Social benefit and long-term shareholder value are totally inconsistent

• 
  
  An article presenting a totally old fashioned idea was posted in HBR on 28 September 2011, arguing that "Societal benefit and long-term shareholder value are completely consistent."
  
  
  Really?
  
  
  Has the author not yet learnt that there's as much a contemporary accountability to shareholders as providers of equity, as there are to other resource providers, whether paid for or not, such as the providers of debt instruments, employees (intellectual capital), the use of our planet (land - often paid for, water - sometimes paid for, air - seldom paid for), to society at large (protection of personal data) and the communities they operate in (resource acquisition) as but a few examples?
  
  
  I think the author has perhaps forgotten that many of the 20th century's worst pollution and human rights abuses prove that societal benefit and long-term shareholder value are not remotely consistent, bar perhaps in a text book, his article, and the 20th century! The increasing burden of governance & compliance these days demonstrates that this is not so.
  
  
  Consider this: If they really were consistent in the long term, mature business would report only on ROE, and the whole of society would be really happy! Hmmmm. Think of these MATURE businesses - ArcelorMittal in Vanderbijlpark (South Africa); BP in the Carribean, ExxonMobil in Nigeria, Acid Mine Drainage in the Cradle of Humankind, Massey Energy Company in the US and probably hundreds of thousands of other examples, where there has been an outcry from society about the huge societal cost, but not a peep from shareholders or company representatives. Think Cape Asbestos too.
  
  
  Furthermore, if employees (and the government as a stakeholder) were a really happy part of society, we wouldn't need labour law amendments. If customers were happy as a part of society, we wouldn't need consumer protection acts. Furthermore, while companies have Enterprise Risk Management to ultimately manage reputation risk on behalf of the shareholders, there is no equivalent measure for society! As a result, we now see GUIDELINES for Corporate Social Responsibility and carbon footprint reduction, and more countries have published various versions of good corporate governance standards, all helping to make up the quadruple bottom line. 
  
  
  All of the above come at a cost and are not revenue generating. So the point is, if long term shareholder value and societal benefit were really "completely consistent", would we really need any of this? I don't think so! Sorry Mr author, you're out! HBR, what's up?