Individual companies of course can and do do all kinds of things that may not be most profitable, but in the long run it's survival of the most profitable. Those get the most capital and thus have the most power of towards which goals resources are allocated.
Also companies, especially public companies, are typically mandated by law to prioritize profit.
There is no such law, ChatBLT told me so.
But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room alone that if such a law existed it would be meaningless.
There is no such law, ChatBLT told me so.
But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room that even if such a law existed it would be meaningless.
Have you heard of e.g. East India companies? Or United Fruit?
Most of stock is not owned by individual persons (not that there aren't individuals that don't give a shit about enslaving people), but other companies and institutions that by charter prioritize profit. E.g. Microsoft's institutional ownership is around 70%.
The presence of unethical people does not imply that all people are unethical, only that people are different. And that's my point. Reducing a company to "they will always maximize shareholder value" is incorrect - for many, many companies that is simply not true.
My point is that in the big picture ethics don't even matter, companies become something that transcend the individuals. Almost like algorithms that just happen to be implemented by humans (and exceedingly machines). There are no "they".
Also companies, especially public companies, are typically mandated by law to prioritize profit.