[backwardation_b]

The system self corrects by companies moving to a different supplier. If 3M has to increase prices (they will) to offset the settlement costs, then other suppliers will be comparatively cheaper. 3M share price and profit will decrease which incentivizes the board and or shareholders to encourage safer (read: legal) business practices.

[ClumsyPilot]

You are selling a fantasy, a spherical cow.

As the OP said, The original people responsible made bank and retired. The original shareholders cashed out. this does not encourage anything.

[thayne]

That clearly doesn't work. The fines are often less than the profits made. And the individuals and shareholders have already made a fortune by the time the payments come due, and can just move on to the next company and do the same thing there.

[checkyoursudo]

How does your model account for the probability that cheaper competitors are simply bad actors who have not yet been caught?

In fact, without something like criminal penalties, why would the board encourage safer/legal business practices? Seems like they might equally say, well that was a good run now find us another dastardly product that can bring our prices back down to our competitors.

[rolandog]

The people affected by these "corrections" are the workers that would be laid off due to decreasing revenue,... In order to maintain the expected profits that result in dividend payments to shareholders.

So, one could make the case that the workers get punished by the board of directors' bad decisions.

[int_19h]

And those "other suppliers" will be 3M - same owners, same board, same executives - under a different name.