4 ms·

Is it possible for a publicly listed company to remain benevolent with the pressure for them to make even more YoY?

eloff 5y ago
It could, I think many companies do choose the right thing over the profitable thing, at least sometimes. Obviously not all companies, and not everytime. If that caused sufficient lost profits, shareholders might band together to try and change the leadership of the company. I can't cite a specific instance of this happening, I think it's rare. I would be surprised if it hasn't happened though
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Actually in most cases doing the non-profitable thing is literally illegal for executives. At least in the US, CEOs often have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders baked into their contracts. Granted they can always frame something as a loss leader or public outreach that will indirectly lead to long term profitability for the company, but they can never do charity for charity's sake.
  - eloff 5y ago
    There is lots of room to frame things though. And companies do charity and political donations and community service all the time. Maybe it's for the tax deduction, but it's also because companies are just people, and those people care about the world they live in.
- EvilEy3 5y ago
  Theres no right™ thing. There are things you like and you don't like.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I don't buy into moral relativism. There are things that result in more or less human flourishing. Often it's not that hard to see the right thing. There is some room for different value judgements, but that's not the same as saying all choices are morally equal. Which I don't think you're proposing.
specialist 5y ago
I keep thinking of General Motors. They somehow lost the narrative when they made more money financing loans for cars than actually making cars. Ads, engagement, loot boxes, freemium upsells, pyramid schemes, fintech, issuing debt... Smart money takes their profits. Retail investors are lucky to get some cheddar. Throngs of customers saddled with debt. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Svoka 5y ago
For company it is impossible to be "benevolent" because companies are not humans. This entities are almost always obligated to maximize shareholder profits. Not fiends of anyone, does not have any causes or reasons to exist except to maximize profits. Doing otherwise is almost always is a violation of the law and shareholders would sue executives if done differently.

It could, I think many companies do choose the right thing over the profitable thing, at least sometimes. Obviously not all companies, and not everytime. If that caused sufficient lost profits, shareholders might band together to try and change the leadership of the company. I can't cite a specific instance of this happening, I think it's rare. I would be surprised if it hasn't happened though

scottLobster 5y ago
Actually in most cases doing the non-profitable thing is literally illegal for executives. At least in the US, CEOs often have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders baked into their contracts. Granted they can always frame something as a loss leader or public outreach that will indirectly lead to long term profitability for the company, but they can never do charity for charity's sake.
- eloff 5y ago
  There is lots of room to frame things though. And companies do charity and political donations and community service all the time. Maybe it's for the tax deduction, but it's also because companies are just people, and those people care about the world they live in.
EvilEy3 5y ago
Theres no right™ thing. There are things you like and you don't like.
- eloff 5y ago
  I don't buy into moral relativism. There are things that result in more or less human flourishing. Often it's not that hard to see the right thing. There is some room for different value judgements, but that's not the same as saying all choices are morally equal. Which I don't think you're proposing.

specialist 5y ago

I keep thinking of General Motors. They somehow lost the narrative when they made more money financing loans for cars than actually making cars. Ads, engagement, loot boxes, freemium upsells, pyramid schemes, fintech, issuing debt... Smart money takes their profits. Retail investors are lucky to get some cheddar. Throngs of customers saddled with debt. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Svoka 5y ago

For company it is impossible to be "benevolent" because companies are not humans. This entities are almost always obligated to maximize shareholder profits. Not fiends of anyone, does not have any causes or reasons to exist except to maximize profits. Doing otherwise is almost always is a violation of the law and shareholders would sue executives if done differently.