[kfreds]

I disagree. Daniel's private actions does not represent the company. The difference between the private actions of a CEO and an employee's is that if the actions are controversial they are much more likely to affect the company's reputation if a CEO did them than if an employee did them.

[roryirvine]

Does Swedish corporate law not have the concept of bringing the company into disrepute?

In the European countries I'm familiar with, company directors are held to a higher standard precisely because they represent the company and have a duty to avoid damaging it through their private as well as public acts. Is Sweden really so very different?

[JuniperMesos]

If this is the law in Sweden it should be immediately repealed, precisely in order to prevent people from arguing that a political donation counts as legally-punishable "damage to a company" if it's the wrong kind of political donation.

The fact that you're claiming that a donation to an anti-immigration political party is the sort of conduct that people "held to a higher standard" by law should be forbidden from doing is a type of political censorship that you're trying to enact via the mechanism of corporate law, and it's worth destroying that mechanism of corporate law over it.

[roryirvine]

He has clearly brought the company into disrepute. The appalled reaction of so many of their customers is ample evidence of that.

It doesn't really matter how that's happened - it wouldn't be the donation that's the problem from the pov of corporate law in other countries, it's the fact that a company director has harmed the company.