The problem with stakeholder capitalism, as I see it, is fundamentally ontological.

What does this entail? When we “see the world” as a fragmented puzzle of constituent groups—each laying normative claim upon the economy, the organisation, or the state—we neglect the inherent incompleteness of such a perspective. Not only do we each inhabit multiple, overlapping roles (employee and citizen, consumer and investor), but, more crucially, the aggregation of these partial agendas and atomised viewpoints can never “add up” to the common good.

The common good—those characteristics of a society (justice, peace, systemic trust, freedom) that we can only attain together—emerges precisely when we shift our perspective from private needs and goods to the system as a whole: by moving from an “ego-logical” and individual stance toward an ecological and inter-relational identity. Neither the state nor the environment are merely additional “stakeholders”; rather, they constitute hierarchical layers within the same political and ecological system.

This, by the way, is precisely why the perennial and excitable questions we inevitably receive when invoking the term ‘common good’—“Defined by whom? For whom? Who dares to decide what’s good for me?”—fundamentally miss the point. In fact, they reveal the depth to which an individualist ontology (and ethical egotism) pervades our times.

This same ontological gap has haunted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from the beginning. The moment I see myself and my business as distinct from society, my interaction with the community becomes an act of detached voluntarism or philanthropy- neither of which will sustain the common good.

From a systemic perspective, our shared life on this planet is ontologically primary—not “coming first,” but being first. Our ‘being-in-the-world’ is, as phenomenology teaches, always already enmeshed and entangled. The foundation—the “ontology”—is not the isolated individual, but the indivisible emergent whole. Within this orientation can lie an inescapable ethical demand. Identity itself is a process of relational becoming. We achieve presence, meaning, and significance through the living reality of our interdependence. As Levinas argued, our responsibility for the relational “Other” may not be derivative, but primary: ethics, he suggested, is the “first philosophy.”

Integrity, in this sense, means that organisations are, by definition, organs of society, not mere stakeholders. Any attempt at “adjectival capitalism,” as Henry Mintzberg has pointed out, is fatally flawed. The issue is not simply about “adjusting capitalism”—which only preserves the divide between capital and labour, business and state—nor is it about inventing new modifiers (“conscious,” “responsible,” “better” capitalism) that simulate transformation. What is required is a genuine rethinking of society itself, and the role of our economy, organisations, and employees—both as corporate and private citizens—within it.

Transformation, in the truest sense, is always a shift in perspective and values, not just a marginal adaptation within the prevailing paradigm. It situates “me” in a new relation to “the world”—and therein lies both its necessity and its difficulty.

(Published: 2023)