3 ms·
That'd cost shareholders potential revenue. There's no chance of any action that isn't prying it from the hands of those in charge of the company's bottom line
by SQueeeeeL 4y ago
That'd cost shareholders potential revenue. There's no chance of any action that isn't prying it from the hands of those in charge of the company's bottom line
- uoaei 4y agoSo what you're saying is, if we want to protect the environment, giving veto power to shareholders regarding the scope of remediation plans is a bad idea. Consider how many people will be unable to perform valuable (economy-driving) outcomes as a result of the injuries to their bodies and to the lands where they work and play -- surely more opportunity cost borne by the national economy than one company paying out damages and/or getting folded into a nationalized governance and ownership scheme. Investments are risks. Sometimes you gotta take the fall to keep from delegitimizing the entire system on which your sustenance depends.