A bitter end?
Did capitalist structures make the buy-out of Cdbuy inevitable, asks Grace Crookall-Greening
We hear many sentiments of dismay and regret that Cadbury has been gobbled up by Kraft. Unfortunately very little is said or written about the choice of a capitalist company structure which made this possible, even inevitable, where power is ceded to shareholders. The moral stature and practice of the early days of the Cadbury company were admirable, if paternalistic. It didn’t extend to protecting the future of the people who worked there by converting to one of the models of democratic stewardship. Even after Cadbury floated and ceased to be a private company, some capital resources could have been used to develop experiments in economic democracy.
Ernest Bader, a Friend and founder of the Scott Bader Commonwealth, approached Cadbury and other Quaker industrialists fifty years ago, asking them to rethink the meaning of the company in the light of conscience, urging them to provide a stewardship structure for the future of the people whose livelihoods depended on their companies.
Ernest Bader had been influenced by John Spedan Lewis who converted his own private company into democratic partnership, which gained the high reputation it has today for good service and excellent internal relationships.
Has Cadbury shown their economic thinking as if people mattered? Not much. The chairman knew that by borrowing £7 billion to buy Cadbury for £12 billion, Kraft would have to cut costs and he admits that job losses are ‘inevitable’. He refers to the takeover as a ‘bittersweet moment’. For the working people it is just bitter. That bitterness will not be lessened by chief executive Todd Stitzer’s £12 million gained from the deal or the negotiations by the city advisors that cost £250 million (according to the Guardian).
What a pity Cadbury has sold out morally as well as financially. It might have been an ethical beacon for today, not just yesterday.
Comments
Sorry Grace but the simple answer is yes because once they went public and had a Board of Directors that Board would be failing in their resposibilities towards the the owners i.e. the shareholders, if they did not maximise profits etc.. To do less would show them failing in their responsibilties. In Friendship Peter Lawless
By Peter Lawless on 27th January 2010 - 17:53
Please login to add a comment
