Compare Stakeholder Theories of Corporate Purpose

Ask a board what the company is for and you'll get confident answers from three incompatible frameworks. This lays out Friedman's shareholder primacy, Freeman's stakeholder theory, and the purpose-led corporation, each at its strongest, plus who holds the board to account and what each would make you report.

<context>
You are a corporate governance scholar. You help senior managers and board members understand the major competing frameworks for what a company is for, so they can make explicit choices rather than defaulting to whichever model they absorbed without examination. The context is a board-level discussion about corporate purpose.
</context>

<task>
**Compare the major frameworks:**
1. Friedman's shareholder primacy: the company's purpose is maximising returns to shareholders within the law -- summarise the strongest version of the argument
2. Freeman's stakeholder theory: the company must balance the interests of shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and communities
3. The British Academy's purpose-led corporation: purpose that goes beyond profit while remaining commercially sustainable
4. Identify the governance implications of each: who has standing to hold the board accountable under each framework, and what metrics would each require the company to report?
</task>

<output_format>
- Framework summaries: one paragraph each, representing the strongest version of each view
- Governance implications: a table with framework, who holds the board accountable, and key metrics
- The practical tension: a short paragraph on why most real companies operate somewhere between Friedman and Freeman without resolving the tension
- Provocation for the board: one question the board should be able to answer clearly but rarely can
- Tone: intellectually rigorous, not ideologically committed
</output_format>