|
|
|
|
|
|
by flashyfaffe2
2272 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not sure understand the rationale behind your question. Does a company in general have to provide benefit to the society overall? If so then rather to erase a lot of companies.
Airbnb seems to provide a service where their clients are fine with.
Like it or not, Airbnb is just the consequence of number of decisions made in the past and they simply put a foot in the highly réglemented real estate, builder, and tourism business by providing a service that was more in line with the current needs.
It's not Airbnb s fault if this so difficult to increase the number of new building every year, not Airbnb's fault if a simple landlord can offer better service than an hotel chain, not Airbnb's fault if landlord prefer to deal to less complicated short rent. Airbnb is just taking advantage of a more ugly situation ( sure you have witnessed displeasant adventures encountered in buying house, going to holiday or move out from a flat).
However I wouldn't be surprised if they have speeded up the process you blamed. Please note that I do not work nor ever used Airbnb before. |
|
|
Is your question one of corporate citizenship, or legal obligations?
If the former, yes.
If the latter, then some countries have legal requirements, like https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-repo... regarding reporting requirements about certain social practices, for large companies in the EU, or https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f2e36590-95bd... which suggests that Germany may "require businesses to establish a sophisticated compliance management system to protect human rights in their global supply chains."
> Airbnb seems to provide a service where their clients are fine with. .. Airbnb is just the consequence of ..
I don't understand your statement. Surely there's any number of organizations which provide illegal and/or immoral services, which their clients are fine with. That doesn't mean those services should be allowed to continue, does it?
In US history, the Pinkertons were a private detective agency/security force. Its clients hired them (among other things) as strikebreakers. Their anti-union activities included using machine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs to break up union meetings.
Their clients were "fine with" their services, which were "just a consequence of a number of decisions made in the past" and which met "the current needs" of their clients.
I don't think these actions of the Pinks were beneficial to society, or morally correct, or something that should be allowed to continue.
While, if I understand it, your argument seems to accept that anything which happened (and was legal, and of benefit to its customers), should be allowed to happen in the future, rather than recognizing that some behaviors are so detrimental that they should be made illegal, even when they benefit some.