Yabby and others,

I call your evolutionary psychology and raise you behavioural psychology particularly in the field of organizations.

You seem to have either missed the essence of what is being said or stuck in the time warped mental mangle of Maggie Thatcher. Business can do no wrong and people should pick up the pieces.

Deny if you can that the public picks up the suffering and the bill on all counts. Yet all these events were caused because various Corporations individuals did what they knew was wrong.

The Medical scientist that uncovered the problems of thalidomide did the world a favour but because he fudged numbers, he later lived in disgrace regardless of the good he'd done.

The rogue trader who bankrupted the 300 yo British bank went to jail for his crime against a corporation.

Consider this the who went to jail for Bhopal, the lies of Big Tobacco, GFC, the pipeline failure in Alaska, the 700 'serious' safety breaches of BP over 4 years,after the spill is over etc?
Answer no one. Even Tony will get a golden parachute.
Comm bank were caught selling dodgy FC loans who did time ?
A lot of farmers certainly lost big time and had to spend even more to recover something.

The limited liability of Corporation and the web of legal dodges covers, encourages ONE side of human nature, That is the problem.
One can't effectively police morality where there is greater incentives to ignore it with impunity. We as legal entities are responsible for what we do therefore why aren't corporations.
Answer the political/financial power they can usurp.

There are alternatives/solutions...simply put,it is the predilection for political security blankets and (ab)use of corporate financial power that stops many people from facing the truth and then considering alternatives.

Speaking of concern how about this gem that just arrived on my email.

Last month a world-wide survey was conducted by the UN.

The only question asked was:

"Could you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a massive failure because of the following:

1. In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
2. In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
3. In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
4. In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
5. In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
6. In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
7. In the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
8. In Australia they hung up as soon as they heard "the call centre delay".

:-D

Examinator, you really can't get your little mind around this, but
I will prevail.

If I came to you and employed you as my investment consultant and
manager, and you with your sense of compassion started giving away
my money to the charities of your choice, you would go to jail for
defrauding me of my assets.

Similarly members of company boards have certain legal
responsibilities and obligations, towards those who entrust their
savings with them and the companies which they oversee. They
cannot do as they please, no matter how long the heartstrings.

If I own the company, I can do as I please, not so when others
have shares in the company.

If people are breaking the law out there, whether it's in the name
of a corporation or as private individuals, we have a legal system
to deal with them. Don't blame the criminal, if the legal system
is crook and they are not dealt with appropriately.

In business the question is not what is moral, but what is legal.
That sets the boundaries. If you as a citizen think that something
which you consider immoral, should be declared illegal, you are
free to approach your political representative to change the law

"Similarly members of company boards have certain legal
responsibilities and obligations, towards those who entrust their
savings with them and the companies which they oversee. They
cannot do as they please, no matter how long the heartstrings."

Ah! yes indeedy!!

Keep the shareholders happy. No matter what the cost to infrastructure/staffing/service.

And once the shareholders are happy (unemployed but happy), then the Board members are happy;-and thus they are rewarded.

So, then there is further pursuit of profit+dividends= minus infrastructure/staffing/service= increased profit/dividends= fat bonus.
So then there is further pursuit of profit+dividends= minus infrastructure/staffing/service= increased profit/dividends= fat bonus. So then there is further pursuit........

One must indeed prevail when dealing with little minds.

The largest corporations are linked together
through interlocking directorates,
social networks consisting of individuals who
are members of several different corporate boards.
As I've stated previously, these coporations are
able to apply political leverage on national
policy, winning favours for themselves,
influencing the country's tax structure, and so on.

They have in the past also had an impressive record
of illicit corporate activity. For example, in the
US, Exxon was discoverd had paid nearly $60 million to
government officials in fifteen nations, including
$27 million to several Italian political parties.
Lockheed had distributed nearly $200 million in bribes
and payoffs in several countries, and the resulting
scandals implicated the prince of the Netherlands,
the prime minister of Japan, military leaders in
Columbia, and cabinet members in Italy. [Foxy]

In a Nutshell..you have it all in one Foxy. A CEOs primary function is to network network and network via placing themselves on as many Boards as possible and participating in as many ventures and 'charitable' organisations as possible to build up their wealth of portfolios; to one day 'land the big fish' ie head one of the largest corporations raking in the big money. Dismiss the concept of acknowledging or valuing long term staff loyalty, they will weed out who ever they do not see as fitting into their scheme, direction or vision for their short term role to make as many dollars in as short a time as possible. Most CEOs have worked with and met are ruthless, cold hearted, made of steel, 'using', in terms of bludging off employees and the company, and too lousy to chip in a dollar for the 20 year employees retrenched and/or those long term directors who actually performed the majority of the work building up the companies.

I guess it just goes to show why we have to be really careful about
where we invest our hard earned savings, for if there were a bunch
of emotionally engulfed houswives on the board, their bleating
hearts would likely dominate any sense of responsibility towards
those peoples savings.

Yet if your local bank dipped into your savings and withdrew
money from your accounts to give away to various charities
without your consent, you would be screaming from the rooftops!

But when heartstrings are concerned, rational thinking hardly
comes into it, as we well know and this thread proves yet once
again.