[]
thought If I'm a shareholder wouldn't I want any actions to be taken that would make the company get more money so I would get more money for my shares?
I wouldn't for example in case that the company used some trees to create paper, say that it's unethical to cut trees. It wouldn't make sense for getting the shareholders any money.
Maybe the purpose is to find ways for the shareholder to examine the company to see if it is "running in an organised way", but maybe that is regulated by laws, and more than 50% of the shares are needed for that. What do you think? 194.63.235.155 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're on the right track. However, I would say that shareholders in paper companies would certainly believe that it should be unethical to cut down ALL of the trees. The immediate financial gain that would come from that would be far outweighed by the loss of future profits as well as the loss of the other environmental impacts that such an action would take. Shareholders can't be focused only on profit motives, because that eliminates the foundation that the markets exist upon in the first place. Without trees, we might have lots of paper, but we'll have no air to breathe. Which is more important? Is that a ridiculous example? Look at the oil and coal companies.
- My point when it comes to stakeholder v. shareholder is that they should be one and the same. Companies that are based in the US and owned by people in the US can't ignore the needs of the people in the countries where those companies are grabbing resources and materials in order to sell to people in the US. When we do, we become evil ourselves. Ideally, those resources should be extracted by companies based in and owned in the areas where those resources are coming from, and then sold to companies in the US. That way the people in those areas have a direct voice in the operation of the companies that affect their lives. I'm sure the people in Bhopal would have liked to have more say in how that chemical plant was operating.
- Sorry it took so long to respond. Chadlupkes 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)