[Draiken]

The problem I see is that there are literally zero incentives for a company to do that. A company is a "being" that only has one purpose: profits.

Even if your company does try to stick with a moral compass, because of how capitalism works, every other company will swallow you.

I'm not a finance expert, so I always had this question in my mind. Is there any way to avoid that? I can't think of a way to do that without changing the fundamental purpose of a company.

[npunt]

It's only a recent notion that profit maximization is a company's sole purpose, and what that means differs a great deal based on whether you're trying to maximize short-term profits vs long-term. The longer term you get, the more you have to consider things that are beyond the scope of immediate profit maximization.

Historically there are many examples of companies that have considered their shareholders, employees, and communities as part of their duties. A famous example being Ford, but many companies consider a broader purpose beyond profits, and say so in their annual filings as to what types of investors they want and what to expect.

And to get technical, companies have a duty to their shareholders, not profits, because shareholders have the ability to fire the leadership of the company. It so happens that most shareholders primarily want profits, but this isn't universal.

You can also see examples of having legal responsibility be beyond just shareholders, such as in the bylaws added by B-corps which allow carve-outs for different bottom lines. There's a lot going on in the space.

I also wouldn't assume that if you fail to solely pursue profits, that you will therefore be signing your death sentence. That's both an assumption of efficient markets (they aren't), and that a given industry is always going to reward a business that seeks the most profit. Profit does help companies acquire or beat others, but the pursuit of profit is something that customers and shareholders may not always reward in a given industry.

[Draiken]

I agree with pretty much all your points, however you are talking about exceptions.

The rule is still profits first.

I really wish our entire society would change to care about humans and not money but I can't see it ever happening.

People still prefer buying cheap things from China labour because it's convenient. The individuals don't care (or don't care enough) and the companies are a reflection of that. As you said, shareholders are the ones in control of the company but the consumers will determine their decisions.

It doesn't matter that children are sewing your shoe, as long as you buy them for a cheap price. What would happen if a company in that area were to double their price because they're changing suppliers to more humane companies? What would happen to a CEO that presents a graph showing the costs going up and profits going down?

The shareholders will surely fire the CEO and the consumers will be outraged with the price increase and will most likely be switching to a competitor.

My point is that it doesn't matter if a few exceptions do the right thing. The rule is still the same and it will never change. That's capitalism's entire foundation.

[tomasien]

First of all, the idea that companies exist only to create profits does not mean that companies need to seek profits above all else. PEOPLE run and form companies and get to make decisions about how they run and form companies based on their own decision criteria. There's nothing about starting a company that excludes you from society and moral thinking.

Second of all, even thinking of the profit motive, people want to do work they feel good about. If you must make a profit argument, it's important for companies to draw lines about what they will and won't do and stick to them, to earn and keep the trust of their stakeholders (especially employees).

[Draiken]

While I agree with you, it's not what I see day to day. It all goes out of the door as soon as profits are affected.

Even more so for publicly traded companies. They will do whatever it takes to make profits. Just look at Google, Microsoft and Apple. They all started out with good intentions, but at some point they all turned into what they are today.

I really want someone smarter than me to say: yeah we just have to do X. But I'm afraid the end-game of capitalism was not really something anyone predicted (or cared?).

Every single industry out there exploits human beings for profits first, and if it makes good PR, sometimes they help people for a change.

The food industry creating a culture of unhealthy people, now even cashing in the "healthy" fad. The tech industry viciously exploiting privacy for advertising. The media also moved by the number of clicks on headlines. The health industry profiting off the sick. The list goes on.

While people run all of this, I can bet that the majority of them will make the choice that benefits "the company" over the one that benefits human beings even if only to get that promotion. Very few will sacrifice their careers to refuse doing something shady. Even at the micro scale, if you don't do it, the next guy will.