There appears to be two camps of people in this debate. Those who expect corporations to behave according to the ethics and morals of society and those who beli

There appears to be two camps of people in this debate. Those who expect corporations to behave according to the ethics and morals of society and those who believe corporations should attempt to extract as much profit as possible. To those in the second camp I'd ask, why shouldn't society seek to place limits on corporate behaviour when it believes that behaviour is harmful to the long term goals of society? Why should the profit motive be put before social need? Without social and governmental intervention we'd still have cigarette companies paying doctors to promote their products as safe and healthy. We'd still be experiencing crime waves brought on by leaded gasoline and fireproofing would still be made from asbestos. Should the government and activists have allowed these things to continue? If not, what differentiates them from expecting Ikea to responsibly manage it's consumption of lumber?