is still incurred even when nothing is produced. These fixed costs, as they are known, start on the y-axis and increase with output quantity. In some models this occurs as a line; in more complicated models they usually diminish in order to be able to depict economies of scale or the effects of learning.
Then the output quantity is sought at the point where the two curves are the furthest apart, or a new curve is drawn which depicts the difference between the two curves, from which the maximum is determined. This can be done using geometry or by using algorithms from the curve sketching.
Fig. 2: Graph of maximum profit calculation
What is astounding here is the complete absence of any relation to real life: managers who keep these two curves on their desks in order to refer to them in practice do not exist. But even more astoundingly, profit maximisation is not even measurable even though measurability is one of the main requirements for operational targets! In retrospect it cannot be said whether the measures taken actually led to maximum profit or not; maybe a little more profit could have been made after all.
The mathematical underpinnings of the basic thesis that profit maximisation should be a company’s main goal contribute decisively to its lodging itself almost indelibly in people’s brains and becoming part of their identity. After all, whatever can be expressed by mathematical models and be (apparently) calculated surely cannot be wrong! This would not be quite so bad if profit maximisation were a goal worth aspiring to from an ethical point of view.
To illustrate how dangerous profit maximisation is, it first has to be divided up analytically: profit maximisation is nothing other than maximising revenue whilst simultaneously minimising costs.
Revenue maximisation requires making as much revenue as possible. Behind it is the invitation, ‘Get as much money out of your customers as you can!’ and ‘Set prices as high as they’ll go!’ To put it clearly, the principle of profit maximisation contains a clear invitation to rip people off – without doubt an ethically questionable way to act.
Revenue maximisation involves ripping people off.
Ripping people off involves demanding an unjustifiably high price. Even if no crime is committed in the legal sense, such as intending to commit unlawful enrichment under false pretences, let alone profiteering, the offers made by many companies against this backdrop do appear questionable. Planned wear and tear22, i.e., intentionally reducing the lifespan of products, and subscription traps are just the tip of the ugly iceberg of business reality. What is more, even responsible companies do not shy away from ripping their customers off with overly expensive service hotlines or barely affordable offers of services (e.g., surcharges on flights for luggage over the weight limit).
Cost minimisation is often exploitation.
The requirement to minimise costs is also not without its problems: cost minimisation requires spending as little as possible on resources, paying the lowest possible price, pushing suppliers’ prices under the company’s own (at least for a while), and putting economic standards before social ones. To put it clearly, the principle of cost minimisation, and with it of profit maximisation, involves an unmistakable invitation to exploit – which is no less ethically questionable.
The neutral definition of exploitation primarily denotes any kind of use or consumption. However, by Karl Marx’s time the term referred to employing people oppressively in production processes. Today exploitation is understood to mean particularly abhorrent forms of labour such as slavery or child labour. Tellingly, this term, which is clearly negatively loaded, is used quite unthinkingly in several standard works on business studies in connection with the utilisation of production factors, although we should give the authors credit for the fact that they do not refer to the production factor of labour, but rather to materials or capital goods.
Ripping people off, exploitation and therefore profit maximisation require taking advantage of the plight of others.
As has already been mentioned, the job of companies is nonetheless to make profit. We may therefore suggest not saddling this important goal of business with the inoperative, radical suffix ‘maximisation’. The goal of ‘profit maximisation’ could be replaced with the terms ‘intention to make profit’ or ‘making an appropriate profit’.
2.3 Focusing on competition
‘In order to win you do not need to beat others.
Only simple souls define themselves solely and directly
by the fight, the desire to beat others.’23
Michael ‘The Albatross’ Gross,
swimming world and Olympic champion
Economics works on the basic assumption that competition produces the best supply of services. A lack of competition leads to higher prices, worse services and, in the worst-case scenario, to a lack of provision for people.
The basic assumption of economics
Derived from this basic assumption is the requirement in business studies that companies must be competitive to survive. In order to survive in the economic ‘survival of the fittest’, a company has to be better than the competition over the long term otherwise it will need to close its doors.
If we follow this thought to its logical conclusion, holding your own against the competition actually means beating your competitors. ‘The winner takes it all!’
Alongside profit maximisation, this thought, too, has ripened into a guiding principle of management. ‘Competitiveness has become an article of faith, the new gospel of those sections of the population that rule today’s world.’24 In speeches, management reports and whenever reorganisation is needed, many directors and politicians chant the same old mantra of focusing on competition. The Italian sociologist, Riccardo Petrella, who made a name for himself opposing the privatisation of drinking water, notes that the cult of focusing on competition loosed itself from the context of business long ago and has already reached large sections of society. ’The imperative of competition between companies and nations has strongly moulded the thinking, strategies and decisions of education ministers, university chancellors, union leaders, members of parliament and mayors, TV producers and journalists, and continues to do so.’25
The guiding principle of focusing on competition is no doubt also the reason why the vocabulary of managers and even economists very often resembles language originally designed to describe particularly brutal events such as war and crime. In German, the struggle for a market share (‘der Kampf um Marktanteile’) sounds relatively harmless, while the English saying ‘Business is war’ is considered a dictum that describes the nature of business.26 When scouting for gifted young professionals, companies find themselves engaged in a ‘battle for talent’. In German business language, too, completely innocent sounding terms like ‘strategy’, ‘tactics’ and ‘logistics’ have crept in, which Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) originally used to describe the conflicts of war.
Bruno Wagner even gives many examples of how not only the choice of words, but also managers’ actions are reminiscent of warfare.27 The book by Matthias Weik and Marc Friedrich, in which they lambast the conduct of politics and the world of finance, bears the telling title ‘The Greatest Plundering in History’ (Der größte Raubzug der Geschichte28).
In any case, competition is combat; competition pits one party against another. The actual job of companies, however, is to do business with each other and with consumers. Companies have customers, so they do not primarily work against others, but for
