The thing is corporations exist precisely to limit liability. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and accept all the legal liability. However, we make this activity undesirable through policy: (personal income is taxable in a much more punishing way than corporate income, and the legal system is incredibly expensive - the more customers you have, the more you are likely to be exposed to a crazy customer who is going to abuse the system and personally bankrupt you with frivolous lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in that climate?

You're talking about legal liability; deogeo sounds like they're talking about social liability.

Correct.

one is free to start a company with those rules in the corporate charter. Heck, I'd even work there, but I'm wouldn't count on my job being around for long.

Nor would a company be around for long if it were the only one respecting environmental protections, workplace safety standards, or anti-child-labor laws.

I'm not sure how this applies in this scenario: It looks like workers, rather than the board, cast a vote of no confidence on the CEO. Publicly traded companies seem to operate fine with boards being able to remove CEOs, so what's the problem here?

That is like the concept of sousveillance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

we need this