Companies don't do anything. People do. The individuals who make up any Fortune 100 company most likely do want to do the right thing individually, but communication at scale is really hard which leads to all kinds of unintended consequences.

Maybe the majority of the worker bees.

The people who make decisions have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder profits.

This is a myth. There is an obligation to serve the share holders' "best interests", but that doesn't necessarily mean profitability. It probably doesn't mean maximizing profitability a lot of the time as shareholders are not single dimensional characters. Often shareholders of public companies are just plain old people with a retirement fund, who live regular lives like you and I. The choices made within the business, especially a Fortune 100, are bound to impact them in other ways.

But communication at scale is hard. Shareholders may not always accurately communicate to their nominated trustees what is in their best interest. Profit is an easy one to communicate, but "do the right thing", which likely requires a lot of nuance to understand, is definitely not.

If you look at any shareholder lawsuits - it's pretty clear what the obligation means, what you get sued for, and what you'll lose a lawsuit over.

The vast majority of Apple shares outstanding aren't owned by people who want to turn it into the world police or a charity. They want a return on their investment - not to turn their investment into a charitable donation to make the world a better place.

If you wanted to invest in charities - there's better options than owning stocks...

Indeed. And you will find that not maximizing profitability doesn't always lose. But if shareholders are suing for not maximizing profitability then that indicates that there are no other competing concerns among the shareholders, so no doubt it would be a challenge to defend that. It would be easier to defend more complex cases where there is nuance. As mentioned before, profit is the one thing – and probably the only thing – that is easy to communicate at scale.

> They want a return on their investment - not to turn their investment into a charitable donation to make the world a better place.

Shareholders want their world to be a better place. Profits are one way to grease that, but not when it is at odds with competing interests. There are countless examples where companies have not sought maximized profits to seek other benefits instead. Shareholders have to live in the world they create after all. Granted, because communication at scale is hard there are unintended consequences to be found.