4 ms·

I want to hurt the shareholders of companies that cause environmental destructions.

purpled_haze 11y ago
The majority of shareholders have no influence over the decisions made. The companies can work to be more responsible, but if you boycott, you'll give them even more incentive to cut corners, and you'll be hurting low-level workers and many others that have no influence over the decisions that are being made. It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  They still profit from it, and they are ultimately (legally) the owners and controllers of the company. It is ridiculous to say that just because the responsibility is diffused we don't need to think about shareholder responsibility at all. The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.
ptaipale 11y ago
Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse. Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided. Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)
- littletimmy 11y ago
  You've got a source for that? We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.
  - theworstshill 11y ago
    Well if X people are no big deal, why not start with you and your family? I mean... its good for the Earth and all, I'd wager Indonesians have a smaller carbon footprint than you do.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      Yeah, but if you get people like me out first who is going to advocate for exterminating the others? ;)
Thriptic 11y ago
A lot of these companies are probably packaged into ETFs or mutual funds, which are then purchased by investors without significant review of each component in the fund. Most investors probably have no idea that this is even going on in the world, let alone which companies are benefiting and if those companies are in their funds. It seems unfair to want to target people who simply are ignorant.

The majority of shareholders have no influence over the decisions made. The companies can work to be more responsible, but if you boycott, you'll give them even more incentive to cut corners, and you'll be hurting low-level workers and many others that have no influence over the decisions that are being made. It is fine to be angry about it and want to help, but choose a path that will work.

littletimmy 11y ago
They still profit from it, and they are ultimately (legally) the owners and controllers of the company. It is ridiculous to say that just because the responsibility is diffused we don't need to think about shareholder responsibility at all. The way to help is to make companies that source palm oil from these terrible places to go bankrupt. That way, we clamp on demand for palm oil.

ptaipale 11y ago

Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse. Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided. Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to utility for mankind.)

littletimmy 11y ago
You've got a source for that? We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered animals, is a very big deal.
- theworstshill 11y ago
  Well if X people are no big deal, why not start with you and your family? I mean... its good for the Earth and all, I'd wager Indonesians have a smaller carbon footprint than you do.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    Yeah, but if you get people like me out first who is going to advocate for exterminating the others? ;)

Thriptic 11y ago

A lot of these companies are probably packaged into ETFs or mutual funds, which are then purchased by investors without significant review of each component in the fund. Most investors probably have no idea that this is even going on in the world, let alone which companies are benefiting and if those companies are in their funds. It seems unfair to want to target people who simply are ignorant.