[itsmenotyou]

> If you're going to interject yourself, as a company, into the political arena, you have to be all in otherwise you will get called out like this eventually.

A company selectively interjecting itself into the political arena highlights its hypocrisy, but any company having a significant public impact should be getting called out regardless of their actions in other spheres. Ethics are not an opt-in.

[lmm]

Making yourself an ethical arbiter is opt-in; deciding to pursue profit within the constraints of a particular legal regime (or indeed a particular religion ethical doctrine) but otherwise apolitically is entirely legitimate, and I suspect makes one more likely to act in a genuinely good way than chasing the hot-button issues of the day.

[wowzap]

Can't a company just do what's best for itself and it's shareholders? Why does every organization need a moral/ethical complex which caters to the issues of modern day?

[simias]

If we follow your logic to its logical conclusion the only way to change the way a company is behaving is through laws and regulations. I'm getting strawman-adjacent here but something tells me that if you think that a company should only "do what's best for itself and it's shareholders" you might also not like heavy handed regulations either, am I correct? And if so, how do you think the problem of unethical companies should be solved?

[Afforess]

Companies exist to serve society, not the other way around. Corporate charters are granted by governments, from the people.

[alehul]

Many companies believe that catering to the issues of the modern day often is best for itself and its shareholders.

Companies do seem to be taking more and more political stances, though, than they have in the past, and personally I think it's, at least in some cases, naive on their parts. I used to see more of "we'll donate 1% of our revenue to save pandas" type marketing, which is noble and universally applauded, but now it's replaced with taking political stances on things that are often hot-button issues.

[justaguyhere]

Companies like that do exist. Profit at any cost, under the disguise of "serving the shareholders" - everyone/everything else be damned. Recent examples include the pharma companies hiking the cost to whatever levels they please ...

If everyone started behaving this way, it wouldn't be pretty.

[marcelluspye]

"You mean I have to worry about the consequences of my actions? Why can't I just bury my head in the sand and make tons of money?"

Plenty (most? all?) large businesses do this. It isn't good for the world.

[village-idiot]

Because people are involved.

Edit: You can downvote all you want, but politics are an outgrowth of human interaction at scale. The idea that you can get a couple thousand human beings running around with limited resources and various goals and not get politics is laughable.

[carapace]

> Can't a company just do what's best for itself and it's shareholders?

That's exactly what ethical behaviour is.

> Why does every organization need a moral/ethical complex which caters to the issues of modern day?

Because joining a corporation does not remove you from human society.

[notyourday]

How about American universities that educate people from KSA paid by KSA? Should they be called out for taking blood money? After all international students are basically the only ones that pay the full rack rate?