That's a good point. In a related point, people also forget that a corporation or LLC is a grant of limited liability the government allows in exchange for a pu

That's a good point. In a related point, people also forget that a corporation or LLC is a grant of limited liability the government allows in exchange for a public purpose otherwise the shareholders would be liable for all of the debts of their business activity. As such there is a reasonable argument that this right to limited liability should come with a duty of care to society at large (employees, customers, the environment). The history of corporate charters provides an interesting context because the limited liability was initially reserved for very risky but important activities like exploration. The original corporate charters were grants of both monopoly and limited liability offered by a monarch or sovereign for a specific approved business activity. Overtime society has expanded these grants to any and all business activity so we forget the original rationale for allowing these privileges. Event the LLC is a relatively new entity. Historically business was conducted by partnerships. The partners were on the hook for the debts and actions of their partners and often put a lot of effort into limiting the risk of their business activities. There is a strong argument that allowing investment banks to shift from a partnership to corporate structure allowed them to pursue much riskier activity. Goldman Sachs went public in in 1999 but was a partnership for 130 years before that. The same motive applies to shareholders, if we allow them to benefit from limited liability it should be with the understanding that the company and its management have a duty to act appropriately which means the interest of Soviety at large and related concerns balances against profit concerns.