[lores]

This is the most toxic of urban legends. Fiduciary duty to shareholders means acting in the interests of the company rather than your own. There is no duty to maximise profits against all morals.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

[CrossVR]

You're absolutely right, but the line between acting in the interest of the company and acting to maximize profits is so thin it might as well not exist.

It can be in the company's interest to act for the good of society and a CEO can claim that it is his fudiciary duty to act in the interest of society.

But when society's interests are in direct conflict with the interests of the company you cannot expect a CEO to act in the interest of society.

Even if a CEO is perfectly within their rights to act against the interests of the company, it doesn't change the fact that investors might replace him if the CEO does so consistently.

[b112]

Not even remotely true. This is an urban myth.

[CrossVR]

So the reason companies act against the interests of society is just a personal moral failing of the CEO and nothing else?

[disgruntledphd2]

Its because they make more money, not because they have a fiduciary duty.

[CrossVR]

So you have a fudiciary duty to put the company's interest first and you have no legal duty to put the public interest first (as long as no crimes are being committed).

What do you expect to happen in such a system?