I think you’re confusing publicly traded company CEO’s with “most” businesses or actual business owners. Not even close to the same animal. You should know this through your own experience. No??
Since I said something that insidious that I didn't actually mean on its face, I should amend my statement:
Do no harm - no matter what, cause no harm to the patient. What's best for the insurer, the hospital, the pharmaceutical co, etc. Those other considerations are secondary and not equal. Now obviously the real world does not always play out like that. You can also take it to an extreme, and skip life saving procedures because they risk harm, which is where a risk calculation is needed.
What I was crudely saying was that the ethics of a business are different than medicine, at least on paper. While the customer is always right, and you aim to provide a service or product that they will enjoy, working for their ultimate good is not usually the goal. )
That doesn't mean a business operates to cheat or trick people out of their money, though some do. But the ultimate good being served is the company's most of the time, not the consumer. There can be a balancing act of not taking advantage of consumers, being upfront about costs, providing entertainment/joy/improvement, but in the end most cannot survive by doing no harm to the consumer.
Selling them 10% more of something is not good for them. Being upfront about the costs before and during the transactions creates a more ethical delivery of financial harm. Bait and switching them into that 10% is not (especially if you pretended they'd be paying 30% less before undercoating fees
Many use those profits to do great things, or as a vehicle to touch lives. some even have business models built around doing good.
How you run your business affects what kind of impact you have, and how customers experience your company. It's possible to do both harm and good to them, and for them to notice both and appreciate the latter.
