Corporations exist to bring value to shareholders. They do this by defining their own targets with their own economic interests in mind. Maximize paperclip sales YoY, minimize costs.<p>Just as a corporation cannot exist in a vacuum, neither should it's measure of success. It is impossible to have a corporation without financial, social and cultural impact in its operating environment.<p>Why do we let corporations decide unilaterally what their success looks like, without input from the society they are operating in?<p>How would our society look like if McDonald's was regularly taxed x<i>companyScale</i>populationObesity% for its operating country or region?<p>Or Marlboro taxed companyScale<i>y^(z</i>populationLungCancer%)?<p>There is certainly evidence linking those 2 societal, highly impacting "metrics" with the products of those corporations. The effects of which are amplified by the limitless maximization of burgers/cigarettes sold YoY.<p>Maybe if depression can be somehow measured, and linked to social media usage, the same could apply to Facebook. It's way more complicated than burgers or cigarettes though.<p>But the underlying cause is the same, the Friedman mantra of maximizing returns to shareholders, when taken from an exclusively economic perspective, is simply wrong and unethical.<p>The societies impacted by the operations of a corporation, should have a say in what success looks like for that corporation.