Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.
Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.
Something similar has happened. Look up Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a ceo must operate in the interest of the shareholders not in the interests of the business and it’s employees.
Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I’m not saying the above as a forgiveness, I’m stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal “corporate officer” of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.
Maybe you’ll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
If they thought they would profit from a direct murder, they would. It’s not like they ever see any significant penalties for murder.
Usually it is an indirect murder, though. Like we are reading about chicken processing plants deciding it is more profitable to maim or kill children rather than pay adults.
I mean… if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it’s more like a recommendation. Fines become a “cost of doing business”.
No they fucking don’t.
They choose to do so out of greediness the vast majority of the time, but it isn’t a legal obligation.
Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.
Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.
Grobow v. Perot, 539 A.2d 180 (Del. 1988).
Directors in a business should:
Fair point, I was unaware of this case.
You are actually not wrong but if they dont obey BoD, it is the shed.
Bigger question here if this “simplification” is a valid tactic to communicate the message.
Theoretically BoD could sue the CEO, but i dont think that ever happened in this context… Only in cases of fraud, ie stealing company assets
Something similar has happened. Look up Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a ceo must operate in the interest of the shareholders not in the interests of the business and it’s employees.
Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I’m not saying the above as a forgiveness, I’m stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal “corporate officer” of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.
Maybe you’ll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.
Nope. There are these obligations but it is not illegal for a CEO to perform sub optimally, or even make multi year losses.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
If they thought they would profit from a direct murder, they would. It’s not like they ever see any significant penalties for murder.
Usually it is an indirect murder, though. Like we are reading about chicken processing plants deciding it is more profitable to maim or kill children rather than pay adults.
I mean… if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it’s more like a recommendation. Fines become a “cost of doing business”.