Edit: This question attracted way more interest than I hoped for! I will need some time to go through the comments in the next days, thanks for your efforts everyone. One thing I could grasp from the answers already - it seems to be complicated. There is no one fits all answer.

Under capitalism, it seems companies always need to grow bigger. Why can’t they just say, okay, we have 100 employees and produce a nice product for a specific market and that’s fine?

Or is this only a US megacorp thing where they need to grow to satisfy their shareholders?

Let’s ignore that most of the times the small companies get bought by the large ones.

  • MolochAlter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not “companies”, it’spublicly traded companies.

    And the answer is quite simple really: the moment you become publicly traded your stock becomes your product, and everything else becomes a means to deliver better stock prices to your investors.

    Not all companies are publicly traded, I patronise privately held companies wherever possible because as a client I’m still at the core of their business strategy, and I’m wary of the alternative.

    At the end of the day, bad strategies result in bad products and services. Vote with your wallet, it’s very possible.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      That is a myth. The law is actually far more complicated, at least in the U.S., and presumably elsewhere too.

      • cdf12345@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Please elaborate because everything written above is correct. Companies must maximize value.

        The leading statement of the law’s view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that “a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders.” That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that “it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others.”