> OCLC is, of course, different than Cracker Barrel in that it's owners
> _are_ it's consumers. (You don't really mean _stakeholders_ there, you
> are specifically talking about _shareholders_.
Well, actually, I *do* really mean stakeholders, though I can see why you
thought I made an error (shareholder/stakeholder etc.)-I live with a former
trader so I'm up on the jargon.
If I own stock in a public company, I potentially have a very strong
interest in how it functions as a business, including how it behaves in
society. That is exactly how leverage was exerted on Cracker Barrel. The
company went public. Activists bought stock. Activists changed the company.
> So what does it mean for a business to be owned by it's consumers? How
> would one expect such a business to act differently than an ordinary
> business? Can you ask a question as to whether such a business is
> acting like it, or is acting like an ordinary business instead?
Are the distinctions that significant? The organization is owned by its
members. The members have "stock" (OCLC in the aggregate). The members can
influence behavior (but in most cases will not, relying on the organization
for "best effort" in its directions).
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Fri Apr 27 2007 - 10:14:43 EDT