Shareholders haven't resolved that Intel must or must not use slave labour.
And a court isn't going to second-guess the management if they judge the cost savings of using slave labour don't outweigh the potential for reputational damage.
I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations, because many don't even know they are shareholders. Think about Joe Blow from the US. He has a managed 401k or some such investment. He has no idea the 'low-risk' fund offered through Edward Jones invests in Intel or Google or whoever. He has no idea he plays a part in this.
I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations
There's such a thing as activist investors, and they seem to be gaining influence lately. From what I read in the newspaper, they're behind a lot of the changes that are starting to happen at certain multi-national oil companies.
A flaw in the system to be sure. As a former INTC owner, I dumped my stake a while ago.
I think there should be far more shareholder involvement in general. We are far too acquiescent as a group.
If you polled every direct and indirect INTC holder (you may be one, unknowingly) about slavery and concentration camps, you’d walk away with a near 100% mandate for taking all measures against it.
Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.