California just created a whole new class of corporation for people who wanted a different standard of behavior, which could include social and environmental concerns.
I think it was unnecessary; California should have just made a statutory affirmation that any corporation may choose whatever goals its owners decide.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that's already the case, and the opposing idea – that 'maximizing profits' or 'maximizing shareholder value' is a legal requirement – is just a persistent misunderstanding.
I think such a misunderstanding is fed by some on both the right and left. On the right, some want to celebrate a singular, elegant rule for moving all decisions into an economic model. On the left, some want to smear the very idea of corporations as amoral at the core.
Neither view respects the idea of a corporation as a voluntarist coordination mechanism. A corporation is its shareholders' property, and just like any other property, may be deployed in any legal manner the owners see fit.
http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/11/benefit-corporations-calif...
So was that unnecessary? Could such behavior be compatible with the standard corporate model?