Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
It's a bit more than that, it's the law in the US. It's part of the fiduciary responsibility owed stockholders by corporate officers under federal law. I was a bit surprised when I saw that mentioned in an article I read about the corporate social justice movement. Wish I could find the article again since it cited the Federal law in question that was passed sometime in the mid 70's. I had thought that corporate officers were required to act in the corporation's best interest, not just the stockholders, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
Well, technically, if the corporate officers act against the best interest of the corporation they are also acting against the best interests of the stockholders, since doing so will eventually lead to the closing of the company.
Shari
|
As reported last month in the
New York Times:
Quote:
Nearly 200 chief executives, including the leaders of Apple, Pepsi and Walmart, tried on Monday to redefine the role of business in society — and how companies are perceived by an increasingly skeptical public.
Breaking with decades of long-held corporate orthodoxy, the Business Roundtable issued a statement on “the purpose of a corporation,” arguing that companies should no longer advance only the interests of shareholders. Instead, the group said, they must also invest in their employees, protect the environment and deal fairly and ethically with their suppliers.
|
Full
NYT article
here.
Business Roundtable statement
here.