Allowing boards to consider non-shareholder factors wopuld not necessitate that they do so, but it would then force the offending boards to explain why they are not doing so, rather than just supplying the shareholder duty mantra.
--- Max Sawicky <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Not necessarily. There are union and state/local
> gov pension
> fund owners who have interests that are broader than
> rates of
> return. That's what this is really about.
>
> Managers often are not constrained by shareholders.
> Sometimes
> this could lead to benign outcomes, sometimes to the
> opposite.
>
> mbs
>
>
> >hmmm ...excuse me but isn't it investors who demand
> the highest
> >returns (profits) on their investments. Don't the
> CEOs and managers
> >work for the investors? Are investors going to
> reverse the damage
> >on people and the planet by having more control
> over management?
> >Hell no, they are Wall Street.
>
> Wow. Thanks for pointing this out. Ralph moves from
> the petit
> bourgeoisie to promoting the interests of big
> rentiers, while using a
> rhetoric of democracy. Nice trick.
>
> At least they've got a prominent disability rights
> component.
>
> Doug
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com