I say, let's buy just enough shares to get into the meetings for
shareholders, and hammer them with these questions.
That is the idea with social enterprises such as Bangladesh's
Grameen Bank.
The beneficiaries are made automatic shareholders as they are
made to pay for a share when they seek a loan from the NGO.
So whatever profit they get from their operations, get plowed
back into system, rather than as rebates or kickbacks, which would
leave the beneficiaries/shareholders just as happy.
I have considered researching further into the idea of mooting
such a change for my research. But apparently, London's attempt at
implementing such an idea has proven that the idea needs more than
just an outward change. You would be needing changes to legislation
and how the public/private financing terms and conditions are done
as well.
In case you guys wonder however, looking at the example of
Grameen Bank, this system has empowered people to such an extent
that the organisation was actually considered a threat to the
govt.
What did the govt do?
Do a forced-takeover (from 3% share!) and ensure they remain in
control.
Such is f*cked-up nature of Bangladeshi politics that ensure
less gets done, when they need more.
Perhaps that's why the idea didn't even get a sniff here?