• luciferofastora@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.

    • PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Ok, let’s say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They’ll fire that CEO and hire another one that’ll listen. The problem persists.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Then it would be the new CEO’s duty to likewise object to unethical instructions.

        Mind, I’m not saying the board shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he’s “just following orders”.