[vetler]

> In terms of a large profit making company, the company has to make ever increasing profits for the shareholders or else it becomes pretty much illegal. Thus, currently these conditions are necessary, there is nothing to stop them, because to stop them means that a corporation is not operating properly.

This is just bullshit, for lack of a better word. First of all, increasing profits does not force anyone to do horrible things. Second of all, that a company has to maximize profits all the time, is a myth: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/8146/230

[chippy]

Thanks for the link, I was wrong on the legal point, but it's not all bullshit.

From that thread: "They don't get punished for not maximizing shareholder value. But it is true that maximizing value needs to be their goal and they may not be negligent in the pursuit of that goal."

It also confirms that a corporation must in general make an effort to maximise profits, if that is what the shareholders want. So, we should make it clear to the corporations and the shareholders that reducing their profits by increasing the quality of life of their suppliers is an acceptable loss and may actually increase value and therefore something that the directors should aim for. That shareholders have to be confident to tell their directors that they will not be negligent if they try to improve sweatshop conditions in their suppliers.

[vetler]

It doesn't have to be the shareholders responsibility to tell directors that, the directors can even just assume that - as they should. Big companies don't all set out to ruin the world just to make money, and I'm not saying that is your opinion, but I get the feeling that this is sometimes implied when discussing how to maximize profits.

Companies even donate money to charity, without any concern for short term profits.

[pizza234]

> Companies even donate money to charity, without any concern for short term profits.

"Donating money" is not an indicator of "morality" at all, because it has tax and PR advantages.

It's not about doing or not doing it, but they fact that business are complex, and this specific choice doesn't tell anything in general.

Even a, let's say, a fictional company "Momsanto", which corrupts politicians and violently silences researchers and farmers, surely would have a (again, fictional) foundation for "making difference in someone else's life" [any resemblance to real companies is purely coincidental].

[ptaipale]

> "Donating money" is not an indicator of "morality" at all, because it has tax and PR advantages.

Do you imply that tax and PR advantages completely make it impossible that some companies still might want to give money away to good causes for moral reasons?

In other words, you think that moral choices are solely based on money?

[TeMPOraL]

Big companies don't all set out to ruin the world just to make money, but companies don't set business practices, Moloch does[0]. Those that don't sufficiently optimize for profit get replaced by ones that do, so in the end you have a drive towards ruining the world.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/