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 19 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 13 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.