[grandalf]

> There's a popular idea that businesses (and people) have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves.

It's not just a popular idea, it's why they are created as firms instead of philanthropies. There is a difference and it does matter what the expectations of the donors/investors are.

> We're a tech company whose success is completely dependent on the freedoms in our nation...

This sounds great but how is it reflected in company policies?

> They can't sacrifice their company for every principle, every time, but there's a middle ground between that 'we're just a tech company so we have no responsibilities'.

A company could easily make a statement to its investors about its moral stance on issues that it expects might harm the bottom line.

The company does have responsibility to its investors not to go rogue and burn cash just because it feels good. Most of the time the kind of corporate behavior that you praise is actually clever PR that costs the companies little.

[Frondo]

Everyone has a responsibility to the world around them.

It may not be coded into law, but it is still a true statement.

[grandalf]

Not sure how you thought my sentiments disagree with that.

[dreamweapon]

It's why they are created as firms instead of philanthropies.

A false dichotomy.

[grandalf]

> A false dichotomy.

I'm curious about your reasoning behind this statement.

[dreamweapon]

It seems like you're saying that private enterprises should either completely divest themselves from any commitment to social responsibility (defined broadly as: "doing the right thing because it's the right thing, even when it may seem to go against the bottom line") -- or they might as well thrown in the towel and become philanthropies. Yes?

In other words -- on the blackhat-whitehat scale, it's either black- (or at least very charcoal-y grey-), or whitehat. But I just don't see modern, large companies generally acting that way -- not because they're led by altruists (they're certainly not); but because that's just not human nature (across the board). Most of us are greyhats (somewhere on the scale); and the behavior most business leadership I've either read about, or seen directly (behind closed doors) seems to fall somewhere on the greyhat scale, also.

That is: large business definitely aren't philanthropies -- but in general, most of them (even many of the traditional "bad boy" players like banks, big pharma, etc) -- aren't straight-up moral nihilists, either.

At least that's the way I observe these things. I could be wrong.

[grandalf]

I don't disagree, but in terms of a framework for evaluating the behavior of businesses I think the following is reasonable:

Businesses should act within the law, and lawmakers and the public determine what legal safeguards are necessary. For example, if you start a restaurant you must comply with health code, fire code, etc. If you start a bank you need to keep a certain amount of risk capital, etc., etc.

One could argue that all dishes used by a restaurant should go through hospital level sterilization, or that banks should contain more risk capital than they are required to by law. Such arguments would be in the name of safety or quality.

One could similarly argue that restaurants should use at least 20% locally grown produce or that banks should lend 20% of capital to underprivileged groups. Such arguments are in the name of moral responsibility, etc., and lawmakers have actually implemented many such laws for banks.

For an investor who wishes to invest in a bank or a restaurant, there are many options. Being able to compare financials and other metrics will help the investor figure out which is the smartest investment (based on her risk appetite, etc., etc.)

Why might a restaurant decide to focus on locally grown produce or a bank decide to focus on its ethical treatment of subprime borrowers? Largely for PR/marketing reasons. If such marketing campaigns are successful, customers will flock to the bank or restaurant in question and (assuming they are still able to be profitable) make the bank or restaurant a more desirable investment.

One can pick any business and any metric that he thinks has moral significance and claim either "regulators should require x, y, or z" or that "that practice is horrible". One might be right... essentially ahead of the game morally from society's average.

The perception of moral progressiveness, like the font chosen for a brand, is one factor that helps determine a business's success. It may be the case that most of the meat we eat was raised in unconscionable conditions, or that 30% of imported electronics were assembled by modern serfs in near-slavery. The more we are aware of such things, the more likely firms are to make the most progressive choices.

[ehvatum]

A business may choose to exert political influence. If business is guided only by law, and law is guided by business, a paradox exists.