This allows plenty of scope to make considerations like long-term reputation and employee satisfaction/loyalty/welfare high priorities, even at the expense of profits.

There's plenty of scope for further discussion about these points, but the key point remains: shareholder primacy is not law and not the focus of company directors' fiduciary duty.

Uncapped growth is just as evil as unfettered greed - both charge forth without a second thought to externalities, while motivated to externalize as many costs as possible. So we end up with boiling oceans and rampant homelessness, because those are all "not our problem".

They are not. They are expected to serve the interests of the company, as distinct from the interests of shareholders, and matters like employee welfare/satisfaction and company reputation relating to externalities are very relevant to the interests of the company.

That some companies ignore these matters is separate from the principle: it’s not inconsistent with capitalism for companies to care about issues other than profits and shareholder returns.

Of course a corporation has responsibilities to its shareholders. But maximizing profit never has to be the only responsibility.

I personally know executives in some food manufacturing/preparation companies, both public and private, who gladly pay very close attention to worker safety, food safety, and all the things you say a company would do only if forced by law.

They do it because they know it's the right thing to do. And it helps them recruit and retain employees, and keep their customers happy. Their shareholders support them in this and would complain very loudly if the company ever put pure profit above all other goals.

Here is one reference for you:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

https://archive.vn/ARcc3 in case it's paywalled, but it didn't seem to be for me.

> Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits

> There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

You will find many more citations with a search like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+a+corporation+obligated+t...

Yes, and those companies exist in a society, and long term planning is vital for long term profits, and that is 100% sensible and correct operating procedure.

Treating employees poorly can effect the ability to hire, and retain good people. It can effect consumers' desire to buy your products. It can result in unions, and the passing of laws, and therefore red tape.

So even if you have a dim view, re corporate responsibility, it matters not, for that role has larger scope than "profit this second".

And beyond this? All corporate decisions are made by people, and those people have every right to make moral decisions.

I question that initial premise.

Few absolutist capitalists want to hear that they, their companies, their wealth, their shareholders, etc. are mere tools - which Human Society can use in pursuit of its own responsibilities...or quietly "dispose of", if Society finds them to be more trouble than they are worth.

First off: it's not a company's responsibility to increase shareholder profit. It very much depends on the view of the people involved. But you're completely right when you think that greedy people can push in that direction and that a legal framework is the only way to keep that in check and make sure companies pay their dues to society. Social democracy still seems the only way to strike a proper balance between exploitation and lack of incentive.