as an expense. This means to me that profit is then spillover, or a deviation to targets, rather than something to maximise.
I acknowledge that in times of growth, there will be some profits going the business's way. You'll need them to keep up with demand. There will also be times of decay, and in those times there will be some losses going your way. I agree that a cash buffer should exist within the company at all times to weather the hard times. Again, it can be factored into the selling price of the goods/services produced. The premium will depend on the volatility of the business, I imagine.
But I feel that the goal should be break even. Not continnual growth, but stability. Not money making, but offering goods/services according to what's best for society. For example, not soft drinks and fast food, but healthy food.
If a business wants to stay afloat during periods of low demand, but keep its principles, it can innovate, and it can consolidate.
If a business cannot run under the conditions I am prescribing, I am suggesting that it is not being 100% socially responsible for its actions. It's less than perfect.
|