Corporations exist to bring value to shareholders. They do this by defining their own targets with their own economic interests in mind. Maximize paperclip sale

Corporations exist to bring value to shareholders. They do this by defining their own targets with their own economic interests in mind. Maximize paperclip sales YoY, minimize costs. Just as a corporation cannot exist in a vacuum, neither should it's measure of success. It is impossible to have a corporation without financial, social and cultural impact in its operating environment. Why do we let corporations decide unilaterally what their success looks like, without input from the society they are operating in? How would our society look like if McDonald's was regularly taxed xcompanyScalepopulationObesity% for its operating country or region? Or Marlboro taxed companyScaley^(zpopulationLungCancer%)? There is certainly evidence linking those 2 societal, highly impacting "metrics" with the products of those corporations. The effects of which are amplified by the limitless maximization of burgers/cigarettes sold YoY. Maybe if depression can be somehow measured, and linked to social media usage, the same could apply to Facebook. It's way more complicated than burgers or cigarettes though. But the underlying cause is the same, the Friedman mantra of maximizing returns to shareholders, when taken from an exclusively economic perspective, is simply wrong and unethical. The societies impacted by the operations of a corporation, should have a say in what success looks like for that corporation.