The Business Roundtable thinks it has redefined what businesses ought to be in business for. And the new definition is proving controversial, upending the ways financial analysts and financial advisors typically view corporate success.

The Business Roundtable, or BRT—an association of chief executive officers from some of the biggest and most prestigious companies in the United States—in August released a statement saying that the purpose of a corporation extends beyond serving just shareholders—and that companies should serve customers, employees, suppliers and communities alike as stakeholders. It reasons that businesses should “promote an economy that serves all Americans.” Indeed, the group’s statement outlines a modern standard for corporate responsibility.

While these are admirable points, they likely are pretty confusing for financial analysts who go by the numbers when evaluating companies. Hence, institutions accustomed to analyzing corporations via their earnings statements might now have to scramble to develop new metrics. Some are choosing to fight the idea. 

For example, the Council of Institutional Investors expressed concern that the Business Roundtable’s statement undercuts notions of managerial accountability to shareholders. “We respectfully disagree with the statement issued by the BRT,” the council said in a formal release. “The BRT statement suggests corporate obligations to a variety of stakeholders, placing shareholders last, and referencing shareholders simply as providers of capital rather than as owners. [The council] believes boards and managers need to sustain a focus on long-term shareholder value.” To that end, “it is critical to respect stakeholders, but also to have clear accountability to company owners.”

The council is an association of pension funds and other employee benefit funds, foundations and endowments that promotes the interests of institutional investors. And it is not alone in its criticism.

The Harvard Business Review asks, “Is the Business Roundtable Statement Just Empty Rhetoric?” Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal dubs the BRT’s proclamation a “recipe for confusion.”

To be sure, the BRT is playing into a broader zeitgeist among investors. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing is garnering large interest and assets from people and institutions that believe corporate citizenship exists for more than profit-making. By recasting corporate mandates, the BRT is raising a topsail to these tailwinds. Still, it has some investment professionals scratching their heads.

Dan Ahrens, chief operating officer of AdvisorShares, and the former portfolio manager of the Vice Fund, says of the initiative, “While the statement all sounds very nice, I feel it’s mostly just posturing. Not really ‘redefining the purpose’ or ‘moving away from shareholder primacy.’ I’d even go as far as to say it’s ‘political correctness’ in the modern corporate area.”

It may be that the Business Roundtable’s statement is aimed at millennials who, according to numerous studies, expect companies to stand for more than profits. In turn, financial services professionals are going to have to adapt to a new business language, new definitions and even new ways of doing business themselves. Many know they aren’t prepared.

A CFA Institute survey of nearly 4,000 members found that almost half (48%) admitted that their roles and practices would be “significantly different or nonexistent” within just five years. Among financial advisors, the rate was 58%, according to the institute.

Is it worthwhile for the Business Roundtable to push business in this direction? The answer is likely yes, even with the confusion and pushback. Here’s why: 60% of investment firm leaders expect to increase training and development in new areas. So why shouldn’t they develop ESG, or at least come up with a more comprehensive understanding of corporate social responsibility?

The raft of assets pouring into ESG investments—$10 trillion a year globally since 2016—should be reason enough to figure out a new paradigm for investors that explains why it’s important to “do good” in portfolios and even single holdings.

What’s clear is that the private sector is embracing things historically thought to be the government’s duty: building social equity. This concept harks all the way back to the early 1970s, when Milton Friedman promoted the libertarian view of urging government to skedaddle—and get out of the way of the free market system. But that trend has been concurrent with a rise in inequality—monetarily, the wealth divide is at its largest margin, and socially, life expectancy has risen for the wealthiest 20% of Americans, whereas it has dropped for the poorest 20%.

Serving profit alone doesn’t appear, then, to strengthen society. Rather, it is an undoing of a lot of the good the Great Society and the New Deal programs produced for generations of Americans.

The Business Roundtable is broaching a new way of serving both the rich and the poor—as it says, “all Americans.” Ceres, the much-admired Boston-based nonprofit organization that works with some of the world’s most influential investors and companies to build leadership and drive solutions throughout the economy, is cautiously optimistic about the Business Roundtable’s approach to corporate repurposing.

“On its face, the statement gives me hope,” says Mindy Lubber, Ceres’s chief executive. “It is both timely and prescient, and should be applauded. With it, the largest companies in the U.S. have affirmed that fair dealings with customers, employees, suppliers and communities are core to a company’s purpose and to its overall role in the American economy and society. I could not agree more.

“But the statement is only a small step in the marathon of challenges before us,” she says. “We require bold, immediate action from these powerful corporate leaders—whose products underpin every aspect of our daily lives and whose influential voices can move policy proposals that impact our economy and the world around us.”

It seems there is no such thing as a bottom line anymore. A question—“How do you measure success?”—is taking its place.

To that end, finance and investing may be becoming more like art—bad, good, better, best, and all in the eyes of the beholder.         

Thomas Kostigen is a New York Times best-selling author and regular contributor to Financial Advisor magazine.