OPP

Frame:
At the point at which company-wide decisions are made by insider management without any external
accountability, side PROP creates a dystopian version of capitalism in which companies cater solely
to their needs, minimizing any mechanisms of critique and erasing any chances of external
investments. Because we stand for a system of capitalism in which decisions are made following
maximized democratization, where we can create higher quality products and opportunities for
companies’ growth, and lastly, a world in which governments have an actual incentive to fix systemic
issues within marginalized groups, we are proud to oppose.

Case split:
1) Shareholder capitalism creates democratization of company-wide decisions
2) Our model creates higher quality of products and opportunities for companies’ development
3) We have a more viable model of critique for the faults of capitalism

1) Democratization of company-wide decisions

Panel, NOTICE that on side PROP shareholders either cease to exist or have significantly less
influence within the company since it is the only way for PROP to distinguish themselves from the
SQ and to have any tangible impacts
At the point when shareholders are no longer the main agents in the decision-making process on side
PROP, under the system of stakeholder capitalism, these decisions are being made either by CEOs or
some kind of “managerial level’’
a. they decide how to optimize the needs of stakeholders, which stakeholder should be
prioritized, and what are the goals of the company
Let’s then characterize such decision making:
1. The internal democratic mechanism, which is exclusive to shareholder capitalism, is
non-existent on side PROP, since decision making is centralized in the hands of a few
a. This means that decisions as to which stakeholder is the most vulnerable or the most
important are unlikely to be challenged by anyone, which never happens under the
shareholder capitalism, where shareholders are able to literally vote on decisions
2. It is a reasonable assumption to make that these decisions will be made behind the closed
doors
a. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
i. Decisions are far less transparent to financial community
ii. This ‘’managerial level’’ on PROP has no accountability, since no external
checks and balances exist
3. Individuals from outside lose any possibility to directly influence decisions made by a
company through buying shares, voting in the decision making process etc.
a. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
i. We tell you that individuals from the outside must have a right to directly
influence decisions made by companies through buying shares
1. WHY IS THAT SO?
a. They are directly impacted by the practices of the company
 i. e.g. Starbuck workers are impacted by corporation’s
wage policies
ii. e.g. communities living in Bristol are directly
impacted by the pollution policies of the local
companies
iii. These agents are simply being silenced on side
PROP
4. We tell you that these ‘’decision makers’’ as CEOs or managers are completely detached from
reality
a. The very fact that they are at the top layers of the company means that they do not
understand issues relevant to average individual living in the local community or
employee, who is not provided with the insurance

COMPARE THIS TO OUR SIDE OF THE HOUSE

Under our side shareholders are awarded voting rights and can thus push for change by
receiving a seat at the table
a. it is far easier to externally impact a company on OPP, since there is no threshold for
having a say - you only need to have shares
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? WE HAVE 2 IMPACTS:
1. Activist shareholders are awarded voting rights and can thus push for change by receiving a
seat at the table
b. What does that look like?
c. Whole Food Market’s employees owning part of company’s shares
d. Communities across the UK buying shares of local companies, pubs, housing
corporations etc
e. Labour unions across the Scandinavian countries owning significant part of stocks
f. This looks like Bernie Sanders proposition that 20% of stocks in corporations with
over $100 million in annual revenue be owned by the corporation's workers
2. Decision making process is being democratized rather than centralized
a. Ergo automatically we have more transparent mechanism

2arg Why companies have an incentive to be socially responsible under shareholder capitalism?
Panel, EVEN IF we concede with the characterization of shareholders as profit-driven, we tell
you that is extremely beneficial
a. Why is this so?
i. Considering the influence of current social movements and general political
climate, consumers turn into the companies that are socially responsible
b. Why is this important?
i. Shareholders have a massive incentive to introduce social corporate
responsibility in order to attract consumers and generate more profits
What does this mean?
1) Main goal of any business, in order to cater to independent shareholders, is to maximize profit
by solving relevant issues in the society
a) maximization of profit comes only one instance
 i) that is, creating the universally best product quality and price-wise, as it is the
most likely to have the highest demand → thus, profit both customers and the
company
2) Companies are incentivised to engage in broader political and social issues
a) businesses are likely to speak up on social issues (LGBTQ+, environmentalistic,
feministic) in order to attract more customers → thus, fostering
i) deeper discourse in the society
ii) their own profits due to additional influx of clients
b) basic social stability is necessary for a productive business climate → thus,
businesses likely to be guarantors of it by engaging in creation of political decisions,
that would cater businesses, thus, workers and customers too
i) e.g. businesses-influenced decision to open all kinds of shops during
pandemic in US not only increased profits of companies, but also catered
employees, customers and general economy of state
3) Partially, investors also hold a short-term interest in the company
a) That is, they will want to minimize risk of losing profit in any case
i) e.g. it would be very risky to pass lawsuit-worthy work policies
ii) unlikely to withdraw from environmentalist/socially responsible treaties, as
this would likely result in downfall of stock price
b) On contrary, if they will see a rising success of a company, they will stay to ensure
that stock value rises
i) e.g. if environmentalistic agenda has a stage in public discourse → a
company is likely to capitalize from the public's opinions by making
eco-friendly products, starting environmental campaigns, etc.
FLIPSIDE
NOTICE that governmental regulations are the key to the existence of any meaningful
change:

How so?
Big corporations, that also happen to be the biggest polluters, have no incentives to invest in
ESG, as they already rule large market percentages and are not met with fierce competition.

That is to say, we cannot afford to expect the marginal shift in market attitudes to
revolutionize the profit mechanisms of economic giants, that is the point at which
governmental regulation becomes crucial.

Why are governmental regulations more likely on our side of the house?
Under shareholder capitalism the government has tangible reason to suspect that a company
may not be accountable to the public. Stakeholder capitalism, however, completely abolishes
such incentives as companies already present the image of making a balanced decision
between public agents.

3) Higher quality of products and more opportunities for companies’ development

Main thesis: shareholder capitalism allows companies to garner more profits and create higher quality
products for consumers

Panel, we tell you that innovations in services and products are crucial
Why is this true?
4) To increase competition between the companies
5) To develop the highest quality product or service
a) Which is crucial to better the lives of consumers
Why is this important?
Development of product stagnates under the system of stakeholder capitalism due to 2 reasons:
1. Let’s take them on their highest -> EVEN IF companies are able to optimize the
needs of different stakeholders e.g. communities, suppliers, consumers etc. then
corporations have to do massive trade offs regarding the profits
i. that is to say that the purpose of companies becomes to take into
account the well being of the communities, suppliers etc on the
extreme level
ii. since shareholders are not prioritized on their side of the house, profit
maximization is not as well
1. automatically this loss of funds leads to less resources being
invested into improving the products of the company
2. At the point when shareholders are not prioritized in the company, we tell you that
these investors lose the incentive to invest in the very first place, especially
considering that they are extremely profit driven
COMPARE THIS TO OUR SIDE OF THE HOUSE:
1. Companies themselves are far more profit driven on our side of the house, hence youse
innovations as a tool to outcompete others
a. Environmentalistic policies are likely to be enacted→
i. Prevalent carbon taxes directly lead to fewer carbon emissions and make it
more profitable for companies to move away from carbon
2. Investors are far more likely to put money into the company, since they know that their
profit-driven needs will be prioritized
a. This is important because funds are crucial in order to better the daily lives of the
customers
i. e.g. the fact that Amazon has funds for innovations and can introduce things
as air delivery by drones directly results into comfort of the buyer
ii. e.g. the fact that Pampers have a lot of investors directly results in higher
quality baby care products
This means that these companies create the universally best product, in order to maximize the latter
capitalization

_________________________________________________________________________________

Accelerationist extension → Greta

a) more valid critique of capitalism, higher accountability
b) difficult to outline key stakeholders → governments are disincentivized from
regulating representation
● refutation from OPP
○ challenge transition to stakeholder capitalism
○ challenge stakeholder capitalism by proving that in it shareholders will still hold the
most power
○ those not included in stakeholder capitalism will still be harmed by MNCs
Rebuttal:
1) Protecting marginalized communities
a) companies have incentives to have powerful shareholders to sustain themselves→
thus they will cater to the communities in which shareholders are based
b) shareholders care about their public image, thus will not invest in a socially
irresponsible company
2) companies are incentivized to create higher quality products
a) to cater to independent shareholders, you need to create a universally beneficial
product
3) Shareholders doen’t care about the worker rights
a) Investors hold a long-term interest in benefit of the company
i) since they’re invested emotionally and financially, thus, will want to make
the best possible decisions for the company
(1) that is, in order to maximize value, corporations will serve workers,
customers and suppliers more fairly
(a) more rigorous antitrust enforcement could make it more
profitable for companies to treat customers and suppliers
better by increasing market competition
(2) it is in business’ long-term interest to invest in worker training
(a) for example, Walmart is paying workers more and building
their skills in part because it might increase their profits
4) Shareholders are short-sighted

b) As the deciding shareholders hold massive percentages of shares, it is in their massive

interest to keep company afloat, thus, make the best possible decisions
i) prevalent model of compensating senior corporate executives with shares of
stock that can’t be sold, and with options that can’t be exercised, until a year
or two after executives leave their company → preventing from scenario of
screwing up & leaving
a)