4 ms·
No company can thrive when putting politics over profit.
by josh_fyi 7y ago
No company can thrive when putting politics over profit.
- janpot 7y agoThose silly people, believing ethics are more important than pofit...
- Reedx 7y agoThat just doesn't compute. If they literally were about ethics > profits or maximizing good, they wouldn't be putting their time into a massively for-profit operation. Collecting large checks and internal perks galore. They'd be more attracted to a non-profit.
- janpot 7y agoI believe your argument classifies as a "no true scotsman"[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- lghh 7y agoAre there no ethical way to make a profit?
- taneq 7y agoContributing your (probably unskilled-at-what-you’re-doing ) labour directly at a non-profit is far less effective than working your skilled, high paying job and donating the money.
- Reedx 7y agoYeah, that's probably true in a lot of cases.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- josh_fyi 7y agoI don't believe that profits are more important than ethics, just that it is impossible to satisfy various opinions on what ethics is, while maximizing profit
- janpot 7y agoThat's correct. And I don't believe maximizing your profit should always go before thinking about what you do is ethical.
- sharemywin 7y agoDon't think their asking them to take a stand against advertising. So, you could make an argument that they should be focusing on making their product more addictive and stop with the distractions.
- Fnoord 7y agoSounds like you don't believe in voting with your wallet. If enough people protest against Blizzard that they make a public statement at their party (BlizzCon) about how they were wrong perhaps they're feeling the heat? If enough people cancel their services with Blizzard over this, they're feeling a direct result of their political decision on their profit.
- josh_fyi 7y agoSure, a company can be pressured successfully. But if a company allows political pressures to distract it, it will not thrive.
- papreclip 7y agoYea, but that's a significant chunk of your customers boycotting, not a noisy 1% of your work force throwing a fit If blizzard knew the hit they would take to US sales for kowtowing to china would only be 1%, they wouldn't flinch
- raxxorrax 7y agoThe largest growth Google had was under a pretty strict position. On the contrary, if you grow and mutate to a faceless corp, you begin to have problems attracting talent and in consequence innovate further. Wouldn't be the first time.
- zurn 7y agoI don't think this dichotomy is a thing. But there are many examples of companies being active in societal issues and doing well. Eg http://www.tradeready.ca/2018/topics/supply-chain-management/4-companies-succeed-focusing-ethical-sourcing-manufacturing/ http://www.tradeready.ca/2018/topics/supply-chain-management...
- josh_fyi 7y agoIf the leadership adopts favored positions as part of their values, the company can still thrive financially, for example Chick-Fil-A and Ben and Jerry's But if they give in to multiple pressures, they will be distracted from the business side.
- lghh 7y agoWhen laborers make it hard for companies to make a profit by doing evil with the products of their labor, which is the goal of acts like this, it will make it hard to make a profit without political (ie ethical) mindfulness.
- josh_fyi 7y agoCertainly, that will make it hard to make a profit. A company can do well financially when they have political and (what they consider to be) ethical mindfulness, as Hobby Lobby or Ben and Jerry's, to take opposite examples. What happens when employees from both other end of the spectrum simultaneously demand action?