>By proxy when the unpopularity of a decision impacts revenue/public perception. We can choose not to do business with companies that are especially unconscionable.

do you really live in a fairy tale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-n...

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/23/gilead-sciences-coronavi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

just off the top of my head

none of that disproves anything I said, and the fact PR departments exist proves perception matters.

>none of that disproves anything I said

i love people like you. gets presented with evidence to the contrary and just completely dismisses it. have you ever considered that you might let it roll around in your head before you make the call that none of it disproves anything you said? have you really done the due diligence on the examples i've furnished?

I'm familiar with most of it. Yes, obviously companies do bad things all the time, often get away eith it, and sociopaths are more likely to rise to high positions. How does that mean we can't judge companies for their actions and try to hold them to standards? Especially in this age where information travels so easily?

Here's one case of public reaction doing something: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/social-media-sha...

How slavery free diamonds became a selling point works too. Because people didn't want to buy blood diamonds so the business had to change.