It's more complicated than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. > Dodge v. Ford Mo

It's more complicated than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. > Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers. It is often cited as affirming the principle of "shareholder primacy" in corporate America. At the same time, the case affirmed the business judgment rule, leaving Ford an extremely wide latitude about how to run the company. [...] > In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow or Shlensky v. Wrigley. The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole. The caveat is important. If a company says, "Customers don't like it when rich people in suits treat <x> like shit. Therefore, if we spend a small amount of money treating <x> better, this will make our customers happy, and they will buy more of our products, recouping the cost and bringing in more profit for our shareholders." Substitute the environment, animals, customers, employees, people in Africa, cancer patients, the children, etc. It doesn't matter if you're completely full of shit, you just have to make the argument. So while you're correct that companies have a primary requirement to increase profits for their shareholders, in practice, this requirement is incredibly loose, to the point of not actually being a requirement at all.