4 ms·

It's implicit, the CEO must deliver value to the shareholders or be replaced. Capitalism doesn't leave a lot of room for moral standing.

• C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Rather difficult with Googles dual class share structure
• robin_reala 8y ago
  That’s totally arguable though. For example: ‘By actively not engaging with the Chinese market we retain our core client base in the US, which would leak away in the event of persistant negative media coverage’. It doesn’t have to be a straight up monetary calculation.
• sveme 8y ago
  Shareholders have and should have moral positions as well. Capitalism can and should be tamed, otherwise there is no difference between Mexican cartels and American corporations.
• tikkabhuna 8y ago
  Large shareholders have corporate values (ethical, etc) that they will push onto companies they own shares in. Blackrock[1] has said social responsibility is important to them. Companies looking for investment need to operate with principles aligned with investors or investors will look for alternatives. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-responsibility-shows-shift-in-companies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/blackrocks-push-for-social-r...
• lallysingh 8y ago
  That's what I get for a quick post on my commute. I meant that Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, isn't a founder of Google. So he doesn't have any leverage over the board for moral stances, and is instead stuck doing their bidding. Of course, I'm also a bit wrong w.r.t. the structure of Alphabet. Where's Alphabet's leadership on this?