NPR's Morning Edition did a major piece this morning about how the structure of publicly held companies prevents them from doing good in the world. The premise was the directors and officers of these companies have a legal duty to maximize shareholder profit, and therefore could be sued if they did things that impacted the profit, even if done for social good. As an ex-Wall Street corporate lawyer, I can tell you that this is utter nonsense. It reflects a lack of imagination on the part of the directors and officers (and their legal advisors) and replaces their real legal duty with the profit-oriented economic theory that has gripped our country since the late 1980s.

The truth is, officers and directors are legally required to maximize shareholder VALUE, not shareholder profit. That is or can be a very different proposition. "Value" is what the company defines it as. Profit is only part of the value equation, but there is no legal, ethical or moral requirement that it is the only definition of value. So if the highest value of a company is to serve the common good and be profitable (which we at Dean's Beans, among others, have proven is possible for almost twenty years), then when shareholders invest in that company, they will know what they are getting into. There is no shortage of investors looking to put their money where their greater values are, as proven by the billions consciously placed in socially responsible investments in the last decade.

What is required is not a new form of corporation. Rather, social entrepreneurs creating their new businesses for the common good simply have to write their foundation documents (the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation) to enshrine their social mission into the very bones of their new company. They need to state clearly what the values of the company are that they are seeking to maximize. Thus it is a lack of imagination on the part of the company's lawyers and advisors, not a lack of legal possibility, that prevents new public companies from being organized for the common good, as they define it.

I will be happy to give free advice on this subject to any social entrepreneur who wants to insure that their new company can pursue its social mission without the fear of being sued by shareholders for not putting profit above everything else.

How should we view the recent resurgence of Taliban activity in Pakistan?

Be afraid, very afraid.

That’s a common message voiced by media and political observers in recent weeks. Pakistan’s government could go the way of the Shah of Iran in 1979, writes the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Taliban threats to Pakistan’s leadership represent the worst global crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, a RAND Corporation official tells the Financial Times.

And it’s hard not to be moved by the devastation occurring in Pakistani regions like the Swat Valley. Doctors Without Borders announced today that it was halting medical services to refugees in Swat due to escalating warfare.

But could all this fear of a Taliban takeover in Pakistan be blinding the U.S. to local realities? An Economist report notes that for all the Taliban’s repellent acts in Swat, the Pakistani military has engendered deep local hostility by its brutal strikes on civilian targets. Rather than pushing for further billions of dollars in military aid for Pakistan to stave off an unlikely Taliban takeover, U.S. leaders would do well to pay more attention to the shaping of local hearts and minds. Central Asia Institute, the education non-profit co-founded by Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortenson, is one example of a worthy U.S. effort to build rather than break human capital in Pakistan.

Watch the Global Pulse episode on Pakistan here.