3 ms·

So if the BoD is supposed to oversee the executives to ensure that Nestles operations are maximizing shareholder holder returns, and if through the course of ov

So if the BoD is supposed to oversee the executives to ensure that Nestles operations are maximizing shareholder holder returns, and if through the course of overseeing management, Nestle decides to attempt a new strategy for customer retention (sugar addiction), which most certainly was at least mentioned to the board in passing during some update meeting, and if the board did not shut down the initiative because it’s good for shareholder returns (addicted customers are customers for life), then in some ways they are responsible for the company’s actions.

gruez 2y ago
>if through the course of overseeing management, Nestle decides to attempt a new strategy for customer retention (sugar addiction), which most certainly was at least mentioned to the board in passing during some update meeting, and if the board did not shut down the initiative 1. those are a lot of "if"s 2. it's not necessary that the explicit decision to add sugars made it all the way up to the board. That could be due to banal (eg. board of directors doesn't care about every minutiae of how the business) or nefarious reasons (ie. providing plausible deniability). >then in some ways they are responsible for the company’s actions To be clear, I'm not claiming they should be left off the hook entirely, just that claiming they're "directly" responsible doesn't make much sense. From my original comment: >It's fine to claim "the buck stops at the board/CEO and they should be responsible"