Shareholders own the business; workers, even the ceo, technically, work for the shareholders to create profit. The authority of the directors to direct comes from the shareholders who own.
Sure, if you own 0.00001% of a business, you can’t do much if 99% want profit made in a particular way (or “in whatever most profitable way”), but you still own that 0.000001%; 0.000001% of the work and profit is done for you.
Shareholders don’t individually sanction business decisions, only targets. And often they are not even aware what the company did until the next board meeting. If it’s mentioned at all. So calling them complicit is a long shot, and shows that you don’t really know anything about the matter.
I agree shareholders don’t direct the individual decisions - that’s the directors’ job. And the directors don’t write the individual programs, that’s the programmers’ job. There’s an awkward hierarchy that makes culpability difficult to ascribe. But look at it another way round:
The legal system obliges executives to increase shareholder value. Because the company belongs to the shareholders, not to the execs - the exec is just a person appointed, contracted, to do a job for the company. The exec is required to increase value, because that’s what the shareholders require. And for public companies, the law adds a layer of stability, so that people can buy and sell shares on a large scale smoothly.
But still, the decisions made by the company employees (including CEO) are, in principle, work contracted by the company to fulfil the wishes (get more money) of its members (the shareholders).
So, although the shareholders didn’t sanction some particular decision, what they did do, is bestow authority on the directors/etc to make that decision on their behalf. Then after the decision the directors are accountable to the shareholders who, if they disagree, can either request the directors change their decisions, or fire them and appoint new directors in their place to better fulfil their wishes. The directors act on the authority of the shareholders. Unless they violate that authority, then the authority-giver bears a responsibility. And if they do violate that authority, the authority-giver bears a responsibility to separate the company from that wrong act done by its employed director. Even the minority shareholder, who has no practical control of the company, willingly profits from the actions of those employed for their sake - and can willingly sell up and not be part any more.
The machinery of capitalism smooths this over, and provides legal safeties and legal frameworks, to make it easy for money to flow. But - though my original comment was a light-hearted reply to a light-hearted jibe - in my actual opinion this machinery of capitalism makes it easier to profit from evil decisions and feign innocence. “I didn’t decide to do that evil thing, I just profited from it. …Oh, and I’m keeping the profits.”
So, in the end, I do call shareholders complicit. Complicit in part, because you might say, “I agree with decisions A, B and D; not C; but on balance I will still support this business as it is, as a member of the company of owners.” But still complicit.
Sounds like you have no idea how shares work.
Shareholders own the business; workers, even the ceo, technically, work for the shareholders to create profit. The authority of the directors to direct comes from the shareholders who own.
Sure, if you own 0.00001% of a business, you can’t do much if 99% want profit made in a particular way (or “in whatever most profitable way”), but you still own that 0.000001%; 0.000001% of the work and profit is done for you.
Shareholders don’t individually sanction business decisions, only targets. And often they are not even aware what the company did until the next board meeting. If it’s mentioned at all. So calling them complicit is a long shot, and shows that you don’t really know anything about the matter.
I think you’re evading responsibility.
I agree shareholders don’t direct the individual decisions - that’s the directors’ job. And the directors don’t write the individual programs, that’s the programmers’ job. There’s an awkward hierarchy that makes culpability difficult to ascribe. But look at it another way round:
The legal system obliges executives to increase shareholder value. Because the company belongs to the shareholders, not to the execs - the exec is just a person appointed, contracted, to do a job for the company. The exec is required to increase value, because that’s what the shareholders require. And for public companies, the law adds a layer of stability, so that people can buy and sell shares on a large scale smoothly.
But still, the decisions made by the company employees (including CEO) are, in principle, work contracted by the company to fulfil the wishes (get more money) of its members (the shareholders).
So, although the shareholders didn’t sanction some particular decision, what they did do, is bestow authority on the directors/etc to make that decision on their behalf. Then after the decision the directors are accountable to the shareholders who, if they disagree, can either request the directors change their decisions, or fire them and appoint new directors in their place to better fulfil their wishes. The directors act on the authority of the shareholders. Unless they violate that authority, then the authority-giver bears a responsibility. And if they do violate that authority, the authority-giver bears a responsibility to separate the company from that wrong act done by its employed director. Even the minority shareholder, who has no practical control of the company, willingly profits from the actions of those employed for their sake - and can willingly sell up and not be part any more.
The machinery of capitalism smooths this over, and provides legal safeties and legal frameworks, to make it easy for money to flow. But - though my original comment was a light-hearted reply to a light-hearted jibe - in my actual opinion this machinery of capitalism makes it easier to profit from evil decisions and feign innocence. “I didn’t decide to do that evil thing, I just profited from it. …Oh, and I’m keeping the profits.”
So, in the end, I do call shareholders complicit. Complicit in part, because you might say, “I agree with decisions A, B and D; not C; but on balance I will still support this business as it is, as a member of the company of owners.” But still complicit.