4 ms·

> Companies don't do things to be nice. They do if it gives them a market advantage. If Goodyear can market tires that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly"

by throwaway201103 6y ago

> Companies don't do things to be nice. They do if it gives them a market advantage. If Goodyear can market tires that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" than their rivals that will resonate with consumers who focus on such things (many of them, particularly millenials and younger). We saw this with trans-fats in food. They aren't prohibited by the FDA, but most producers have eliminated them and have "Zero Trans Fats" emblazoned across the package labeling, because it sells better. Seeing this effect also with high-fructose corn syrup.

uoaei 6y ago
That's the point. They don't do it to be nice, they do it because it helps the bottom line. I don't think it's helpful nor accurate to conflate the two, as it only serves corporations who want to ride on paper-thin "social responsibility" PR.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I guess I don't see the difference. People running the corporations who decide to be "socially responsible" are "being nice." The reason they do it is because their customers want/will pay for "social responsibility." If nobody wants social responsibility, why would it fall on corporations to do it anyway? Why do they get demonized and everyone else gets off the hook?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    You don't see the difference likely because your moral value system prioritizes outcomes instead of intent. This is not a bad way of looking at it and I'm not criticizing that perspective. They get demonized because there is nothing stopping them from simply undoing all those policies once the bottom line dictates otherwise. The public cannot trust corporations who act in that way, and when they inevitably do, they get valid criticism for it. They are using language in sinister and misleading ways, and for most people that is equivalent to lying.
greeneggs 6y ago
Trans fats were banned by the FDA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/18/artificial-trans-fats-widely-linked-to-heart-disease-are-officially-banned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/18/artif...

uoaei 6y ago

That's the point. They don't do it to be nice, they do it because it helps the bottom line. I don't think it's helpful nor accurate to conflate the two, as it only serves corporations who want to ride on paper-thin "social responsibility" PR.

throwaway201103 6y ago
I guess I don't see the difference. People running the corporations who decide to be "socially responsible" are "being nice." The reason they do it is because their customers want/will pay for "social responsibility." If nobody wants social responsibility, why would it fall on corporations to do it anyway? Why do they get demonized and everyone else gets off the hook?
- uoaei 6y ago
  You don't see the difference likely because your moral value system prioritizes outcomes instead of intent. This is not a bad way of looking at it and I'm not criticizing that perspective. They get demonized because there is nothing stopping them from simply undoing all those policies once the bottom line dictates otherwise. The public cannot trust corporations who act in that way, and when they inevitably do, they get valid criticism for it. They are using language in sinister and misleading ways, and for most people that is equivalent to lying.

greeneggs 6y ago

Trans fats were banned by the FDA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/18/artificial-trans-fats-widely-linked-to-heart-disease-are-officially-banned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/18/artif...