3 ms·

> A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. No. That's a misconception. Corporate directors are required t

> A Corporation is legally required to work only to increase the value of a share, nothing more. No. That's a misconception. Corporate directors are required to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they have a lot of discretion in determining what those interests are and how they are to be served. Here's a reference from a decent law school: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

henryfjordan 7y ago
That reference cites the Hobby Lobby case where they got to opt out of providing insurance for contraception and a Facebook video of an expert explaining how the current corporate system produces sociopathic entities (corporations). I don't believe either fundamentally debunks the idea that the agents of corporations are required to attempt to increase the value of a share. I agree that there's still a lot of lee-way in that, like giving an employee a bonus might hurt shareholders directly in the short-term but you can claim it increases productivity and so is a good decision. You still have to justify all decisions in terms of value to the shareholders though. If you (as CEO) decide to just stop all work and spend every day at Disneyland until the coffers are empty you can be sure you'll lose that suit. And when every single decision has to be viewed through that lens, you aren't able to directly do real good for the world, just indirectly.