Corporate Ethics

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe in suburban/rural areas. In dense urban areas, the math starts to change. More people walk to stores, and if they do drive, they are driving a short distance, and delivery trucks tend to increase traffic as they block roads for longer while making deliveries.

It depends on how many are making trips in cars vs taking public transport and many factors, like is there good allowances for making deliveries without double parking and messing up traffic. It could be highly efficient in a city but you have to get the pubic off the roads and have reasonable space for them to make deliveries.

 

[The Don]

Under what laws?

UK corporate laws, I presume that US laws are similar.

When I became a director of a publicly quoted company (at the time it was AIM, now it's on the main market), my responsibilities to the shareholders and (possible maximum) penalties for failing to deliver were made very clear to me.

 

[varwoche]

... I'm not saying Bezos should be seen as some sort of saintly figure who should be winning the Nobel peace prize. But I just think that even with his flaws, he should not be compared in any way with Trump, who belongs in a whole special class of scum.

Indeed. Even if one dislikes Bezos, putting in the same league as Trump is absurd. Minoosh is inadvertently normalizing Trump.

 

[Belz...]

Companies are not run for the benefit of their customers or their employees, they are run solely for the benefit of their shareholders.

Which is why I find publicly-traded companies morally suspect.

The point of a business is to make a living for offering goods and services. If making money is the ONLY point, then one's missing the point.

 

[GlennB]

Which is why I find publicly-traded companies morally suspect.

The point of a business is to make a living for offering goods and services. If making money is the ONLY point, then one's missing the point.

In similar conversations here it's been pointed out that aggressive tax avoidance is actually a fiduciary responsibility in order to maximise profits. I find that stance pretty hard to stomach.

Does any US or UK law actually state that the responsibility is solely towards bottom-line profit? Does shareholder benefit include, for example, not having the company be associated with sweatshop labour?

 

[The Don]

Which is why I find publicly-traded companies morally suspect.

The same duty to the shareholders applies to privately owned companies as well.

The point of a business is to make a living for offering goods and services. If making money is the ONLY point, then one's missing the point.

Isn't "making a living" the same as making money ?

If providing a service, or making stakeholders happy is important (for reasons other than making money), then operate as a non-profit or charity and accept the resulting economic inefficiencies of running a company less than optimally.

 

[The Don]

In similar conversations here it's been pointed out that aggressive tax avoidance is actually a fiduciary responsibility in order to maximise profits. I find that stance pretty hard to stomach.

Does any US or UK law actually state that the responsibility is solely towards bottom-line profit? Does shareholder benefit include, for example, not having the company be associated with sweatshop labour?

If the shareholders deem it to be the case, then yes, but something like that should be agreed at the AGM. There are many companies which operate ethical policies when it comes to sourcing, employment and so on at the expense of profitability but those policies are clearly stated so that shareholder expectations are managed. Any such policy can be reversed if enough shareholders vote for change.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Does any US or UK law actually state that the responsibility is solely towards bottom-line profit?

I don't think so, not in the US. I think it depends on contracts. Also, I disagree that not running a company solely for profit makes it run less than optimally.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*shrugs* I'm not going to worry about the big company that actually provides an understandable product/service until after we deal with all the ones who don't.

I'm... complicated in my feelings about big business but I'm certainly a Lewis Black-ian when it comes to "Here's a rule. If you have a company and can't describe in one sentence... what... it... does... then it's illegal."

And I get the feeling that if Bezos and Musk and Zuckerberg had made their billions in oil or futures trading or whatever and not "that internet thing and electric cars that those millennials are all on about" they wouldn't have the public personas they do now.

There are a lot of perfectly valid criticism to throw against tech sector billionaires, but all to often they come wrapped up in that "I just cast them as the villain in my Black Mirror fan fiction" mentality.

The entire economy almost collapsed a few years back because of bunch of billionaries went broke buying and selling money that didn't exist until the whole system collapsed. At least electric cars and ebook readers and social media can be useful and positive in theory and... you know actually exist.

 

[Belz...]

The same duty to the shareholders applies to privately owned companies as well.

No, if I have a business I'm not obliged to maximise profits to the exclusion of everything else.

Isn't "making a living" the same as making money ?

Yes it is. It's the rest of the sentence that was important, though.

If providing a service, or making stakeholders happy is important (for reasons other than making money), then operate as a non-profit or charity and accept the resulting economic inefficiencies of running a company less than optimally.

So it must be all one or all the other? What a strange thing to say.

 

[Distracted1]

Seems to make sense to me to have a single vehicle make a trip to deliver to multiple customers from a central distribution facility than to have those customers drive all over the place to pick up items individually.

Same goes for home delivery on grocery shopping, better for one van to deliver to 20 customers than 20 customers drive to the shop.

Worth consideration.
When My SO and I go shopping, we typically purchase multiple items- often filling up a shopping cart with various things.
When she orders things online, the things frequently arrive in dribs and drabs- necessitating multiple delivery trips. Further, returns require separate trips that would normally have waited until the next time we went out if they were to be taken to a "brick and mortar" establishment.

It is my suspicion that the "direct to your home" model that seems to be taking over is exceptionally wasteful.

 

[The Don]

No, if I have a business I'm not obliged to maximise profits to the exclusion of everything else.

Only if the shareholders allow it. Paying low-level staff members more than necessary doesn't seem to sit well with shareholders.

Yes it is. It's the rest of the sentence that was important, though.

The rest of which sentence ?

So it must be all one or all the other? What a strange thing to say.

For the shareholders of most businesses, if you fail to maximise shareholder return, you'll be out on your ear.

 

[Belz...]

Only if the shareholders allow it.

Only if shareholders exist.

The point is that in a publicly-traded company profit is the ONLY measure. In a privately-owned one where the owners can meet and discuss or where it's a family business or owned by a single individual, it's easier to take other things into consideration; not that everyone does.

The rest of which sentence ?

The one you quoted and responded to!

 

[The Don]

Worth consideration.
When My SO and I go shopping, we typically purchase multiple items- often filling up a shopping cart with various things.
When she orders things online, the things frequently arrive in dribs and drabs- necessitating multiple delivery trips. Further, returns require separate trips that would normally have waited until the next time we went out if they were to be taken to a "brick and mortar" establishment.

How strange, I order all the items that I need from a particular supplier for delivery at the same time to minimise shipping costs.

Chacun a son gout I suppose

For example I tend to buy my guitars one at a time, but I will then bundle it with other equipment if I require it. I suppose you and your SO buy half a dozen at a time.

It is my suspicion that the "direct to your home" model that seems to be taking over is exceptionally wasteful.

If it is, the businesses following that model will attempt to reduce waste by incentivising people to make as few deliveries as possible.

 

[Belz...]

Chacun a son gout I suppose

As a French speaker I'd suggest "À chacun son gout" as a better way to phrase this, though yours is also fine.

And for anyone else, "gout" means "taste", not gout.

 

[The Don]

Only if shareholders exist.

They do for all privately owned companies.

The point is that in a publicly-traded company profit is the ONLY measure.

Utter rubbish, as the existence of various publicly-traded companies with "ethical" policies shows.

In a privately-owned one where the owners can meet and discuss or where it's a family business or owned by a single individual, it's easier to take other things into consideration; not that everyone does.

Public or private, they still have shareholders and the process is the same. Heck with a small number of private shareholders, convincing them to focus on anything other than the bottom line can be more difficult because there's less risk of public scrutiny.

The Koch and Trump families are hardly poster boys for ethical business practices.

 

[Belz...]

Utter rubbish, as the existence of various publicly-traded companies with "ethical" policies shows.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that public companies are never ethical. I'm saying that the measure for success is profit. The two are not mutually-exclusive, but the incentive to drive for profit at the expence of employees and customers is there.

Anyway, this is turning into a derail, so if you want to continue we should create a thread for it.

 

[The Don]

As a French speaker I'd suggest "À chacun son gout" as a better way to phrase this, though yours is also fine.

And for anyone else, "gout" means "taste", not gout.

The version I used is the one colloquially used in the UK - which likely accounts for a lot

 

[The Don]

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that public companies are never ethical. I'm saying that the measure for success is profit. The two are not mutually-exclusive, but the incentive to drive for profit at the expence of employees and customers is there.

It's there for all companies, whatever the ownership model.

There are also a lot of charities and non-profits which exploit employees for the benefit of other stakeholders.

Anyway, this is turning into a derail, so if you want to continue we should create a thread for it.

You're the one who seems to be suggesting that publicly traded companies are somehow inherently evil and should be done away with. I have no desire to discuss such a ridiculous notion.

 

[Giordano]

How strange, I order all the items that I need from a particular supplier for delivery at the same time to minimise shipping costs.

Chacun a son gout I suppose

For example I tend to buy my guitars one at a time, but I will then bundle it with other equipment if I require it. I suppose you and your SO buy half a dozen at a time.



If it is, the businesses following that model will attempt to reduce waste by incentivising people to make as few deliveries as possible.

In “regular” Amazon you need to buy a minimum value of products to get free shipping, which already reduces the incentive to buy cheap products individually. But in Amazon prime most items come with free shipping, presumably to encourage people to join prime. But changing the free shipping polices in both to further encourage consolidating shipments would help in this issue. Or present it as a discount if the customer lumped items together.

This all assume all items come from same warehouse. This may not always be true even for items shipped from Amazon.