The EVA Airways flight attendants’ strike continued after negotiations failed. By Sunday last week, the strike had caused the cancelation of almost 2,000 flights and business losses of nearly NT$1.8 billion (US$57.9 million), affecting hundreds of thousands of travelers and society. It has highlighted how traditional company law focuses on profit-making as a firm’s main purpose. Although modern corporate governance often encourages businesses to consider employees and consumers, operations essentially focus on shareholders.
Both sides have reasons and issues they are committed to. Flight attendants want to address an unequal relationship with their employer through a legal strike to obtain better treatment and working environment, but the airline wants to lower operational costs and maximize shareholder value, while following the law and corporate social responsibility, which is an obligation and the essence of corporate sustainable management. Due to the conflict between the two parties’ interests, solving the dispute overnight would be difficult.
From another perspective, if the purpose and nature of a company’s operations could change from a profit-oriented model to a "good governance" model that tackles social or environmental problems, it would be able to mediate the conflict of interests between the business and its shareholders on one hand and its employees or interested parties on the other. This could even change the income gap and social confrontation brought on by capitalism.
For example, at its establishment, a company could declare in its corporate bylaws that its purpose is not only profit-making, but also solving social or environmental problems, and the company’s management should bear corresponding legal liabilities for shareholders and interested parties in accordance with the bylaws. The company should regularly issue reports in compliance with the standards of an impartial third party.
In addition to the financial situation, the business should publicize the public welfare purpose of its operations. In this way, the business could attract investors who identify with this purpose, encourage talent to work for it and win support from consumers identifying with its ideals, so as to create a market and a system of good governance.
Policies and legislation that reverse the nature and purpose of a company’s operations are now an international trend. Legislation for "benefit corporations" has already been passed in 35 US states and Washington, as well as Italy and Colombia.
Although Taiwan still has not passed such legislation, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, pushed by Minister Without Portfolio Audrey Tang (唐鳳), plans to set up a registration platform for social innovation organizations, including for-profit companies. The ministry hopes to encourage companies to include social missions other than profit-making in their bylaws, and achieve market self-discipline through autonomous information disclosure. This highly anticipated policy would be helpful to the development of good governance.
However, the flight attendants’ strike shows that the Company Act (公司法) framework imposes many restrictions on the good governance business model, along with uncertain legal risk. Without clearly defined regulations, the good governance business model might cause management’s liabilities toward shareholders. Also, this type of company still lacks legal status and operational regulations, while problems such as the inability to effectively prevent “greenwashing” remain unchanged. Taiwan must urgently resolve the issue through legislation by amending the act or writing a benefit corporation law.
Richard Fang is vice president for student affairs at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath