4 ms·

I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. You're right in that being unethical is the best way to get a

I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. You're right in that being unethical is the best way to get ahead in the game, and it might be a good idea to make it so that's not the case. That said, the US of A is an adversarial society.

brazzy 13y ago
> I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. Not if the shareholders want them to be ethical more than profitable. Arguably, shared ownership tends to promote turning a blind eye to that aspect.
- kevinpet 13y ago
  Not for a public C corp. They must maximize shareholder value, or a minority shareholder could sue and win. Patagonia changed their corporate structure to a California B corp to allow this.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    Sounds like a caricature of the actual laws.
il 13y ago
A corporation is just a group of people. It's not possible for a corporation to be ethical or unethical, a corporation doesn't have a soul or a conscience. It's possible for specific people inside a corporation to behave in unethical ways. However, the definition of maximizing shareholder value is not simply "make the stock price as high as possible in the short term." It's perfectly possible for executives in a corporation to take the high road as the optimal strategy for maximizing shareholder value.
- rhizome 13y ago
  It's not possible for a corporation to be ethical or unethical, a corporation doesn't have a soul or a conscience. Thankfully, ethics do not depend on the existence of a soul nor conscience. There is a such thing as emergent behavior, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence