Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple forbid they'd bring those manufacturing jobs to the US and actually pay some Californians a decent wage and help their own country. http://harryjerry.com/tech/how-apple-products-are-made-in-fo... http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&#...
Aren't companies legally required to act in the vest interests of shareholders? Overpaying for production out of patriotic racism doesn't seem to fit that mould.
I think the law says that companies are required to follow their constitution. Generally, the board of directors interprets that constitution, and then tells the CEO what to do.
Shareholders may be able to vote to change the constitution, but this would be covered by the company's constitution.
I think non-profits can be companies. That would be a very clear example of companies that are not legally required to act in the interests of shareholders.