[acdha]

> But that doesn't change the fact that current publicly traded companies are legally required to maximize profits to shareholders above other goals.

This is a common belief but it’s a complete falsehood. Business officers are given enormous leeway to make decisions based on their judgment, and it’s exceedingly rare for those to be successfully challenged.

The reason is simple: you can’t predict the future and there isn’t a proven path to success. Maybe you think screwing your workers is good for profits now but bad for the long-term prospects, or vice versa: either way, the CEO will never face a penalty for that call since it falls squarely in the category of judgement and discretion. Everyone knows that sometimes you need to make a gamble - imagine where shareholders would be if Apple had followed the analysts telling them to license Windows or sell Mac OS to PC vendors at various points in the 90s, both things portrayed as safer moves than buying NeXT…

[fndksksvdk]

Yes, executives can and do excercise personal judgement. But if their actions are unprofitable for long enough, shareholders will vote them out.

You're right that legally there's little way to enforce the intent of CEO actions, that doesn't mean shareholders would let a CEO that puts public good above profits keep his job. Gambles like buying NeXT are more acceptable because they might pay out.

[acdha]

> Yes, executives can and do excercise personal judgement. But if their actions are unprofitable for long enough, shareholders will vote them out.

None of which is a legal requirement as you falsely claimed.

This matters because that mythical legal requirement is commonly used to excuse bad behavior. That only works because people spread that lie.