Executives in large corporations are ultimately rewarded if their companies do well, particularly as evidenced by rising stock prices. Consequently, shouldn’t we just let those who run corporations decide which level of negative side effects is "acceptable" for their companies’ products?

There is no denying the way that the administrators are remunerated for their difficult work and commitment in the association's prosperity. It is the most widely recognized method for persuading them for contributing more towards hierarchical achievement. Along these lines, if the organization is performing great the credit goes to the ones who are running the partnership effectively. They are likewise mindful of the qualities and shortcomings of the association and its kin they can contribute all the more decidedly to accomplish the objectives and meets the individual and hierarchical objectives.  

In each organization, there will be sure and negative impacts of its activities and choices and the directors/officials need to settle on cruel choices some of the time. This is completely evident that the individuals running the association must be given the power to conclude that to what degree negative effect can be viewed as satisfactory as such outcomes would consistently be there. It can't be overlooked. Along these lines, the administrators who are running the association and are leaders ought to be enabled to choose the worthy scope of negative symptoms as well.

i believe the answer would have to be a dependable person