| |
| ▲ | SR2Z a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky a day ago | parent [-] | | > The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one. The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do. > It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it does not mean money. A fiduciary duty is a duty to manage money in someone else's best interests. It's confusing because "fiduciary" sounds like you have to optimize for the mercenary interests of shareholders, but that is not true. Not every corporation is founded to turn a profit; what do you think the fiduciary duty looks like for a nonprofit? The general obligation for the company to behave morally comes from two places: specific laws and the fact that its employees want to sleep at night. These are more powerful than a lot of people want to give credit for. | |
| ▲ | nativeit a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How are unsustainable decisions and practices working in the best interests of the shareholders? | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They aren't, and as such, deciding to forego short-term profit by making sustainable decisions and practices is of course not illegal whatsoever, nor does any company ever get sued for it. | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Investors are motivated by short term gains. | | |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both. The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What is that based on? It's based on the (US) law. Corporate officers failing to advance the interests of the company can be prosecuted civilly or criminally. There is no analogous legal obligation to act morally or in the interest of the general public. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo... | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is absolutely not true. Your link is focused on the UK, the "interests of the company" are independent of "the interests of shareholders", and the duties/breaches listed there revolve around betraying the company (not shareholders) for individual gain. Insider trading, embezzlement, leaking, conflicts of interests. Nothing at all like "making a decision that prioritizes morals over short-term profits". | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Required amorality is a widely told story (by the amoral), but it's disinformation. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | deaux a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No , you're spreading misinformation [0]. The company's board does not have a legal obligation to "act in the interest of stockholders regardless of moral impact" in any meaningful manner. Anything, including "positive moral impact", can be spun as being in the interest of shareholders. What you're implying is a legal duty towards short-term profit maximization. Absolutely nothing of the sort exists. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975048 | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Can be spun" is doing a lot of work in your argument. In fact, corporate officers are routinely sued (or even criminally prosecuted) for failing to advance specifically the company's interests. Trying to "spin" general moral good as a net positive for the company when it negatively impacts share price typically does not sway a jury. https://www.iod.com/resources/governance/fiduciary-duties-fo... | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're now entering complete FUD territory. Firstly your link is aimed at the UK. This thread started about Google and talked about the US. But hey, let's imagine it's focused on the US. Let me quote what you were claiming: > the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact. Yet now you're saying yourself: > failing to advance specifically the company's interests You silently swapped the "stockholder's" interests - which is what this thread, and the oft mentioned "fiduciary duty", are about - for the "company's" interests. In this legal context, these are two very different things. And then if you actually read the duties they list (i.e. the ones to the company, not the shareholders) and the breaches they talk about, it's stuff like self-dealing, conflicted transactions, usurping corporate opportunities, securities law violation. This has nothing to do with making business decisions in order to prioritize short-term shareholder value. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Not sure what this means That's quite a statement. > I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty" No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand. > the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact. That's a theory of the ~1980s that people who suffer from its consequences still seem to latch onto - perhaps it's simplicity is appealing, maybe its algorithmic decision-making appeals to the IT world - but not true. Even now, when such things are at historical extremes, corporations take into account other issues. Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced. | | |
| ▲ | hackyhacky 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. But you are kidding yourself if you think Apple is willing to sacrifice billions of dollars for a "moral good". I'm not saying (publicly traded) companies never act morally. I am saying that given a choice, they will always choose profits over morality. > Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced. And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. It's performative posturing to improve the company's image in pursuit of profits, not a real moral stand. How does Raytheon putting a rainbow in their advertising for one month a year help anyone? And as soon as they feel the cultural tide shift, they drop those policies like a hot potato. > That's a theory Not a theory. It's literally the law. | | |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Not a theory. It's literally the law. It is not, which is why you've failed to show that law, or indeed any cases in the last 50 years of companies having been successfully sued for such a thing. It's honestly so obvious that this couldn't be the law that I can't assume good faith here. It's completely untenable as a principle, it wouldn't be possible to run a business if it were the law. Imagine what that law would look like. Would it be short term profit maximization? Would it be long term? What would that term be? You're literally saying that there's a law that would ask judges to decide whether business decision X maximizes Y-term profit. A child could see how that would be impossible. It's asking for a fortune teller on a subject that is inherently very volatile. The whole point of running a business is believing that you can make decisions that you think are right to succeed. If this were real, you'd genuinely see companies running from the US because it'd be untenable to run a business there. This is the worst case of FUD I've seen on HN bar none, because it's one person being so persistent about a complete myth. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's easy for a company to build privacy-related features, if those features help sell products. As I said in the GP, Apple's engineering investment in privacy is far beyond what customers understand and what helps sales. Lots of companies simply add the word 'privacy' to their marketing and do nothing about it that has an impact ('we use 256-bit encryption to protect your data!' seems popular on websites). > And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much. Which studies? |
|
|
|
