3 ms·
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 tha
by 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 agoActually 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 agoThere 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 agoTheres no right™ thing. There are things you like and you don't like.
- eloff 5y agoI 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.