"31 of 34 directors surveyed (each of whom served on an average of six Fortune 200 boards) said they’d cut down a mature forest or release a dangerous, unregulated toxin into the environment in order to increase profits. Whatever they could legally do to maximize shareholder wealth, they believed it was their duty to do"
The article points out that this isn't the case. What's interesting to me is the idea that this activity maximizes shareholder wealth anyway. It might maximize the value of entities holding shares in a short-term outlook, but on a long-term outlook (10 year horizon) this is foolish not just because it weakens the brand of the company, but risks future contracts (boycotts from public pressure), and opens settlement possibilities (even a legally released toxin can result in settlements if they were aware it was dangerous at the time).
The long-term outlook only matters to long-term investors. If you can carry out such activities discreetly such that those investors are oblivious, you can reap the profits by selling up before the shit hits the fan. There are enough sociopaths [0] in business that this situation must have occurred several times over.
The article points out that this isn't the case. What's interesting to me is the idea that this activity maximizes shareholder wealth anyway. It might maximize the value of entities holding shares in a short-term outlook, but on a long-term outlook (10 year horizon) this is foolish not just because it weakens the brand of the company, but risks future contracts (boycotts from public pressure), and opens settlement possibilities (even a legally released toxin can result in settlements if they were aware it was dangerous at the time).