> 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.

> 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.

	▲	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.