It's not that simple. Boards have certain duties to act on behalf of the corporations, and not their own personal interests. Since concepts like "the good of humanity" are so vague, and can be interpreted in mutually exclusive ways, the theory is that those decisions should be made by shareholders with their own money, not with the company's.
Take a "sweat shop", for example. There is one view that they are exploitative and that low wages overseas should not be tolerated. There is another view that those wages generate income in areas of the world where it is greatly needed. How is a board of directors to decide which view to take? Which shareholders should they listen to?
So boards have been defined as the people who watch the business for the good of the business. And they're given great leeway in doing so. (You can't sue them for making bad business decions, for example - only fraudulent or grossly negligent ones).
Bundling charity with business is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's better than separating them, or if there isn't an inherent contradiction in the two when you apply it to large public companies.
After all, profits can always be used to better humanity without the conflicts I've described after they've been given to the shareholders.
I'm a little skeptical that it will change much, but we'll see. It will be interesting to watch.
> I'm a little skeptical that it will change much, but we'll see. It will be interesting to watch.
Likewise, on both counts.
Though I think it's important to remember, even if this enterprise fails the state of California is a big enough experimental setting to provide all sorts of interesting (and possibly even useful) new data.
Take a "sweat shop", for example. There is one view that they are exploitative and that low wages overseas should not be tolerated. There is another view that those wages generate income in areas of the world where it is greatly needed. How is a board of directors to decide which view to take? Which shareholders should they listen to?
So boards have been defined as the people who watch the business for the good of the business. And they're given great leeway in doing so. (You can't sue them for making bad business decions, for example - only fraudulent or grossly negligent ones).
Bundling charity with business is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's better than separating them, or if there isn't an inherent contradiction in the two when you apply it to large public companies.
After all, profits can always be used to better humanity without the conflicts I've described after they've been given to the shareholders.
I'm a little skeptical that it will change much, but we'll see. It will be interesting to watch.