Do we want a chance of a working system, or just accept fraud all the way down?
At least some of those examples are tied up with one industry spinning up misleading studies to make money by known false messages of margarine over butter or sugar vs fat etc. Chances are Nestle, Kraft and Coke or whoever have dozens of studies they didn't reveal sitting in the filing cabinet before they got the couple that gave the misleading results they needed to make a ton more money.
It's nearly always the case that when we find out years or decades later, "they knew" and actually had extensive investigation on the topic - but chose not to care, or found a way to actively brief against the public interest, rather than it had simply never occurred to them to look or an innocent mistake was made. No, it generally turns out they have pretty extensive science and studies, just very very selective about what they let on about. Maybe there's a high profile spokes-PhD or two and everyone spends decades believing the problem is fat not sugars and apparently there are no consequences.
If the company and execs, and past execs were held accountable, and had a duty of care to customers and public, perhaps their past bullshit, PR lies, and talking bollocks under Congressional Committee oath (I believe one was "We don't believe tobacco is addictive" from assorted CEOs under oath) can come back to haunt them. What would match with 2 years CEO jail time for the corporate-personhood? 2 years delisting and forfeit of dividends or profit? That might focus investors and execs on appropriate board integrity a little more... :)
Is it really that old-fashioned to think there should be consequences for those who cheat even if they hide behind a corporation? Back when I was a director I actually gave a shit about us being honest, offering an honest service, and holding the staff to the same standard - especially when they were talking on the company's behalf.
No, if the weight of evidence was there I'd push to pivot to non-violent, or less violent games, or patch it family friendly as appropriate -- but I already think many US movies and some games are absurdly OTT with violence, to the point of spoiling them. Course if there was enough research to show harm, I would hope for regulation setting an appropriate limit so everyone is accountable to the same standard.
The TL;DR the customer is the other party to mutually benefit from our offering, not a cow to be industrially milked regardless. After 40 years I still haven't bought into "greed is good", we should aspire - and regulate - to a higher standard to everyone's benefit. :)
In a more general business context I would hope to show we a) thought about it and investigated it properly then b) took a considered view that we could stand by if it was later publicised or leaked, i.e. properly exercised our duty of care and reasonable ethics.
Knowing there's a problem and carefully keeping quiet about it, or pretending the opposite and spinning against - maybe even hiring a PR agency to sow doubt, or ignoring contaminated product -- well those all seem to tip easily into criminal negligence and should come with serious consequence for both directors and company.
As an aside, I've always found it most odd that US tv is frequently laissez-faire on violence, but will beep out or overdub minor-friendly trivial profanity or get all puritan about a hint of nipple or human relations. Mostly the opposite of the European perspective. I quite often fast forward through the boring over-long fight sequence or shoot outs in US TV and movies... If it's an 18 rated horror I've sat down to watch, sure, bring it - though I'll probably still skip the 5 minute OTT shoot out to save yawns... :)
At least some of those examples are tied up with one industry spinning up misleading studies to make money by known false messages of margarine over butter or sugar vs fat etc. Chances are Nestle, Kraft and Coke or whoever have dozens of studies they didn't reveal sitting in the filing cabinet before they got the couple that gave the misleading results they needed to make a ton more money.
It's nearly always the case that when we find out years or decades later, "they knew" and actually had extensive investigation on the topic - but chose not to care, or found a way to actively brief against the public interest, rather than it had simply never occurred to them to look or an innocent mistake was made. No, it generally turns out they have pretty extensive science and studies, just very very selective about what they let on about. Maybe there's a high profile spokes-PhD or two and everyone spends decades believing the problem is fat not sugars and apparently there are no consequences.
If the company and execs, and past execs were held accountable, and had a duty of care to customers and public, perhaps their past bullshit, PR lies, and talking bollocks under Congressional Committee oath (I believe one was "We don't believe tobacco is addictive" from assorted CEOs under oath) can come back to haunt them. What would match with 2 years CEO jail time for the corporate-personhood? 2 years delisting and forfeit of dividends or profit? That might focus investors and execs on appropriate board integrity a little more... :)
Is it really that old-fashioned to think there should be consequences for those who cheat even if they hide behind a corporation? Back when I was a director I actually gave a shit about us being honest, offering an honest service, and holding the staff to the same standard - especially when they were talking on the company's behalf.