I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible."

It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

No , you're spreading misinformation [0]. The company's board does not have a legal obligation to "act in the interest of stockholders regardless of moral impact" in any meaningful manner. Anything, including "positive moral impact", can be spun as being in the interest of shareholders. What you're implying is a legal duty towards short-term profit maximization. Absolutely nothing of the sort exists.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975048

> Not sure what this means

That's quite a statement.

> I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty"

No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand.

> the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

That's a theory of the ~1980s that people who suffer from its consequences still seem to latch onto - perhaps it's simplicity is appealing, maybe its algorithmic decision-making appeals to the IT world - but not true.

Even now, when such things are at historical extremes, corporations take into account other issues. Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced.