[inverse_pi]

I'm opening a can of worms by saying what I'm about to say but here goes nothing: Why are people criticizing individual companies for "growing at all cost"? Every company was once a start-up fighting to survive, every large company was once medium size and had to fight with the Google, Amazon of their days. It is not the Nash equilibrium to NOT try growing at all cost. If they don't, they'll lose. So at what point should a company stop trying to grow at all cost? Is it when they've won all battles, like Google? So why are we looking into the past to criticize Facebook, Uber, and potentially many more startups that are "growing at all cost"? Of course, the definition of "all cost" shouldn't be taken too literally.

[dkural]

Your argument as I understand it is "Hey if I/companies don't do what's needed to survive, someone else will do it anyways, and I/companies lose". Just because some other group is willing to do unethical things (i.e. at all costs) doesn't make it ok for your company / you to do those things.

People generally cheat and do unethical things to "win" or "not lose". The reward doesn't make it any more ok.

Also, I can't believe I'm explaining this.

The memo was pretty literal - "someone might die", "things we have to do in China". Sounds like they truly meant "all cost".

[spinchange]

>So at what point should a company stop trying to grow at all cost?

This is an important philosophical question and underscores why company codes of ethics / conduct, statements of values, etc., aren't just feel good, rhetorical BS, but actually matter and are important part of culture. Each company has to decide where to draw the line. Deciding that there is one is an important first step and it needs to be supported and reinforced throughout the organization.

[coleifer]

It's not about growth. It's about money. And to get that money, some companies/executives are OK with harming anyone that gets in the way.