The pursuit of economic development has long been a cornerstone of human progress, but beneath its surface lies a complex web of issues that threaten the very foundation of our existence.
At its core, economic development is often driven by a singular focus on growth, productivity, and profit, leaving behind critical considerations for the environment, social equity, and human well-being.
This narrow approach has led to unprecedented levels of waste, ecological degradation, and social inequality. As we continue to push the boundaries of economic growth, it’s essential to question whether this model is truly sustainable and beneficial for all.
In This three-part article series, we are going to use the value pyramid of management as the premise to analyze the effect of the shareholder value maximization motive of management on nature.
In the process, we are also going to analyze how the phenomenon of greed gave birth to immorality which in turn spurred on competition, which has been interwoven in economic development models.
The Value Pyramid of Management
It is an undeniable fact that economic development is, at its core, a function of effective management. As Peter Drucker (1954), widely considered the father of modern management, noted in The Practice of Management, “Management is the dynamic life-giving element in every business.
Without it, no institution can possibly survive and grow.” Effective management aligns vision with execution, balances competing priorities, and mobilizes resources to achieve long-term, sustainable outcomes. Conversely, poor management has consistently been identified as a major barrier to national development, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (World Bank, 2017). Where institutions are weak and management practices are shortsighted, economic progress often stagnates, inequality deepens, and social systems become brittle.
Yet, for much of industrial history, management has largely been shaped by the interests of capital owners. The dominant model—particularly in Anglo-American economies—has emphasized the maximization of shareholder value as the paramount objective of corporate governance. This paradigm, famously articulated by Milton Friedman (1970) in The New York Times, declared that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” While this view catalyzed a sharp rise in financial efficiency and shareholder returns, it also produced systemic imbalances. It fostered a form of managerial capitalism where short-term gains for investors often came at the expense of environmental sustainability, labor rights, and long-term innovation (Stout, 2012; Kay & King, 2020).
In response to these limitations, the Value Pyramid of Management (VPM), as developed by this author, offers a corrective framework for reimagining the priorities of organizational leadership and economic development. Unlike the traditional model which places shareholders at the top of the decision-making hierarchy, the VPM inverts the order—placing nature at the apex, followed by society/humanity, human resources, customers/suppliers, management, and finally, shareholders. This framework is not meant to diminish the role of shareholders, but to acknowledge that their interests are interdependent with—and ultimately subordinate to—the health of the ecosystems and communities upon which all enterprise is based.
This hierarchical reordering aligns with recent calls for stakeholder capitalism, most notably championed by institutions such as the World Economic Forum (2020), which asserts that “the purpose of a company is to engage all its stakeholders in shared and sustained value creation.” Similarly, Harvard Business School’s Rebecca Henderson (2020) argues that rebalancing capitalism requires “reimagining the purpose of the corporation—not as a vehicle to serve shareholders exclusively, but as a means to create shared prosperity.”
The VPM thus provides a holistic lens through which to assess not only organizational strategy but also national and global development priorities. If economic development is pursued while neglecting the needs of the natural environment, social cohesion, and labor dignity, the resulting growth is not only inequitable—it is unsustainable. Before we can fully explore the possibilities of development under this reimagined paradigm, we must first acknowledge how prevailing shareholder value maximization model has harmed each of these critical stakeholders. We begin at the top of the pyramid, with the most foundational stakeholder: Nature.
Earth: Our Only Home and the True Measure of Development
The physical universe is indeed a source of boundless wonder and mystery. Modern scientific advancements have provided humanity with unprecedented glimpses into the cosmos, revealing a universe that is vast, dynamic, and still expanding. According to NASA and data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the observable universe contains over 100 billion galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars (NASA, 2022). The exploration of Mars, often dubbed the “Red Planet,” is one of the most ambitious efforts in this quest for knowledge. With ongoing missions like NASA’s Perseverance Rover, scientists are seeking signs of ancient microbial life and assessing the planet’s potential for future human habitation (NASA Mars Exploration Program, 2023).
While these explorations enhance our understanding of planetary systems and broaden the horizon of scientific inquiry, they often obscure a deeper, more humbling reality: in the entire known universe, Earth remains the only planet known to harbor life. Despite decades of space exploration, including missions to the Moon, Venus, Mars, and beyond, we have found no definitive evidence of life outside Earth. The late Carl Sagan, renowned astrophysicist, reminded humanity of this unique planetary privilege when he reflected on the “Pale Blue Dot” image captured by Voyager 1, describing Earth as “a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam” (Sagan, 1994). He warned that this fragile Earth is all we have, emphasizing the urgency of cherishing and protecting it.
Indeed, everything essential to human life—from food and water to shelter and energy—comes from the Earth’s own biosphere. As noted by the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2015), Earth provides “planetary boundaries” within which humanity can safely operate, and exceeding these limits jeopardizes our survival. From forests and rivers to soil and minerals, the raw materials that underpin civilization are drawn directly from this planet—not from Mars, not from interstellar space, but from the very ground beneath our feet. This should inspire not only awe but responsibility. Just as a homeowner would maintain and protect their dwelling, so too must humanity care for its planetary home.
Regrettably, our collective track record reveals a different story. Driven by consumerism, industrialization, and economic greed, humanity has increasingly treated Earth not as a cherished home, but as an inexhaustible quarry. The ecological footprint of modern societies far exceeds Earth’s regenerative capacity. According to the Global Footprint Network (2023), we now consume the planet’s resources 1.75 times faster than ecosystems can regenerate—a pattern that is unsustainable and environmentally reckless.
Earth, fortunately, possesses remarkable mechanisms for regeneration—through cycles of renewal in air, water, and soil—but even these systems are under severe stress. Climate change, deforestation, ocean acidification, and biodiversity loss are now widely recognized as existential threats (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES, 2019). These crises are not the result of necessity, but of human excess and short-sighted policies. Andy Coghlan’s article in New Scientist captures this disturbing trajectory, comparing humanity’s consumption to that of bacteria in a Petri dish, expanding until they exhaust all available nutrients and suffocate in their own waste. “In recent times,” Coghlan writes, “we’re doing it even faster because of changes in society that encourage and celebrate conspicuous and excessive consumption” (Coghlan, 2012).
This metaphor starkly illustrates a fundamental paradox: what we call “development” is often, in practice, ecological self-destruction. Economic growth measured narrowly by GDP fails to account for the degradation of natural capital and the social costs of environmental harm. As ecological economist Herman Daly (2005) argued, “Growth is not the same as development, and growth that permanently destroys natural capital is uneconomic growth.” True development must therefore be measured not by how much we consume or produce, but by how sustainably and equitably we live within the Earth’s ecological boundaries.
As we continue to explore the stars, it is imperative that we also look inward—to our values, our priorities, and our treatment of the planet we call home. The Earth is not merely a resource base; it is a living system, intricately connected with our health, identity, and future. If we are to preserve the only known cradle of life in the universe, we must embrace a model of development management rooted not in extraction and excess, but in stewardship and sustainability.
Please let’s interact: +1 (914) 259-0242
The author is a dynamic entrepreneur and the Founder and Group CEO of Groupe Soleil Vision, made up of Soleil Consults (US), LLC, NubianBiz.com and Soleil Publications. He has an extensive background In Strategy, Management, Entrepreneurship, Premium Audit Advisory, And Web Consulting. With professional experiences spanning both Ghana and the United States, Jules has developed a reputation as a thought leader in fields such as corporate governance, leadership, e-commerce, and customer service. His publications explore a variety of topics, including economics, information technology, marketing and branding, making him a prominent voice in discussions on development and business innovation across Africa. Through NubianBiz.com, he actively champions intra-African trade and technology-driven growth to empower SMEs across the continent.
