Yves here, reaching out to the community: have you encountered similar dismissive attitudes toward workers from corporate leaders or management experts? Personally, I have always detested the shift from “personnel” to “human capital,” which began in the 1990s, if my memory serves me right.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future
This morning, the Financial Times reported that Standard Chartered plans to eliminate over 7,800 back-office positions by 2030. This decision indicates that approximately 15% of its total workforce will lose their jobs due to the rollout of artificial intelligence across its global operations.
Despite this, Chief Executive Bill Winters made it clear that this move should not be seen as a redundancy program. He told investors:
“It’s not cost cutting: it’s replacing, in some cases, lower-value human capital with the financial capital and investment capital we’re putting in.”
Consider the phrase “lower-value human capital.”
Bill Winters is referring to real individuals—people with as much right to exist and work as he has. These are individuals employed by his bank in roles such as human resources, risk and compliance, and related back-office functions in locations like Bengaluru, Shenzhen, and Warsaw. They possess skills and careers, and their families rely on their earnings. Yet, the CEO of this significant financial institution publicly refers to them as “lower-value human capital” during a discussion with investors.
This choice of words is not an unintentional slip; it reflects a specific worldview wherein labor is regarded as a cost to be minimized and people as mere inputs to be valued economically. According to this outlook, if a more affordable alternative becomes available, it is simply replaced. This is the script laid out in business textbooks, and it aligns with shareholder expectations. Bill Winters appears to fully subscribe to this ideology, which is emblematic of neoliberalism in action.
There’s a raw honesty in this proclamation that, oddly enough, offers clarity. Most executives resort to euphemisms when discussing layoffs. They speak of transformations, future investments, reskilling, and redeployment. Winters, however, has opted for directness—asserting that some of his employees are, in his view, “lower-value” and are being replaced by financial or technological resources. At least his employees now understand their position, as well as that of many others, within their CEO’s framework.
The underlying implication is that labor is perceived as a less valuable resource than technology, automation, AI systems, software platforms, robotics, data systems, and financial investments in machinery. This worldview suggests that substituting people with capital assets will inherently improve efficiency. This mindset reveals everything one needs to know about this bank, its management, and the very individuals they aim to profit from, many of whom fall under the “lower-value human capital” categorization.
It’s also crucial to acknowledge the statistics provided in the article. Standard Chartered employs around 80,000 individuals worldwide. The bank intends to achieve a return on tangible equity exceeding 15% by 2028, increasing further to around 18% by 2030. Thus, these job losses aren’t a consequence of the bank’s struggles. Rather, they are a strategic move aimed at boosting profitability for shareholders. While AI technology facilitates this transition, the mindset of its CEO enables it.
At this juncture, the conversation broadens to encompass economics and political economy, transcending mere corporate authority. If artificial intelligence is positioned to displace thousands of skilled workers in the financial sector, a crucial question arises—not whether this is remarkable, because it undoubtedly is—but rather, who reaps the rewards, and who suffers the loss?
The answer is, unfortunately, predictable. Shareholders are the beneficiaries, while workers in Bengaluru, Shenzhen, and Warsaw face the consequences. Meanwhile, governments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere remain silent, as nothing within the current political framework compels them to respond. This is largely because they, too, adhere to the same neoliberal logic.
This is the core issue at hand. What troubles us is not merely that a bank is implementing AI or cutting jobs for greater returns. The real concern lies in the economic and political structure we have crafted, which accepts as normal and unremarkable that a CEO can describe his workforce as “lower-value human capital” during an investor briefing without eliciting any response from the government.
The benefits of artificial intelligence stem in large part from publicly funded research, a publicly educated workforce, and publicly maintained infrastructure. While their origins are socialized, their benefits are privatized. Alarmingly, our governments have decided that society should simply accept this disparity.
It’s high time for a re-evaluation of this situation.
