Shareholders should be made responsible too

Ground Floor: In my career, I've worked for five different financial institutions. The experience of working for some was better than others although, to be honest, there was no company where I actively disliked going every morning.

But some firms have a way of creating a more enjoyable working environment. It's usually little things, like not getting hysterical if you're five minutes late, or perhaps organising a lunch for all employees whose birthdays fall within that month, or trusting you to get on with things without constantly looking over your shoulder; generally, in fact, by treating you like a human being instead of a cog in the relentless drive for profit.

Each company I worked for had its own specific ethos which is something more difficult to define. Some were strong on self-development and actively encouraged further study by offering extended study leave or by subsidising courses; while others fostered a social atmosphere through a wide variety of after-hours activities to bring employees closer together (one firm had an incredible number of married couples).

Ethos is something which is becoming more and more important as both corporations and people look for the kind of working environment that suits each of them best. Some companies thrive on informality, whereas others are more strait-laced. Some employees are laid back. Others prefer a more structured approach. Many corporations also align themselves with social or community issues by supporting charities or sponsoring sporting organisations.

If an individual identifies closely with a particular social issue and the company itself is also supportive, it helps to foster a closer culture within the corporate walls. Things can get difficult, though, when legislation is involved. The regular Ground Floor reader will know that Microsoft isn't my favourite software manufacturer but I still admire Bill Gates's achievements. So do many of his employees, particularly as they believe that they work for a liberal and culturally diverse corporation.

That belief was somewhat shaken when Microsoft withdrew its support for gay rights legislation in Washington state last month, apparently after it had been criticised by a local preacher who allegedly threatened to organise a boycott of Microsoft products.

Employees were incensed. Many complained that they had joined Microsoft believing that it was a progressive company and that support for gay rights legislation went back over 12 years. In fact, the company received an award from the Los Angeles gay and lesbian community centre in 2001 (they asked for the award to be returned). Microsoft employees set up a petition to support the bill and 1,741 people signed it. An opposing petition, which asked the company to remain neutral, received 197 signatures.

The net result of all this was that chief executive Steve Ballmer e-mailed the employees to say that the company had changed its mind and would support the legislation after all. The e-mail was comprehensive, setting out the rationale behind Microsoft's past and future approaches to social issues. According to Ballmer, "diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda". On that basis, he continued, Microsoft will "join other leading companies in supporting federal legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".

It was an interesting e-mail, not just for the fact that it reverses the Microsoft stance but because Ballmer says that he is doing what he believes is right for the company as a whole.

Within the banality of those kind of phrases, it's heartening to hear a company talking about taking principled stances and adhering to particular social values - whether you agree with them or not. The most important thing is having values at all, and realising that your business doesn't exist independently of what goes on in society but rather as a part of it. We have come to believe that, in business, money is all that matters. Of course big business - as we've seen in the Manchester United case - is about making money, pure and simple. And yet most of us demand more than that. We want to know that there are certain lines that corporations will not cross.

We want desperately to believe that somehow it isn't only about the money. Manchester United fans vented their spleen on John Magnier and JP McManus because the sale of their shares brought into focus what has happened to the club. Activities on the pitch are now measured, not in trophies, but in marketing opportunities.

Talk of boycotting the matches is irrelevant to the new owners - as a global brand, the actions of a group of local supporters may create headlines but is unlikely to impact on marketing opportunities elsewhere.

Shareholders have rights but they also have responsibilities. They should know what beliefs their company hold on a range of issues. Most, of course, don't hold any beliefs at all. But even if the only nod your company has towards social values is sponsoring the local football team it tells you something about it.

Companies are not just 'they'. They're 'us'. Sometimes we need to remember that.