3 ms·
You're assuming the shareholders would support such decision. Keep in mind there's a legal mandate for public traded companies to increase share holders value.
by tumetab1 6y ago
You're assuming the shareholders would support such decision.
Keep in mind there's a legal mandate for public traded companies to increase share holders value. It's grey-ish legal requirement but I don't think the executive management wants to risk the legal consequences of doing the right thing.
Edit: it's shareholders and not stakeholders that matter.
- mrweasel 6y agoIf Apple was kicked out of China, leaving them with no Chinese manufacturing... ? In that case the shareholders have no option, it's either that or sell no new devices. If you mean that the shareholders would rather please the Chinese government, rather than risk getting kicked out of China, then yes, I think Apple would go a long way to not piss off China.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoYou can make an argument that it increases shareholder value long term because if China increases human rights, it increases the shareholder value of the world in monetary terms because people will be better off.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago> Keep in mind there's a legal mandate for public traded companies to increase share holders value. It's grey-ish legal requirement but I don't think the executive management wants to risk the legal consequences of doing the right thing. What are the legal consequences? I keep reading about these mysterious laws that require management to maximize shareholder value or profits or whatnot, but I’ve never heard of a court punishing management for not doing so (never mind the fact that it’s impossible to define and prove per legal standards).