3 ms·

Who decides what is "right" and "ethical"? Should the company ban, say, oil and gas companies from GCP because a few people get angry on industryinfo? Who put t

Who decides what is "right" and "ethical"? Should the company ban, say, oil and gas companies from GCP because a few people get angry on industryinfo? Who put those angry people in charge? Of course employees should be able to voice concerns about projects and policies and suggest an alternate strategy. But if leadership rejects that alternative strategy, that needs to be the end of it. If leadership disagrees with you, you can't just start leaking stuff to the press, doxxing people, and organizing protest events. A company is not Twitter and any healthy company should fire employees who are confused about the difference.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Currently, companies decide what is "right" and "ethical" using a standard - shareholder return - that has been proven time and time again to have unethical consequences. Not infrequently the consequences are literally disastrous and/or fatal. (See also Boeing, Lehman, Enron. HP at its worst, and many many more.) What exactly gives corporations the moral authority to act like this? Is it simply that large accumulations of money somehow render other moral concerns irrelevant, as if by magic?
shadowgovt 6y ago
> Should the company ban, say, oil and gas companies from GCP because a few people get angry on industryinfo I mean, maybe. They'd ban them if the few people were the owners and the SVPs. If they company did, they'd be within their rights to. The only problem would be all the money they'd leave on the table. Usually (1), that's been the backstop against corporations operating with their private ethics on their sleeve; corps that make a habit of leaving money on the table tend to get left behind by the market. If Google started banning GCP use for ethical reasons, some other company would step up to fill the gap; no doubt. (1) Usually. Chik-fil-A supports conversion therapy for LGBTQ people and Hobby Lobby's owners have used their assets for "art acquisition" that was illegal.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Currently, companies decide what is "right" and "ethical" using a standard - shareholder return - that has been proven time and time again to have unethical consequences. Not infrequently the consequences are literally disastrous and/or fatal. (See also Boeing, Lehman, Enron. HP at its worst, and many many more.) What exactly gives corporations the moral authority to act like this? Is it simply that large accumulations of money somehow render other moral concerns irrelevant, as if by magic?

shadowgovt 6y ago

> Should the company ban, say, oil and gas companies from GCP because a few people get angry on industryinfo I mean, maybe. They'd ban them if the few people were the owners and the SVPs. If they company did, they'd be within their rights to. The only problem would be all the money they'd leave on the table. Usually (1), that's been the backstop against corporations operating with their private ethics on their sleeve; corps that make a habit of leaving money on the table tend to get left behind by the market. If Google started banning GCP use for ethical reasons, some other company would step up to fill the gap; no doubt. (1) Usually. Chik-fil-A supports conversion therapy for LGBTQ people and Hobby Lobby's owners have used their assets for "art acquisition" that was illegal.