Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-18-2006   #21
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneRobinson
One more thought. Patagonia and REI are unique in that they are not public companies. This is important because every public company is required by law to maximize profits.
Huh? Do you really expect people to take your argument seriously when you make an outrageous statement like this? Please show me this law. Public companies are required to keep their stockholders (owners) happy. This is done primarily, (but not exclusively) by maximizing return on investment. Profit is one important component of this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for companies, public and private, contributing to environmental causes but that only makes a difference at the margin.

Take this example:
Drytop A sells for $300 and is widely recognized to be very high quality but the company that makes it does not contribute to any environmental causes.
Drytop B sells for $300 but the gaskets blow out in it's first season and it's a piece of crap but the company donates $100 for every drytop sold to AW.

Are you going to buy drytop B? I'm not.

A companies primary goal is to provide a quality product at a competitive price. If they can do this and also contribute to causes you support, great. And I may pay somewhat more or buy other products from that company.

It's a little ridiculous to suggest that consumers should research the companies they buy from to assure that their environmental & political views align with their own.
__________________

boatnbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006   #22
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19
"What they don't realize is that I'm not in the business to make clothes. I'm not in the business to make more money for myself, for Christ's sake. This is the reason Patagonia exists -- to put into action the recommendations I read about in books to avoid environmental collapse. That's the reason I'm in business -- to try to clean up our own act, and try to influence other companies to do the right thing, and try to influence our customers to do the right thing. So we're not going to change. They can go buy from somewhere else if they don't like it. "

"First of all, if they're a public company they can't do anything -- they're beholden to their shareholders. Patagonia is a private company, and the sole stockholders are me and my wife, so we can do anything we want. But if you're CEO of a public company, the board of directors tells you what to do, and the stockholders tell the board of directors what to do, so there's no way you can take a stance on anything controversial. Bill Ford says he's an environmentalist, so deep down in his heart I'm sure he believes he shouldn't be making SUVs, period. He shouldn't allow the stockholders to tell him what to do. But he can't do it. He has no power. I have way more power than Bill Ford does."

-Yvon Chouinard
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2...tle-chouinard/

I know he is not "the law"
But I accept your challenge and will have it for you by monday.

And, you missed my point, I'm not talking about companies who donate money post facto. I'm talking about companies who do it right from the get go. Organic, Local, recycled, etc. Not sweat shop from china and oh by the way we donate to breast cancer.

Making quality products is not required by companies....look at walmart...the biggest retailer in the world. Please show me one "quality" product in that store. If a company makes a decision (to use organic cotton v. non) that they know will affect their bottom line, the stockholders can sue them. They can't do that if they just make a poor product from the get-go.

And if you don't think its your responsibility to take some time and figure out which companies to support, then who's is it? They certainly are going to tell you? But I guess thats not your problem, just my kids problem, right?
__________________

ShaneRobinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006   #23
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
It’s your kid’s problem, my kid’s problem, your problem, my problem and everyone’s problem. We all get to make purchasing decisions every day to buy from companies who we may know a lot about, some we know nothing about and some we think we know something about but could be wrong. If you want to take the time to research every company who you do business with to make sure they meet all your standards, knock yourself out. You’re a better man than I.

Tonight for dinner we ate California Pizza Kitchen frozen pizza, (the best frozen pizza I’ve ever had), along with a salad topped with Marie’s Blue Cheese Vinaigrette salad dressing, (my favorite) then downloaded some songs to my Apple iPod Nano. All quality products, got all three at Walmart.
boatnbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006   #24
cma
 
Boulder
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 206
[quote="ShaneRobinson"]

Every purchase you make is a vote for more of that product and that style of making the product. So if you want more of the above mentioned problems, buy your tshirts at Target and walmart.

quote]

I will buy my shirts at Target.. why don't you read what they are doing here:

http://sites.target.com/site/en/corp...d=PRD03-001811

Yes, Target does also have it's own organic brands of food clothing and other household items.. when was the last time you heard Target blabbing out loud how every purchase you make helps things like local education, arts, social services and other causes. Patagonia has a great marketing campaign going on, they figure people like you will pay way more than any organic shirt should really cost and are making a mint off of it because they know people like you will eat it up, plus they get to keep all the profits and don't have to give any of it to shareholders. Oh yeah, Target was a founding member of the 5% club back in 1946.
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006   #25
cma
 
Boulder
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneRobinson
So under your model, consumers should not only recycle (todd's suggestion) but you need to basically distribute one penny to 65,000 causes cuz they are all related. Sounds like a great idea!?
Isn't that basically what 1% does? They just collect money and distribute it to other groups, if you read their website they disburse it among 980 groups:

http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.or...GCOLOR=DEFAULT

So rather than donating directly to your own local environmental org yourself your money is going through a middle man who is taking their chunk of the change for administration costs. As of July 1% claims to have donated 10million dollars to various groups around the world, according to Target's annual report they averaged about 2 million dollars a week in 2005 to schools, womens shelters, food shelters, arts programs and so on.

You talk about transportation costs of Target tshirts.. does Patagonia have some sort of transmission system that allows them to cut out this step or do they have a seemstress churning out tshirts in every store where they sell them?

Yes I shop at Target, yes I think you would be better off buying an organic Target tshirt, saving yourself however much money and then directly donating that money you saved to an actual organization rather than a middle man.
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006   #26
cma
 
Boulder
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 206
Sorry, one more.. about greedy public corporations.. heres a quote from 1%'s web site about a guy who says beeing in 1% has boosted his sales:

"Craig Mathews, who donates 2% of net sales to local environmental organizations near his store in Yellowstone, Montana, thinks the environmental commitment 1% FTP membership demonstrates has boosted his sales and the loyalty of his customers"


Is he doing it for the environment or himself? Sure he's helping the environment but hey my sales are through the roof now.

Other benefits of belonging to 1%:


"Association with 1% will help dimensionalize and texture your brand, attract new consumers, and inspire greater loyalty among existing consumers.

As a 1% member, you will immediately enter the consideration set for the millions of consumers that are currently loyal to other 1% member companies. You will also benefit every time our logo is seen - on another member's product or promotional materials, on the ads we run, at the events we sponsor, or in the media coverage that we receive.

Involvement with 1% may lead to new business relationships among our members. Also, as a 1%FTP member, your employees, community and stakeholders will take pride and satisfaction in knowing they support an environmentally responsible company"


Check this out, if your company allready gives to local causes then you can become a 1% member and pay 1% an additional fee to do it for you:


"Q: My business already gives to environmental groups. Why should we join 1% FTP?
A: It's not easy to effectively communicate your environmental commitment to consumers. But the 1% FTP mark is an extremely powerful means of doing so. The logo is easy for consumers to understand and recognize, and it provides important third party authenticity. We believe that in time, the 1%FTP mark will come to represent the highest echelon of environmental commitment in the marketplace"

"To cover our small overhead, 1% FTP charges membership dues based on a sliding scale. Dues may be applied toward a member company's 1%. For example, if your annual revenues are $100,000, the administration fee is $200. To meet your 1%, you would give at least an additional $800 to environmental groups of your choice. Member dues help to cover 1%FTP's expenses including staff salaries, publications and information materials, maintaining and updating the website, communications, and events. Your dues allow us to provide services to business members like certifying the 1% FTP mark, signing up new members to increase the visibility and impact of 1%FTP, screening nonprofit organizations, tracking grants, providing advice and guidance on environmental issues and organizations, and generating and disseminating public relations materials and news releases"


That makes complete sense, I'll stop giving directly to the cause I want to support and pay someone else to do it for me so that I can market myself as beeing a 1% member.
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006   #27
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19
ok, so yesterday I was all fired up and ya'll hit a passion nerve. Today I'm tired and due for my afternoon caffiene fix.

boatnbike:
I got the law for you. It is at the bottom (so people don't get bored). Its codified in the Model Business Corporation Act, section 8.30, and also restated in Cinerama v. Technicolor, 663 A.2d 1156 (not copied because its a 43 page opinion). It is called the Duty of Loyalty of Directors and it basically says: “best interest of the corporation & shareholders takes precedence over any individual interests not shared by the stockholders generally” and "The one legal constraint on corporate governance is the fiduciary duties of officers & directors". In law, "best interest" is almost always boiled down to development and dollars. And this has been explicity stated in many court opinions. So public companies literally cannot make a claim like all cotton products will be organic, like patagonia has done with its water girl line. At least not until organic cotton is cheaper than non.

But you are right. Its everybody's problem. However it may be a much bigger problem for future generations. 1%, Fair Trade, etc. all help us (the consumers) save time by not having to research companies. Rather we can trust these branding practices. So if saving time is your hang up, you should be writing in support of this 1% thread. The issue about walmart containing quality products is another topic but could be highly disputed. For starters search ipod warranties and see if you still believe and ipod is quality, and watch High Cost of Low Prices and decide for yourself if Walmart is the right place to spend your money. But that will require some time on your part. I guess it just depends on how much you care (not who is the better man). btw, the movie talks about walmart polluting a river so as a kayaker you might care more than just as a consumer.

cma:
Let me start by pointing out a few things. Initially you claimed a shirt at patagonia costing 80$ and at target for $15. And then you claim that target has lots of organics.

First a quick search reveals:
37 products at Patagonia, with a tshirt costing $24
http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/sear...x=0&search.y=0

3 products, none of which were organic. Rather they were "orange." And most shirts cost 9.99, but no organic, men's tshirts.
http://www.target.com/gp/search.html...target&x=0&y=0

So lets not exaggerate patagonia's costs when comparing apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Also, of course target is selling organics, its the largest growing food industry, among other industries.
Also, a search on the 5% club revealed best nightclubs in vegas???

Sure Target donates to charity, and they do because it is expected of big business. And its a write-off, and promotes good will, etc. But first, this creates a disconnect. It doesn't make non-organic cotton ok because you donate to schools, and it is a stretch to call this conscientious consumerism. But if Target is donating to a specific charity that you love, then I'm glad you support that. But charity giving in general is just that, generic--every business does it. Target has more money, thus they donate more money. But they also make more money at the cost of workers, the environment, public health, etc. Not that other businesses don't but compare starting salaries at target and patagonia, and then try to defend the "real cost of a tshirt". This all gets back to the theory of externalities that Todd mentioned. You can either pay for it up front--spending $24 on a tshirt that didn't pollute the river, was shipped on the least impactful mode of transportation, sold to you by someone who got paid a living wage, etc. Or you can save your $14 dollars (not $65) and then pay taxes to the salesperson on welfare, suffer the consequences of global warming, and kayak in the polluted river. And I guess you'll be spending your $14 on charities each and every time you buy a shirt, right, or voting for tax increases to fix the problems.

Yes 1% is a brand. Like Fair Trade, FSC, Organic, etc. It allows consumers to be better educated. Consumers want to be better educated, they want to know what companies are doing, and how they are spending their money, and how much their ceo makes, and how much they pollute, etc. So companies that market thier contributions are no different that companies that market low prices. Its all just what consumers want. Some of us want different things than others.

You seem to be a big target fan. If thats good with you, then great. I would hope that everyone would be bothered that people who work at target are still forced to withdraw welfare, but thats just my opinion.

Bottom line for me, is that I only make a few dollars a year, and when I spend it, I want to know where its going. It makes me feel much better knowing that I am supporting an amazing outdoorsman v. ???? (do you know who gets your money at target, I don't). And I like to know that my money is doing the LEAST bad possible, even if that does come at a higher initial cost.

Like I said, I'm tired...so sorry if this is sloppy writing. Hope I have at least made you think differently on the issue. If you are intrigued further check out:
The Ecology of Commerce
Collapse
Future500.org
Natural Capitalism

The law:

1984 Model Business Corporation Act § 8.30
§ 8.30. Standards of Conduct for Directors.

(a) Each member of the board of directors, when discharging the duties of a director, shall act: (1) in good faith, and (2) in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.

(b) The members of the board of directors or a committee of the board, when becoming informed in connection with their decision-making function or devoting attention to their oversight function, shall discharge their duties with the care that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances.

(c) In discharging board or committee duties a director, who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted, is entitled to rely on the performance by any of the persons specified in subsection (e)(1) or subsection (e)(3) to whom the board may have delegated, formally or informally by course of conduct, the authority or duty to perform one or more of the board's functions that are delegable under applicable law.

(d) In discharging board or committee duties a director, who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted, is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, prepared or presented by any of the persons specified in subsection (e).

(e) A director is entitled to rely, in accordance with subsection (c) or (d), on:

(1) one or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the functions performed or the information, opinions, reports or statements provided;

(2) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons retained by the corporation as to matters involving skills or expertise the director reasonably believes are matters (i) within the particular person's professional or expert competence or (ii) as to which the particular person merits confidence; o

(3) a committee of the board of directors of which the director is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
[/quote]
ShaneRobinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006   #28
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19
ok, so yesterday I was all fired up and ya'll hit a passion nerve. Today I'm tired and due for my afternoon caffiene fix.

boatnbike:
I got the law for you. It is at the bottom (so people don't get bored). Its codified in the Model Business Corporation Act, section 8.30, and also restated in Cinerama v. Technicolor, 663 A.2d 1156 (not copied because its a 43 page opinion). It is called the Duty of Loyalty of Directors and it basically says: “best interest of the corporation & shareholders takes precedence over any individual interests not shared by the stockholders generally” and "The one legal constraint on corporate governance is the fiduciary duties of officers & directors". In law, "best interest" is almost always boiled down to development and dollars. And this has been explicity stated in many court opinions. So public companies literally cannot make a claim like all cotton products will be organic, like patagonia has done with its water girl line. At least not until organic cotton is cheaper than non.

But you are right. Its everybody's problem. However it may be a much bigger problem for future generations. 1%, Fair Trade, etc. all help us (the consumers) save time by not having to research companies. Rather we can trust these branding practices. So if saving time is your hang up, you should be writing in support of this 1% thread. The issue about walmart containing quality products is another topic but could be highly disputed. For starters search ipod warranties and see if you still believe and ipod is quality, and watch High Cost of Low Prices and decide for yourself if Walmart is the right place to spend your money. But that will require some time on your part. I guess it just depends on how much you care (not who is the better man). btw, the movie talks about walmart polluting a river so as a kayaker you might care more than just as a consumer.

cma:
Let me start by pointing out a few things. Initially you claimed a shirt at patagonia costing 80$ and at target for $15. And then you claim that target has lots of organics.

First a quick search reveals:
37 products at Patagonia, with a tshirt costing $24
http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/sear...x=0&search.y=0

3 products, none of which were organic. Rather they were "orange." And most shirts cost 9.99, but no organic, men's tshirts.
http://www.target.com/gp/search.html...target&x=0&y=0

So lets not exaggerate patagonia's costs when comparing apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. Also, of course target is selling organics, its the largest growing food industry, among other industries.
Also, a search on the 5% club revealed best nightclubs in vegas???

Sure Target donates to charity, and they do because it is expected of big business. And its a write-off, and promotes good will, etc. But first, this creates a disconnect. It doesn't make non-organic cotton ok because you donate to schools, and it is a stretch to call this conscientious consumerism. But if Target is donating to a specific charity that you love, then I'm glad you support that. But charity giving in general is just that, generic--every business does it. Target has more money, thus they donate more money. But they also make more money at the cost of workers, the environment, public health, etc. Not that other businesses don't but compare starting salaries at target and patagonia, and then try to defend the "real cost of a tshirt". This all gets back to the theory of externalities that Todd mentioned. You can either pay for it up front--spending $24 on a tshirt that didn't pollute the river, was shipped on the least impactful mode of transportation, sold to you by someone who got paid a living wage, etc. Or you can save your $14 dollars (not $65) and then pay taxes to the salesperson on welfare, suffer the consequences of global warming, and kayak in the polluted river. And I guess you'll be spending your $14 on charities each and every time you buy a shirt, right, or voting for tax increases to fix the problems.

Yes 1% is a brand. Like Fair Trade, FSC, Organic, etc. It allows consumers to be better educated. Consumers want to be better educated, they want to know what companies are doing, and how they are spending their money, and how much their ceo makes, and how much they pollute, etc. So companies that market thier contributions are no different that companies that market low prices. Its all just what consumers want. Some of us want different things than others.

You seem to be a big target fan. If thats good with you, then great. I would hope that everyone would be bothered that people who work at target are still forced to withdraw welfare, but thats just my opinion.

Bottom line for me, is that I only make a few dollars a year, and when I spend it, I want to know where its going. It makes me feel much better knowing that I am supporting an amazing outdoorsman v. ???? (do you know who gets your money at target, I don't). And I like to know that my money is doing the LEAST bad possible, even if that does come at a higher initial cost.

Like I said, I'm tired...so sorry if this is sloppy writing. Hope I have at least made you think differently on the issue. If you are intrigued further check out:
The Ecology of Commerce
Collapse
Future500.org
Natural Capitalism

The law:

1984 Model Business Corporation Act § 8.30
§ 8.30. Standards of Conduct for Directors.

(a) Each member of the board of directors, when discharging the duties of a director, shall act: (1) in good faith, and (2) in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.

(b) The members of the board of directors or a committee of the board, when becoming informed in connection with their decision-making function or devoting attention to their oversight function, shall discharge their duties with the care that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances.

(c) In discharging board or committee duties a director, who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted, is entitled to rely on the performance by any of the persons specified in subsection (e)(1) or subsection (e)(3) to whom the board may have delegated, formally or informally by course of conduct, the authority or duty to perform one or more of the board's functions that are delegable under applicable law.

(d) In discharging board or committee duties a director, who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted, is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, prepared or presented by any of the persons specified in subsection (e).

(e) A director is entitled to rely, in accordance with subsection (c) or (d), on:

(1) one or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the functions performed or the information, opinions, reports or statements provided;

(2) legal counsel, public accountants, or other persons retained by the corporation as to matters involving skills or expertise the director reasonably believes are matters (i) within the particular person's professional or expert competence or (ii) as to which the particular person merits confidence; o

(3) a committee of the board of directors of which the director is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.
[/quote]
ShaneRobinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006   #29
cma
 
Boulder
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneRobinson
“best interest of the corporation & shareholders takes precedence over any individual interests not shared by the stockholders generally” and "The one legal constraint on corporate governance is the fiduciary duties of officers & directors".
No where in what you posted below does it say this. The act you are quoting from is an ethics act, corporations are only held to the state law that they are registered in, the act above was an attempt by the federal government to get all states to adopt a similar law to avoid confusion. I am self employed, I am a corporation, I am my only employee. A corporation is only a legal business entity. I actually get taxed twice as a corporation, I get taxed on the profit my corporation makes and I get taxed on the income I pay myself. The corporation entity protects my personal belongings in case I would ever be sued. The only difference between my corporation and a public corporation is that they have stock that is available to be bought/sold/traded by the public. No public corporation issues more shares to the public than it holds itself, that way they keep a majority interest, this alone would nullify your arguement that they have to do what the shareholders say, they don't, they have a mojority interest. I could issue stock right now if I wanted and sell it to my friends, I would be a public corporation, at no time would I have to do what they told me to, neither does any other public corporation.

Quote:
So public companies literally cannot make a claim like all cotton products will be organic, like patagonia has done with its water girl line. At least not until organic cotton is cheaper than non.
That is total BS, a corporation can do whatever it wants, it's up to the individual investors to decide if they want to continue investing in that corporation. I own stock in several corps, one of which is Frontier Airlines, at no point in time have I or could I have been able to tell Frontier that I want them to change the way I want them to do business. As a share holder I am allowed to vote once a year on board positions. The way stocks are traded nowadays very few people even get this chance, most people own stocks through mutual funds or other funds that do not give them this oportunity.

Quote:
1%, Fair Trade, etc. all help us (the consumers) save time by not having to research companies. Rather we can trust these branding practices.
No where in the "How to join" section does it state that I couldn't be running a slaughterhouse or chemical waste dump and still be a 1% member.

http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.or...ER&CAT=WHYJOIN

Here are a few 1% members that are "Evil Corporations"

http://www.volcom.com/investorRelati...ex.asp?catId=1
http://www.resilience101.com/
http://www.klios.net/
http://www.windharvest.com/
http://www.arborhomemortgage.com/

even Patagonia is a corporation

Quote:
Also, a search on the 5% club revealed best nightclubs in vegas???
It all depends on how you search it, what does 1%fortheplanet come up with?

http://sites.target.com/site/en/corp...d=PRD03-001819

Quote:
Sure Target donates to charity, and they do because it is expected of big business. And its a write-off, and promotes good will, etc. But charity giving in general is just that, generic--every business does it.
So somehow if Patagonia or any other companiy donates, because it is a cause you support it is OK, if any other company donates to something elae it's a write off and is expected or "generic". please.


Quote:
Consumers want to be better educated, they want to know what companies are doing, and how they are spending their money, and how much their ceo makes, and how much they pollute, etc.
It is good to be educated, all of that info is public knowledge that can be easily looked up on the internet if it is a public company. Private companies on the other hand have no requirements to post any of this information. Once again according to the 1% website, there are no requirements of this sort to be a member, all you need to do is pay your dues.

Quote:
You seem to be a big target fan. If thats good with you, then great. I would hope that everyone would be bothered that people who work at target are still forced to withdraw welfare, but thats just my opinion.
Actually Target employees are paid pretty well for their work genre. I worked on a house that was being built for the Dayton family (who started Target) back when I lived in Minnesota and at that time the entire family had made an agreement that all future income of any kind went directly to charity. The Dayton family all the way back to the early 1900's has been a heavily philanthropic family and have allways tried to build businesses that are good for the communities that they serve. Any teacher can walk in to their local Target and fill out a grant proposal for anything from school supplies to whatever and they give that stuff away all the time. Your welfare quote on Target employees obliously shows your state of mind, and I would like to see the facts of that statement.

Quote:
Bottom line for me, is that I only make a few dollars a year, and when I spend it, I want to know where its going.
That's perfectly fine, your logic that all corporations are bad is just wrong, corporations can and do make great things, most of what you use and buy every day comes from a corporation of some kind. Raising peoples wages would be great, however it just as lilkely cause a raise in prices as well so you would end up in the same situation we have today. The great thing about America is that "Everyone" has oportunity to do what they want. If they want to aspire to be a checkout lady at a megastore so be it, if they want to improve their lives there are many educational options available through grants, cheap government backed student loans and scholarsips. If schooling isn't the option for moving up then there are groups like the SBA that will help you fill out all the paperwork and creat a business plan so that you can apply if needed for a ton of different low income small business grants and loans. There are a ton of ways and options for anyone that is in any line of work to bring themselves up. It happens everyday, if you would like to change that and force us into a socialistic system great, we can all aspire to mediocracy.
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006   #30
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneRobinson
boatnbike:
I got the law for you. It is at the bottom (so people don't get bored). Its codified in the Model Business Corporation Act, section 8.30, and also restated in Cinerama v. Technicolor, 663 A.2d 1156 (not copied because its a 43 page opinion). It is called the Duty of Loyalty of Directors and it basically says: “best interest of the corporation & shareholders takes precedence over any individual interests not shared by the stockholders generally” and "The one legal constraint on corporate governance is the fiduciary duties of officers & directors". In law, "best interest" is almost always boiled down to development and dollars. And this has been explicity stated in many court opinions. So public companies literally cannot make a claim like all cotton products will be organic, like patagonia has done with its water girl line. At least not until organic cotton is cheaper than non.
This is not a "law", it is a court opinion but for the sake of argument, let's say it is a law. You're making a huge jump here. Your original post stated "every public company is required by law to maximize profits". That is not the same thing as acting in the best interest of the shareholders. If the value of the stock is increasing at or above the rate of other companies in their industry, it would be very difficult to argue that they're not acting in the best interest of the shareholders, from a financial perspective, regardless of what materials they use in their product. It's also entirely possible that the shareholders could direct the company conduct their business to be more environmentally friendly. Would the CFO tell them, "Sorry, we're required by law to maximize profit."?

Here's a real-life example for you to ponder over lunch. Go to Chipotle and order a burrito. Chipotle is a public company, (CMG on the NYSE). The meat in your burrito is bought from ranches that raise animals without the use of hormones or antibiotics and are allowed to roam rather than being raised in cages. They could surely buy less expensive meat but Chipotle believes in supporting these ranches because of thier humane practices and that the meat is of a higher quality. I'm sure they'd be shocked to learn they are violating the law!

The reason for my original post was not about supporting the 1% program (which I do support BTW). You and I probably agree on more issues than we differ. It just irritates me when I see someone make misleading statement in support of their argument and makes me question the validity of their reasoning. That's all - I'm done.
__________________

boatnbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It's a Steep Planet steepplanet Commercial Posts 0 07-13-2006 10:22 AM
MOUNTAINBUZZ JOINS 1% FOR THE PLANET! holley Whitewater Kayaking 13 01-13-2006 09:35 PM

» Classified Ads
men's Mountain Hardwear...

posted by marilyn anderson

men's Mountain Hardwear grey gortex ski jacket/ size...

Demo 2016 Jackson Fun 1.5

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Fun 1.5 kids whitewater kayak - lightly...

Bell Nexus Whitewater...

posted by briandburns

A Bell Nexus 14' whitewater canoe set up for solo. Very...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.