[derefr]

> it won't go public since that would make running their business "very difficult" (hm, because you're doing reprehensible work perhaps?)

Well, more generally, anyone who has a nonstandard set of ethical beliefs, and is basing their company around that set of beliefs, can't really go public without their belief-set being thrown under the bus of their shareholders' belief-set.

For example, I've often considered starting a company in the game industry that actually hires experienced adults and treats them well, rather than hiring fresh college students and burning them out. I imagine, though, that if my hypothetical company became publicly-traded, I'd be forced to relinquish this policy in the name of short-sighted market competitiveness.

[linkregister]

You could go the Google and Facebook route of having voting-class and non-voting class shares. Sergey and Larry, and Zuck still retain control of their companies.

[fiatmoney]

Until they die, the company goes bankrupt, or it's subject to such a compelling buyout offer that they can't responsibly decline it.

Capitalism wins, eventually.