Yes, and lest you present that as some kind of “gotcha,” the Gestapo didn’t disappear until the Nazis were removed from power, because they were the ones giving the orders. This isn’t about guilt, it’s about actually achieving something.
Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
Why do people go after the execs when the board of directors is the ones making the shitty decisions?
The news never talks about boards, so it’s not really in most people’s minds. The majority of people probably think of the CEO as the king.
You mean they are just following orders?
Yes, and lest you present that as some kind of “gotcha,” the Gestapo didn’t disappear until the Nazis were removed from power, because they were the ones giving the orders. This isn’t about guilt, it’s about actually achieving something.
Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
Ok, let’s say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They’ll fire that CEO and hire another one that’ll listen. The problem persists.
Then it would be the new CEO’s duty to likewise object to unethical instructions.
Mind, I’m not saying the board shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he’s “just following orders”.
Because the majority of share holders making those decisions are executives in their own right.
many execs are either on, heavily influence, or will become a part of the board.
when killing a snake you can’t just cut off the head, you have to bury it as well.
Cut the head, burn the neck. Just like what Old Man Herc did.