Comment by rileymat2
4 hours ago
That’s a bit of an overstatement, the executives and board can and do weight reputational long term damage at times.
4 hours ago
That’s a bit of an overstatement, the executives and board can and do weight reputational long term damage at times.
Seems to be that big companies usually push to externalize costs and take advantage as much as possible, to the detriment of everyone else. Shareholders have a right to sue them if they don't.
Fake cures, filthy mines, toxic ingredients, polluted waterways, fraud, predation, monopolies, algorithmic social outrage networks, etc. These things have been going on for a long time. Regulations have fixed a lot of problems.
It doesn't seem that reputation matters as much as regulation. It doesn't take many greedy people/companies to leave behind a big mess. Just a few breaking the rules (including the cultural rules around reputation) gain an advantage over all those who don't.
What better way for society to protect itself?
The executives are trying to maximize shareholder value. They are shareholders through options at the least. The board can also own shares (which should be illegal).
The executives are trying to make more money. They get paid in shares so making the share price go up makes them more money. Whether or not the means used to achieve that end are beneficial to other shareholders is beside the point. This is potentially a violation of fiduciary duty.
> They get paid in shares so making the share price go up makes them more money. Whether or not the means used to achieve that end are beneficial to other shareholders is beside the point.
The point was, increasing shareholder value is equivalent to increasing their own paychecks. So they are doubly incentivized to choose shareholder value over other values. Most people would still choose health/life of other humans, but the incentives are certainly off without regulation.