I hope it isn't. My 401(k) won't provide for my retirement using Good Feelings. The best interest of the shareholders is running a profitable enterprise.
When you're 30, your concept of profit is different to when your 60. When you're 60 and considering living on the income from shareholdings in enterprises, you need both length and breadth. 15% next year but it tanks the two after is worse than 7% year on year.
Long term profitable enterprises do not asset strip, fail to invest, or destroy the market for a short term gain. These are all things which inside a 5-10 year planning cycle, many enterprises will willingly do, for apparent short term profit. Destroying the environment destroys future capital. Failing to employ women (51% of the population) for fair renumeration ignores competent staff, and destroys goodwill from half your market who in fact, make 75% of the significant purchase decisions in a domestic context.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I still won't invest my retirement into a company that doesn't prioritize profitability. I can't. It won't work if I lose money in my 401(k).
15%, 7%. These are positive numbers. They're profit.
Your retirement could include classes which only show a realized ROI on termination, and do not demonstrate profit across their life. Forestry for instance, is almost nothing but cost until 30 years later.
Profitability is inherent in anything which strives to increase value in the wider sense. You shouldn't invest in remediation of the environment directly as a retirement strategy, I agree. its solely cost. But you could chose to invest in a company which ethically contracts to perform the remediation. Now, you are both sides of the equation if (for instance) you live in Love canal, and its remediating the years of toxic waste, you benefit from the health outcome. So, what "cost" will you be prepared to pay in local taxes to fund the company you directly invest in, to earn profit to remediate?
Shareholders live in the world that the company creates. For example if the company contributes to global warming, it doesn't affect the stock price but it does affect the shareholders.
Money and markets are great tools, but they aren't gods; they aren't the answer to all questions.
Not that it's right or good, but shareholders profiting off of global warming are probably getting a net gain on the backs of the rest of the world.
If you want boards of directors to prioritize carbon neutrality and similar goals, you have to translate that into money. Tax the carbon and price the negative externalities. If you don't do this, and just hope all business people make decisions from their heart, you will always be let down.
The question really boils down to over what timeframe is shareholder value measured? A long-term approach would take into account externalities like global warming which affect future business operations and future shareholder value.
A short-term approach would look only to the current price of stock, regardless of all other considerations, justifying such things as massive layoffs, selling off core business assets, etc.