[slg]

>If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose.

If this is true, it should be easy to point to some examples from the last hundred years. Because that Wikipedia article you linked makes it very clear that the conclusion you're drawing is highly debated. The disagreement is important enough to be mentioned in the second sentence in that article. The first source on the page is the actual case and the next two are both criticisms of the interpretation that you seem to very confident in.

[mnau]

It faces criticism, but still held true. "sacrificing profit for moral reasons" is not acting in best interest of shareholders. That doesn't mean maximizing value at all times btw, e.g. assessing potential reputational damage and sacrificing some profit by not doing something can be acting in best interest of shareholders (or not, depending on circumstances).

Target is embroiled in one of such lawsuits over ESG mandates. https://www.dandodiary.com/2023/08/articles/esg/target-hit-w...