> Heck, a company with shareholders is practically legally obliged to... You are spreading the myth of a US (and most nations, for that matter) legal obligatio

> Heck, a company with shareholders is practically legally obliged to... You are spreading the myth of a US (and most nations, for that matter) legal obligation (the term of art is "fiduciary duty") of profit maximization to shareholders. Please read the following. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com... http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-va... https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism If you are an attorney, then in the past somewhere on Harvard Law's site I found an exhaustively-written piece that gives specific case law citations I could cross-reference from Lexis-Nexis. The bar to clear to prove fiduciary malfeasance in corporate governance is very high, and the latitude granted to company management very broad; shareholders can enforce a fiduciary preference through shareholder activism and throw out management, but the US judiciary has steadfastly refused to lightly step into the management-shareholder relationship in this regard. This blog post delves into the follow-on questions more in the vein of corporate social responsibility once you acknowledge the legal reality. http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/05/12/straight-talk-about-corporate-social-responsibility/ http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/05/12/straight-talk-ab...