Sometimes fulfilling fiduciary obligations and creating a safer work environment aren't mutually exclusive...
Google obviously gives a shit about its net profits.
> So you're saying that Google's board weren't all hired with the express instruction to maximise earnings per share?
Board members aren't "hired", they're elected by the shareholders. They are not employees of the corporation (usually) and they do not have contracts with shareholders. Shareholders will, obviously, vote them out if company performance suffers.
Salary and bonuses for who? The board doesn't get salary and bonuses.
> Who owns the entity that pays the salary & bonuses?
Corporate ownership is a complex topic. The oversimplification that shareholders "own" a fractional portion of the corporation is not entirely accurate and breaks down in complex cases like this. You get into share classes, the status of the corporate entity as an independent legal entity (which, in turn, goes down a rabbit hole that leads to corporations as non-natural people), and what power shareholders have over the guidance of the corporate entity.
Boards are not infallible, nor are the people on them. They're not even infallible at maximising profit - never mind trying to handle challenging cultural problems without being eaten alive by them.
How do shareholders benefit from the increased legal exposure of this new policy? And why, if everything Google does is to benefit the bottom line, are they choosing not employ this new policy retroactively? They didn't have to do any of this.