James Montier presented Johnson & Johnson as a company that, unlike IBM, did not switch to shareholder value maximization (SVM).

Wrong!

In 2013, US Justice department reported that Johnson and Johnson agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability pertaining to outright corrupt practices (to maximize profit). Just because Johnson and Johnson has retained references on its website to some noble sounding mission does NOT mean that it is following that mission. This $2.2 billion settlement is evidence that Johnson and Johnson is also busy maximizing, going even beyond IBM.

I agree that SVM is a terrible idea but that comparison of IBM and Johnson and Johnson is not right. We need a more coherent and comprehensive case against SVM.