The BBC has non-shareholder owners.
That’s cos they’re liberal, pinko commies and all.
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.
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.
So there is such a thing as responsibility other than to profit?
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.
There is no such thing as responsibility, be it to shareholder profit or public safety?
Well, have you? We’re all dying to know! 
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?
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.
Can it be held by a decision-making group, such as a meeting of shareholders?
Stunning and literate rejoinders! Yes, it’s called having a spiritual perspective on things. I’m sure this is something unfamiliar to you.
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.
Yeah, someone was making a point with this as an example. You did miss it.
Nice pack of invective and insults, but try actually arguing against the points I made. This is GD, not the Pit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
How about if I just withdraw the whole ‘marxist’ thing as its irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
-XT
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.
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
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.
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.