4 ms·
> and not be found working against the interest of shareholders. It depends on what the interests of the shareholders actually is. Monetary only, or are there
by SkyMarshal 5y ago
> and not be found working against the interest of shareholders.
It depends on what the interests of the shareholders actually is. Monetary only, or are there other considerations they care about?
I assume the boards of such companies have had private discussions with the majority shareholders to find out exactly what their priorities are, and then acted accordingly.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y ago>It depends on what the interests of the shareholders actually is. Monetary only, or are there other considerations they care about? Is a board allowed to consider anything but?
- namdnay 5y agoOf course they are, major investors regularly push boards to do more ESG for example
- riccardomc 5y agoYes. The law doesn't bind directors to maximize shareholders value. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/comment/cw9t52d/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/comment/cw9t52d...
- ameister14 5y agoI could be wrong but I don't think Twitter is a B corp.
- riccardomc 5y agoTwitter is not a B-Corp indeed. However any company, not just B-Corps, can have a purpose other than shareholders value maximization. Check this article: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12660 https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12660 There's an easily searchable index of B-Corps: https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp
- ameister14 5y ago>any company, not just B-Corps, can have a purpose other than shareholders value maximization. It's moving there but I don't think it's there quite yet according to case law. The board motivations at present still have to tie back to maximizing value for shareholders.
- ameister14 5y agoSo most directors can get around the shareholder primacy rule pretty easily by tying the changes they want back to shareholder value.