66 PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS | VOL 41 | 2023 The teaching of enhanced corporate, social, and environmental responsibility, if combined with a stronger regulatory framework, can contribute to a longer-term view. The final lesson from foundation-owned firms entails their approach to climate change. Maersk and Carlsberg operate as though spending the money needed to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions now will cut expenses later. It is this mindset that needs to be adopted by corporations more broadly, as they are the ones responsible for most greenhouse emissions. Applying clean energy solutions to problems should not be looked at as a burden but a cost-saving measure. The sooner this transition can happen, the better for the environment and the well-being of future generations. Conclusions While missions guide the strategic decisions of these companies, they are, at their heart, profit-focused ventures. In 2021, Carlsberg announced that starting in 2023, only two members of the foundation board, whose membership is decided by the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, would be appointed to the Supervisory Board of the Carlsberg Group. Since 1876, all five members of the foundation board, which is composed primarily of artists and scientists, have automatically been ushered onto the Supervisory Board (Carlsberg Foundation, 2021). This huge, historic decision demonstrates the precedence that business can take over tradition in foundation-owned firms. An argument could even be made that Maersk’s innovative approach to tackling climate change could be attributed more to its prescient, shrewd business practices than a desire for a greener world. Maersk, as a company, has always done everything with intention; it was the last of the big shipping companies to adopt the shipping container, as it purposely waited for a global economic downturn to buy up shipping containers and rapidly expand. Its progressive policies regarding sustainability can be viewed through the same lens—a strategic action designed to continue Maersk’s dominance in the shipping industry. However, these business decisions can also be viewed as a direct result of Maersk’s foundation structure. Because Maersk is well consolidated, with little debt, it had the ability to seize the moment to buy competing companies at a discount when the opportunity presented itself (Slack & Frémont, 2009). Bearing in mind that the company is ocean-focused and that climate change could have an outsized impact on its operation, it stands to reason that Maersk could be particularly concerned with decarbonizing its fleets, especially in a world of dwindling natural resources. Novo Nordisk may be the best example of a foundation-owned firm whose innovative practices are owed, to a great extent, to its legally required adherence to its mission. Novo Nordisk, like all huge biopharmaceutical companies, has been hit by a number of pharmaceutical regulations and fines. It hiked up the price of insulin to very high levels to increase profits, doing so in a manner that cannot be deemed ethical by any measure with respect to the poor people who require this drug to survive. Its funding of obesity research, then, is not merely an act of altruism. Considering that most of its business currently hinges on insulin, it is a necessity for Novo Nordisk to expand its product offerings. Expanding in the specific realm of obesity medication is a move that is both prescient and geared toward the long term. As the incidence of obesity continues to rise globally, it will become increasingly necessary to find a way to treat those who are suffering from this disease. By seeking to provide a scientifically backed solution, Novo Nordisk is positioning itself as a leader in a burgeoning sector of health care. Again, the longterm outlook that is vital to the identity of foundations could receive much of the credit here. Companies clearly exist to earn a profit, and that incentive is particularly strong for companies that rake in billions of dollars of profit per year. The challenge is to restrain the most unethical impulses of these companies. The foundation functions as that restraining hand, its charter serving as the strongest finger. Maersk could make more money in the short term by investing the money it spent on its green methanol fleet in another aspect of its company or by simply buying more of its traditional ships. However, the long-term instinct ingrained into the fabric of its foundation has prevailed. Maersk has set itself up for long-term success by disrupting the way it does business in the short term. The same could be said for Carlsberg, which has actively made efforts to reduce its carbon emissions since 2017. Carlsberg’s innovative move to source 20% of the barley used to produce its most popular product in France and the UK from a group of sustainable farmers is particularly risky, but it shows a strong commitment to tackling the challenge of manufacturing beer in a way that does not contribute to the environmental degradation of the Earth. These companies are executing a sustainable, socially responsible agenda, but not because they are inherently sustainable and socially responsible. The Carlsberg Group is a beer company that encourages the consumption of alcohol, a drug proven detrimental to society. The instinct to inno-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==