4 ms·
> You mean "shareholders's income". It's not Apples income to run social programs with. I know you didn't say this exactly, but it is not true that a company e
by harperlee 10y ago
> You mean "shareholders's income". It's not Apples income to run social programs with.
I know you didn't say this exactly, but it is not true that a company exists solely for looking after shareholder's income. They also have other things to look after, such as social obligations.
Here is an article with some more detail about it (PDF): https://centres.insead.edu/social-innovation/who-we-are/documents/troublingQ3_000.pdf https://centres.insead.edu/social-innovation/who-we-are/docu...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jimmywanger 10y agoThe article you cite says that it's about what a corporation "ought" to do. It's not currently part of the corporate charter in the US, and unless explicitly called out, a company is ultimately only responsible for shareholder value. If that means tossing money at the local community so they can continue to do business there, they will do that.
- valuearb 10y agoYea that article is BS. The idea that corporations have obligations beyond their owners is pure parasitical nonsense. Obviously they have an obligation to behave legally, but their profits and assets are owned by shareholders. Tim Cook is worth around a billion dollars, he has massive personal resources to pursue charitable activities on his own. Should he reduce the dividend an aging widow depends on to use corporate resources instead?