Naw. In order for the directors to be stopped by 'leaving money on the table' someone would need to bring a claim against them. One which they would almost certainly lose.
And then even if someone did, the executives wouldn't even need to make the claim that the actions ultimately increased profits at all, because the courts just toss them a strong presumption for free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
You're repeating a lie. Stop it.
It's meaningless and always has been. Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?
> Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?
Speaking for myself. I thought it made a difference as part of the charter, with the expectation that overtly evil behavior can be punished eith real teeth (shareholder lawsuits for violating the charter)
Alphabet is a Deleware corporation, where executives that leave money on the table for moral reasons have to at least claim that it was their business judgment that the action would ultimately increase profits for shareholder value in the long term.
There are many arguments those executives could make, such as that employees could get dissatisfied with the company and cost them more in the long run, so it is important for employees to be loud about it.