| |
|
It depends on whether shareholders can keep the pressure on. As the chairman pointed out, the vote didn't carry any legal weight. GSK could wait a month or so for the noise to die down and then quietly give Garnier his cash. Technically, a company is legally bound to make as much money as possible per quarter, taking full advantage of every loophole in the law, and even bending a few (such as launching harassment lawsuits) when needed.
But a company doesn't exist in a vacuum, and a case could be made that bad behavior that gains high profits this quarter can erase those profits (and then some) down the road. So it would still be a selfish decision, but one that took a wider and longer view of self-interest. The widest view would see how investor abandoned the stock market after Enron proved directors who bully competitors and break laws will also cheat their own stockholders.
Stockholders can also hold executives to the same standard the latter hold their workers. Overpaid clowns are an expensive luxury and hurt the bottom line. That's gotta be worth more than the risk of scaring away talent by violating the unspoken agreement not too unbalance the quango minuet by punishing the crooks too harshly.
But activist stockholders may force good behavior, but institutional investors might dump the stock for an evil but better performing one. |
|
|
