• CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    They aren’t cowards. They are legally obligated to make more profit for the shareholders. They couldn’t give a rats ass about anything else. Any public company showing “support” for pride is only doing it because they think it will drive more business than they’ll lose. The system is fucked

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Common misconception. Fiduciary Duty means the Board of Directors has to act in a company’s best interest. It does not mean they legally have to maximize every single profit possibility, short and long-term. Some people feel that improving a company’s reputation or outreach is in its best interest, even if it doesn’t increase profits.

      It’s also important to know that no one has ever been found guilty of failing to fulfill fiduciary duty, and it’s pretty vague. Companies can still do what they want, don’t let them tell you their hands were tied and they had to do [awful, greedy thing that everyone hates]…

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        5 months ago

        no one has ever been found guilty of failing to fulfill fiduciary duty

        For as big a deal as is made of this by investment advisors and similar roles, this is shocking to read.

          • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Madoff was straight up ponzi scheme fraud, not profit maximisation.

            Enron guys were fraudulently booking future possible revenues as certainties.

            Deliberate illegal misrepresentation is very different from making a (possibly) sub optimal business decision.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            A quick search suggests Enron and Bernie Madoff are a couple of examples of conviction, but maybe there are nuances I’m not familiar with.

      • kalleboo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Tim Cook even famously responded to a right-wing troll during a shareholder meeting asking Apple to commit to only doing profitable things and dropping stuff like making their production climate neutral with "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI.” “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.” and somehow he’s still around

        edit: it really pissed them off too haha https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2014/02/28/tim-cook-to-apple-investors-drop-dead/

    • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      They are required to provide a safe working environment. I think this has more to do with that for the companies in the retail space.

      Those that just produce products are all image and can suffer whatever PR backlash they create.