Most companies are running their own agenda. It's not necessarily a political, or moral, one, but it's still an agenda. It's what define their image in the mind of the public, and the reason why a company is preferred by young peoples, another by girls, and another one by conservatives, while all are selling the same product, but project different values.
As I said, a company will ape certain behaviors if there is a perceived benefit. I will clarify agenda as its a pretty broad term (I mean without an agenda their meetings would be chaos
)- I meant an agenda outside of running a business.
What do you mean by "private" and "public"?
Is it "closed capital" Vs "opened capital" (listed on the stock exchange), or is it "privately owned" Vs "publicly owned" (owned by a government)?
Referring to listed companies
It's publicly owned companies that can't take side, while McDonalds is a privately owned company with an opened capital. Except in the USA since dumbass donald signed its stupid executive order, and outside of the strict political field (what party you support) privately owned company can take side, and most do in a way or another.
By example, Benetton slogan is, since decades, "united colors of Benetton", that is a direct stand against racism, and there's absolutely nothing illegal in that.
AS above, a company will ape certain behaviors if there is a perceived benefit. I am not referring to a single country - you can take the US as a low regulation region and France (EU) as a much more regulation region. The mistake is thinking that a listed company actually cares, they don't. Gay pride flags in one country, nothing in another - they will mold to whatever suits their purposes.
What have absolutely nothing to do with "making money", "agenda" and "taking side".
Plus it's not the list of ingredients that change, it's their origin. A Big Mac have the same ingredients whatever the country, but the beef used in one country will not have the same origin that the one used in another country, depending on the local regulation.
And, of course, this isn't enforced by McDonalds. Would they want it, that they wouldn't be able to use beef that can not be produced and/or imported in the country. They don't care to know if there's, by example, hormones in the beef they use, because it's their provided responsibility to not sell something illegal.
Ingredients absolutely change - the preservatives, food coloring's etc. Right now RFK is looking at banning food coloring already illegal in the EU and other places. And if hormones in cattle is illegal, then the beef will not include that. This is what I was saying as an example of regulation being implemented that alter the companies behaviors (again government sets the playing field). So a company trading in two regions has vastly different behaviours in each.
You're confusing everything.
No, I am not. Once unelected corporate entities start interfering with the electoral/governmental system you end up with an 'inmates running the asylum' scenario, where they can gain far far more autonomy to for example roll back safety standards, workers rights etc.
This is why I was saying you want them to pretty much just focus on business (within the governments rules) rather than outside of that. The morality should be dictated by either government regulation &/or a fear of PR backlash, not from their own compass (because then that compass may run at cross purposes with those other two things).
It's absolutely not what she said.
no, its not & that was not what I meant, I was a little unclear - that was a brief summary from me. the 'you' was the proverbial 'you' (not a particular user)
It's just, and she's totally right in this, that making money isn't the only reason why companies exist. They try to make benefices, yes, but not all of them focus on this, not all of them place those benefice in the first place; even among the biggest ones.
The world isn't limited to the USA, and in many countries there's regulations precisely to prevent them to focus on the benefices. Loot boxes are illegal in Belgium (it's hardly enforced, but it's the law). In the EU you can't call something "cheese", or "butter", if there's no dairy. And so on. Most of the tricks used in the USA to maximize benefices are illegal outside of the USA. And same goes for the dividends, with many countries having them partly or totally regulated, with by example the obligation to distribute a part of them to the employees.
Again you have provided example supporting what I have said, in certain areas with more regulation, the standards are more inline with that society's expectations. This is the 'playing field' I was referring to (regulation/government). Without loot boxes the company will still look for another avenue to make profit, they don't just throw their hands up. Again this is exactly an example of what I was saying. Failure to comply = lost profits they will comply.
People on social networks like to joke about the "pizza party" used as incentive or rewards for the employees, but if you look closely, 99% of those who do it are from the USA. In other countries really few companies would dare to try this, because they know that it would backfire in no time.
And when I say "really few companies", I mean it. While in the USA Amazon employees try hard to get some rights, in France they have double maternity leave, and can have 7,000€ (or 9,000€ don't remember right now) to train for another job; both being above what is provided for by law. This being mostly to fight the image of soulless exploiter that the company have had for too long in the country. Same for McDonalds who, in the 90s redone all its supply chain, switching to local origin (at county level, national level, and if really they can't do otherwise close European level) in order to counter the bad image it had at those time, especially among farmers.
For both, it isn't due to an explicit pressure from the employees, but to an implicit pressure from the public. Of course, it increase the production costs, and therefore reduce the benefices; especially since you need to spend millions in advertisement to promote those changes. But lower benefices are always better that amazing benefices that decrease years after years until you loose all your customers.
And the loose is real, even when you're a big actor. McDonalds had ~75% of the market when the mess started, and they lost ~15% of their customers in just one year. [no, I'll not search references for a 30+ years old purely local situation, especially at this time. So, believe me or not, I don't care.]
Again, this is regulation in your specific country mirroring your societal beliefs along with the company understanding (or not) that certain behaviors will cost them profits, so they Ape other societal expectations (even above and beyond regulation) to keep up PR. This is very different from SETTING societal expectations.
A listed companies actions are in pursuit of profit, by their very nature they HAVE to be because they are providing dividends to the shareholders rather than holding profits - this is why they go into liquidation so quickly, they generally do not hold vast reserves & once they become insolvent they collapse. You see it all this time - record profits for decades and then a bad year and collapse, for a relevant example in the gaming space look at the collapse of THQ.
This is not some 'capitalism good lolz' argument either, you want companies held in check, but you also want them to be able to conduct business without those requirements becoming too onerous. Its a fine balance. My example of the East India Company was that once a company starts to get out of its box it becomes a very, very dangerous situation.
Taking your earlier example of the US as a low regulation region and France (EU) as a much more regulated region, within the US the companies are showing far
less restraint in pursuit of profits then in France. The Freedom is used to attempt higher profits, they do not self regulate or hold back/increase workers pay/rights etc. for any moral reasons (unless they see this is protecting or increasing profits).
to summarize my point a (publicly listed) company is 100% focused on profits - imagine a pile of gold & a man (the company) is told he can take as much as he can carry. In some regions he will grab as much as he can, in others one arm may be tied behind his back - that doesn't stop him from still trying to grab as much gold as he can with that restriction. In no region would a publicly traded company voluntarily take less gold (unless they reasoned the it would would profit them more than the gold they were leaving through optics or some other means).
I respect your stance regarding Jaike, but engaging with him is a waste of time. I speak from experience, having debated with him extensively. While discussion should be an exchange, he only takes and never gives. He refuses to admit when he is wrong, and his stubborn pride makes meaningful conversation impossible.
Ahh the joys of the politics thread... this guy thinks that men should be responsible for women and control their financial decisions...
Here is an idea, why not leave gripes within the thread they belong rather than trying to stifle unrelated conversation in another?
This being said, corporate spirit faded both side. It starts to be rare than someone qualify for a 10/20/30/40 years of service medal; if even it's still a thing.
Pretty sure it was a combination of taxation reforms (cant write-off massive parties), HR departments increasing (and the corresponding complaints & liabilities that arose) & the death of the 'career company man' concept (the 'gig' economy turning employees are a commodity).
