3 ms·

You might want to consider slightly newer precedents: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/basr.12108 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.111

• detaro 8y ago
  That reads more like "you can not too aggressively work against one of your shareholders' influence", not "you have to maximize profits at all costs", and the article claims Craigslist could have mostly preserved it's non-profit-oriented culture through means not challenged by the court. To me, the article more supports than denies the stance of "it's a myth that companies can't improve their workers situation because that would breach their responsibility to shareholders". The responsibility to shareholders exist, but it's not as absolute as argued. Some quotes: > First, the business judgment rule provides broad protection for managers and directors when they make decisions that benefit customers, employees, suppliers, the community, and other non-shareholder interests, as long as these actions are reasonably believed in good faith to promise some shareholder benefit. Enabling corporate social responsibility is not the purpose of the business judgment rule; it is, rather, to avoid the courts’ second-guessing of reasonable decisions by officers and directors. However, it serves, albeit unintentionally, to enable corporations to act responsibly without risking legal challenges from shareholders. > In any event, the elements of the plan that were struck down by the Delaware court were aimed at question- able objectives, which need not have been attained to preserve the Craigslist culture and way of doing business, at least in the short run.