# Political Compass #16: Shareholder profit is a company's only responsibility. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2004, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454 "2004-04-28T09:48:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Gest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gest)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/41 "2004-04-29T08:10:12Z")
The BBC has non-shareholder owners. That’s cos they’re liberal, pinko commies and all. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/42 "2004-04-29T09:42:17Z")
I believe that people have certain ethical responsibilities to the common good, and those responsibilities do not vanish because they happen to be employees of a corporation. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/43 "2004-04-29T10:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > If I murder you, and get away with it, does it justify murder? Does it necessarily mean I’ll get away with it next time too…or the time after? You simply can’t stop all the ills of the world. You can only structure your society, your laws, etc, to try and stop some of them. Some citizens, like some corporations, will push the envolope and try and ‘get away’ with things outside our laws. Sometimes they get caught and our punished. Sometimes they aren’t. Of course, however I was referring not to actions so cut-and-dried as outright murder but to instances in which socially negative outcomes were the result of shareholder profiteering: say, if deaths had occurred due to shareholder decisions not to invest in safety. They may have taken the view that paying fines rather than making the necessary investment was a **risk worth taking**. Now, true, that risk might not pay off, leaving the company bankrupt and the shareholders empty-handed. But it also _might_ pay off, either because they were lucky that nothing too bad occurred or because the punishment received did not impact on the shareholders directly. _Nonetheless, in either case they still had a **responsibility** which was additional to pure profit_. Corporations, like citizens, still have a responsibility not to exploit loopholes or deficiencies in the law which would clearly impact society to its detriment. If we are talking about _Third World_ countries, those loopholes and deficiencies might be big enough to drive a methyl isocyanate-filled train through. Shareholders _ought not_ do so just to raise dividends: It would be _socially irresponsible_ of them. We could wish upon a star that government regulation of business all over the world was _perfect_, that punishment for companies and citizens was _commensurable_ and that bankruptcy-causing fines or corporate manslaughter charges were the norm, but there will always be situations in which a company balances shareholder profit against some negative social impact which might not _clearly_ be illegal, or whose punishment is financially acceptable. While the _primary_ responsibility is to profit, companies should not simply _ignore_ their impact on public safety, working conditions or the environment, even where the law is vague or inadequate. > [@](#): > > I DO think citizens have ‘duty’ to the country…but then, corporations can be ‘drafted’ as well in war times. So there _is_ such a thing as responsibility other than to profit? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/44 "2004-04-29T11:16:34Z")
I don’t think companies have responsibilities any more than I think societies have rights. Just another loaded have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question that was impossible for me to answer. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/45 "2004-04-29T11:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think companies have responsibilities any more than I think societies have rights. There is _no such thing_ as responsibility, be it to shareholder profit _or_ public safety? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/46 "2004-04-29T14:18:52Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Just another loaded have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question … Well, have you? We’re all dying to know! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/47 "2004-04-29T14:57:08Z")
Firstly, observe that the responsibility to the shareholders isn’t necessarily just to produce a profit: for instance, the shareholders may prefer the company eschews sweatshops even at the expense of profit. They could perhaps demonstrate this by not voting to remove a chairman avowing this policy. May I propose an analogy? Often this isn’t helpful, but I think here it is. Adam is paying me to buy some widgets for him at the market. He gives me $100 for this purpose. Is it unethical if I give $5 of it to a beggar? How about if I choose to buy slightly more expensive widgets from a vendor who needs the money more? What if I choose the more expensive widgets with the expectation that in gratitude he will offer Adam a discount later? What if that was a reasonable but false expectation? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/48 "2004-04-29T15:13:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There is _no such thing_ as responsibility, be it to shareholder profit _or_ public safety? That’s not what I said. There is such a thing as responsibility, but it is not held by an abstract entity like a company. Hypostatization. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/49 "2004-04-29T15:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > There is such a thing as responsibility, but it is not held by an abstract entity like a company. Can it be held by a decision-making group, such as a meeting of shareholders? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/50 "2004-04-29T15:25:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > _gag_ Reaches over to emphatically check ‘horseshit’ box. > > Each person has a moral duty to advance the cause of Light and Love?? To make the species happier and healthier? You are your brothers keeper?? :rolleyes: You don’t actually believe this tripe…do you?? Stunning and literate rejoinders! Yes, it’s called having a spiritual perspective on things. I’m sure this is something unfamiliar to you. > [@](#): > > If there is no law against it, but society deems that something should be illegal, then it is OUR responsibility to make such laws. What are you saying here? That companies should judge their actions NOT based on existing laws but on something else?? What exactly?? Get real. I don’t think you’re even _trying_ to use logic here. So, if US businesses do business in Burma and follow the “laws” of the junta there, then everything is OK? If the multinationals go into a country with a corrupt government that says, “Rape the environment; just give us a nice kickback,” then they’re following the “laws” and that’s dandy? Answer the question. What I meant by “fairy wand” is this: a company without ethics is not going to obey a law on the books just because it’s there. A company _with_ ethics is likely to do so. Therefore, the ethics of a company must be based on something besides merely a committment to obey the laws. Recognize the point. > [@](#): > > You are right about one thing…laws on the book aren’t some fairy wand, nor are they, as you appearently think, some static thing cast in stone. As our society evolves so do our laws…and this is how it should be. > > I’d like to see which poster said that companies should break the laws as much as possible to maximize profits. I must have missed that one. Yeah, someone was making a point with this as an example. You did miss it. > [@](#): > > I’m frankly STUNNED by the naivete here, and scratching my head wondering how some folks make it in the real word. You have no concept of business at all, yet you are attempting to expound on business practices. This reads like somekind of cereal box marxist caracature. You aren’t pulling my chain here are you? Nice pack of invective and insults, but try actually arguing against the points I made. This is GD, not the Pit. > [@](#): > > I hesitate to ask this…but do you have a cite for your assertion that the entire capital stock system (whatever the hell that means to you) is dysfunctional? Sometimes people–incorrectly IMO–ask for **cites** for _matters of opinion_. If you’d like to know _my_ reasons for thinking it’s dysfunctional, it’s the fact that the relationship between the first owners in a joint stock company is healthy–they are truly concerned about the fate of the firm itself; whereas the second (or third or whatever) generation of investors buys the stock sheerly in the hope that they can sell it for a higher price. Hence, if a CEO pumps the price up short-term to the long-term detriment of the firm, those who have cashed out say Whoop-tee-doo, and that’s that. > [@](#): > > Do you have any evidence that cooperatively run companies perform better than stock held companies? Have you ever even seen a cooperatively owned company, or worked for one? Yes, I have worked for one, in fact, thank you very much. But if you really want to argue this, we’d have to discuss the meaning of the word “performance”; we’d have to discuss what we think the economy should focus on, etc. > [@](#): > > Cause I have…SAIC is an ‘employee owned’ company, and I worked for them for years. Employees can buy stock in the company (its privately held or was when I worked there…someone told me they were thinking of going public), and to an extent there is profit sharing. However, I hate to break it to you, but there is also a CEO and a board of directors who get all those goodies you mentioned before. Its not some kind of marxist workers utopia where the engineers sit down with the janators, the CEO with the file clerks, in Love and Light. Try for once to debate the person you’re actually debating. Where did I ever say I was a Marxist? Where did I ever advocate communism? I never have. > [@](#): > > If you want what you are obviously craving, I suggest you go to…um, Cuba I think still has what you are looking for. Probably North Korea also. Most of that drivel is now out of China, but you might be able to find the odd state run factory somewhere in the country. Man, you really seem to make an effort to be inflammatory and insulting in your posts. IANA mod, and this is just my personal opinion, but I think this style of argument detracts from the boards. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/51 "2004-04-29T15:36:50Z")
I think what **Lib** is getting at, in a somewhat enigmatic way, is that only individuals can have responsibilities, in the same way that only individuals can have rights. A corporation is not a physical entity, and the individuals who make up the corporation do not have any responsibilities **as a collective**. And a CEO has exactly as many rights and responsibilities as the lowest paid employee. Correct me if I’m wrong on this. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/52 "2004-04-29T16:02:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think what **Lib** is getting at, in a somewhat enigmatic way, is that only individuals can have responsibilities, in the same way that only individuals can have rights. A corporation is not a physical entity, and the individuals who make up the corporation do not have any responsibilities **as a collective**. And a CEO has exactly as many rights and responsibilities as the lowest paid employee. > > Correct me if I’m wrong on this. You’re not wrong, but I don’t think I was enigmatic about it. I even specified the fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/53 "2004-04-29T16:05:37Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t think you’re even trying to use logic here. So, if US businesses do business in Burma and follow the “laws” of the junta there, then everything is OK? If the multinationals go into a country with a corrupt government that says, “Rape the environment; just give us a nice kickback,” then they’re following the “laws” and that’s dandy? Answer the question. Lets turn it around, shall we? Say that a US flag company opens a branch in another country where their laws are more stringent than here in the States. Are you saying that the US flag company can then ignore the local laws and just follow the laws of the US in that case?? Or is it conditional in your mind, depending on which law is more stringent. If its US law then the US company should follow that. If its the local law, then the US company should follow THAT? Talk about somone not using logic, or didn’t you think this through? When a US company goes into a foriegn nation (or more likely partners with a local company in said country to provide manufacturing or services) they should follow the laws and customs of that nation. If that nation CHOOSES to have less stringent environmental laws, say, then thats their concern, not the US company and certainly not the local companies providing goods and services to US companies or to the US directly. > [@Aeschines](#): > > What I meant by “fairy wand” is this: a company without ethics is not going to obey a law on the books just because it’s there. A company with ethics is likely to do so. Therefore, the ethics of a company must be based on something besides merely a committment to obey the laws. Recognize the point. Thats what ‘laws’ and ‘law enforcement’ are for. If a company breaks the laws and is caught, then they are punished. Just like if a citizen breaks the laws and is caught. Since ethics can’t be dictated, we have laws and law enforcement. And no, I don’t recognize the point. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Yeah, someone was making a point with this as an example. You did miss it. In other words, no one was seriously advocating this, they were merely making a point of some kind (as you didn’t cite the post I’m still unclear…and I’m not going to re-read the whole thread to find this gem)…correct? > [@Aeschines](#): > > Nice pack of invective and insults, but try actually arguing against the points I made. This is GD, not the Pit. I was merely replying in the same tone I took from YOUR post, Aeschines, which was insulting and condecending. No, its not the Pit which is why I restrained myself to a few barbs in keeping with the general tone. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Sometimes people–incorrectly IMO–ask for cites for matters of opinion. If you’d like to know my reasons for thinking it’s dysfunctional, it’s the fact that the relationship between the first owners in a joint stock company is healthy–they are truly concerned about the fate of the firm itself; whereas the second (or third or whatever) generation of investors buys the stock sheerly in the hope that they can sell it for a higher price. Hence, if a CEO pumps the price up short-term to the long-term detriment of the firm, those who have cashed out say Whoop-tee-doo, and that’s that. If you mean a statement to be just in your opinion, indicate that. If you make sweeping statements without IMO qualifiers I think you are talking seriously and want to see a cite for it when it runs counter to my own perceived reality. And how often in the real world does that situation you are relating happen? It sounds like the standard scenerio for the dot com companies of the 90’s…and you will notice that the bubble burst on all that bullshit. Looking at the majority of the fortune 500 companies though, they are several generations down (generally) and this isn’t the norm. So its hard for me to see how “the **whole** system of capital stock that we have now is dysfunctional” from your example. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Try for once to debate the person you’re actually debating. Where did I ever say I was a Marxist? Where did I ever advocate communism? I never have. I didn’t say you were a marxist…I said you were spouting marxist like slogans, but even there they are almost caracatures of marxism. A lot of your language in that previous post was full of socialist/marxist flowery language. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Man, you really seem to make an effort to be inflammatory and insulting in your posts. IANA mod, and this is just my personal opinion, but I think this style of argument detracts from the boards. If you feel my posts are too over the top, please feel free to report me to the Mods and let THEM spank me if they feel the same. I do tend to get a bit sharp tongued when I feel someone is putting me on, as I felt you were in the previous post. -XT ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/54 "2004-04-29T16:19:07Z")
> [@](#): > > I think what Lib is getting at, in a somewhat enigmatic way, is that only individuals can have responsibilities And so the responsibility for the consequences of a company decision falls on the individuals having direct input into the decision process who advocated that action, _ie._ the shareholders and Chief Executive. These individuals are _responsible for the company’s actions_. If the nature of the objection is that “the responsibility of a company” is distinct from “The responsibility of the individuals who decide a company’s actions” then I’ll politely decline a ride on that particular carousel. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/55 "2004-04-29T16:24:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Lets turn it around, shall we? Say that a US flag company opens a branch in another country where their laws are more stringent than here in the States. Are you saying that the US flag company can then ignore the local laws and just follow the laws of the US in that case?? Or is it conditional in your mind, depending on which law is more stringent. If its US law then the US company should follow that. If its the local law, then the US company should follow THAT? Yes, a company should follow the local laws–IF it can do so ethically. If it can’t, then it shouldn’t be there in the first place. That’s why people have protested against Pepsi and other companies that have operated in Burma. But note: you have to have ethical principles in order to make this distinction. > [@](#): > > Talk about somone not using logic, or didn’t you think this through? When a US company goes into a foriegn nation (or more likely partners with a local company in said country to provide manufacturing or services) they should follow the laws and customs of that nation. If that nation CHOOSES to have less stringent environmental laws, say, then thats their concern, not the US company and certainly not the local companies providing goods and services to US companies or to the US directly. So, if I follow your logic correctly, then a company can go to a foreign country and do WHATEVER it wants so long as there is not a law against it? So, if slavery is legal in that country, it is A-OK to use slave labor, etc.? I don’t think there is a CEO out there who would dare to make this argument in public. And if you’re seriously making it, then you have no ethics whatsoever. > [@](#): > > Thats what ‘laws’ and ‘law enforcement’ are for. If a company breaks the laws and is caught, then they are punished. Just like if a citizen breaks the laws and is caught. Since ethics can’t be dictated, we have laws and law enforcement. And no, I don’t recognize the point. > [/quotes] > This is horrendous–I can’t believe I am actually reading this. So, if the government of XYZ says, We have no environmental laws; dump all the toxins you like in the river–then it’s OK to do so? You would feel OK as the CEO to destroy the environment in that country? And if the environmental impact of that hurts neighboring countries or the planet as a whole, then that is OK because it was legal in that one country? You’ve got to be joking. > > > [@](#): > > > > I was merely replying in the same tone I took from YOUR post, Aeschines, which was insulting and condecending. No, its not the Pit which is why I restrained myself to a few barbs in keeping with the general tone. > > Fair enough. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you mean a statement to be just in your opinion, indicate that. If you make sweeping statements without IMO qualifiers I think you are talking seriously and want to see a cite for it when it runs counter to my own perceived reality. > > I don’t care how sweeping it is, if it’s a matter of opinion then all a cite can do is quote someone else’s opinion. For matters of fact, yeah, a cite can make a difference. > > > [@](#): > > > > I didn’t say you were a marxist…I said you were spouting marxist like slogans, but even there they are almost caracatures of marxism. A lot of your language in that previous post was full of socialist/marxist flowery language. > > Hardly. Quote me something I said that was “Marxist” in tone. My rhetoric is New Age, not Marxist. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you feel my posts are too over the top, please feel free to report me to the Mods and let THEM spank me if they feel the same. I do tend to get a bit sharp tongued when I feel someone is putting me on, as I felt you were in the previous post. > > The only people I want the mods to “spank” are trolls, spammers, and way-over-the-top racists/neo-nazis. You rile me sometimes, but I really don’t have a big problem with ya, bro. > -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/56 "2004-04-29T17:12:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The only people I want the mods to “spank” are trolls, spammers, and way-over-the-top racists/neo-nazis. You rile me sometimes, but I really don’t have a big problem with ya, bro. No, I don’t have that big a problem with you either, except when you correct my english which is pretty bad, admittedly. 🙂 I think we rile each other a lot because we are looking at things from such different perspectives and through such different filters. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Yes, a company should follow the local laws–IF it can do so ethically. If it can’t, then it shouldn’t be there in the first place. That’s why people have protested against Pepsi and other companies that have operated in Burma. But note: you have to have ethical principles in order to make this distinction. And if, in the court of public opinion this hurts Pepsi and their sales drops, then they will most likely move out of there. Consumption capitalism in action. So, if we, as a society decide that Pepsi shouldn’t be in Burma (or if a large enough number of us decide this), then we vote with our pocketbooks on the matter, and if Pepsi is smart, they move their operation to another country…or they lose market share. If we, as a society don’t care enough to worry about it, then why should Pepsi? Companies should follow local laws and customs period. If we find companies doing things that are offensive to us, we have every right to boycott their products…as happens often enough here in the states. > [@Aeschines](#): > > So, if I follow your logic correctly, then a company can go to a foreign country and do WHATEVER it wants so long as there is not a law against it? So, if slavery is legal in that country, it is A-OK to use slave labor, etc.? I don’t think there is a CEO out there who would dare to make this argument in public. And if you’re seriously making it, then you have no ethics whatsoever. Of course there are limits, but the market itself deals with that. If a US flag company, operating in another country was found to be using ‘slave labor’ (something I think is pretty far out there, unless you have a cite such has happened) then there would be any number of people who were willing to boycott their products…and the company would lose market share. There could even be other actions taken against them if the hew and cry was loud enough. Most of your companies resorting to ‘slave labor’ are local companies providing US flag companies with goods or services. Again, labor practices and standards differ, and its not up to us to impose our standards on others. Let the market decide. If enough people get peeved enough at such practices, then places like Walmart who import a lot of clothing from such places will have to change their purchasing decisions. As for my PERSONAL ethics, well, thats kind of a harsh statement don’t you think? I have my own set of ethics just as you have your own set. We obviously see things vastly different. Why does that automatically make me unethical because you don’t see things the way I do? > [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t care how sweeping it is, if it’s a matter of opinion then all a cite can do is quote someone else’s opinion. For matters of fact, yeah, a cite can make a difference. Again, if I don’t know you are stating your opinion, I’m assuming you are asserting a fact…thus my request for a cite. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Hardly. Quote me something I said that was “Marxist” in tone. My rhetoric is New Age, not Marxist. How about if I just withdraw the whole ‘marxist’ thing as its irrelevant to the discussion at hand? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/57 "2004-04-29T17:25:52Z")
I would say that “social responsibility” (whatever that means, really), and profit are not mutually exclusive. It will often benefit a company to be socially responsible. To take an example: Let us say we have a successful meat-canning company, and domestic sales are good. After some number-crunching, the accountants say that it would be profitable for our company to raise, slaughter and can dog meat for export to countries where dog meat is a delicacy. (Disclaimer: I am not sure whether it is legal to export dog meat from the US. I’ll assume that it is for the purposes of this discussion.) Legally, we can, and can make money doing it. But, if word that we were exporting dog meat got out… It seems to me that companies have a bare minimum “social responsibility” not to offend their customers, if they want to make a profit in the first place. By the same token, one could extend that argument further to say that, in order to be profitable, companies must by and large share the basic social mores of its consumers. There have been several examples of consumer boycotts of companies and/or products which one group or another has found irresponsible. One might say such consumer boycotts are largely unsuccessful; however, the mere acknowledgement of these boycotts by companies seems to indicate their concern about them. Companies don’t _have_ to be socially responsible, yes. But consumers don’t _have_ to buy their products, either. That is why the two are inexorably intertwined. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/58 "2004-04-29T17:42:47Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Companies don’t have to be socially responsible, yes. But consumers don’t have to buy their products, either. That is why the two are inexorably intertwined. Exactly. So, if we go back to the OP for a second: “Political Compass #16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility”. Ok, so, lets say that Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility for a second. Because of market forces, this is going to FORCE company’s to stay within limits set by society because company’s that step outside of those limits legally are going to be prosecuted if caught…which is going to cost them in terms of fines, possibly criminal proceedings, and definitely market share in the short or long term depending on the publicity. Its going to cause their stocks to go down. Ok, but what if they stay within legal limits but are found to be doing things that are equally distasteful to ‘society’? Same things without the legal ramifications. In other words, because making a profit is the sole responsibility of a corporation, company’s must work within the limits and structure of a society or they WON’T make those profits. WE define those limits with our pocketbooks. No one is holding a gun to your heads people. If you don’t like the practice of Walmart buying clothes from local company’s using sweat shops in developing country’s, don’t shop there. Don’t blame Walmart for buying cheap clothes from local company’s who use labor practices that you find distasteful. Blame yourselves for prefering to buy clothes from Walmart over other retailers who are selling clothes that cost more. Don’t like Pepsi in Burma? Buy Coke instead or some other soft drink, or organize a protest or boycott against Pepsi. Its your right as a citizen. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/59 "2004-04-29T17:55:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And so the responsibility for the consequences of a company decision falls on the individuals having direct input into the decision process who advocated that action, _ie._ the shareholders and Chief Executive. These individuals are _responsible for the company’s actions_. If the nature of the objection is that “the responsibility of a company” is distinct from “The responsibility of the individuals who decide a company’s actions” then I’ll politely decline a ride on that particular carousel. At least you’re polite about it, but it isn’t a carousel. In fact, it isn’t even a matter of deciding a company’s actions since a company is still an abstraction (it doesn’t act). It isn’t a matter of wording the same thing differently. It isn’t a semantic ploy. It is the logical fallacy of assigning the attributes of concrete entities to abstract entities. You can’t get around it by making the words more confusing and the phrases longer. The CEOs and shareholders decide their own actions. Their responsibilities are fiduciary in nature, and therefore are to one another’s financial well being. That does not mean, however, that they do not have responsibilities of a different sort to other individuals. I resent these summary dismissals of my point of view when the fault is not with me but rather with the question. You seem to be implying that I have no foundation for attacking the question when in fact I do. It is a loaded question, which, incidentally, is yet another rhetorical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454/60 "2004-04-29T18:07:04Z")
**Lib** : I agree (which is why I also refused to post an answer to the question…) The way the question is worded, it’s as if it was asked “The only responsiblity a baseball team has in scoring runs is to win the game.” Yes, a baseball team’s sole responsibility is to win the game…but, in order to do that, it needs to score runs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-16-shareholder-profit-is-a-companys-only-responsibility/242454.md?page=4)