> I understand that these public companies are required to act in the best interests of shareholders
This is not true. Public companies are only required to be honest with shareholders, no more or less. The shareholders are free to invest elsewhere if the don't like how a company is run, or to exercise whatever voting rights they bought with the shares.
That might have been true in the past, but now there are activist shareholders who will try to take control rather than dump the stock and move on to something else. After all, it is their investment, and if they choose to raise their voice then that is their right as well.
Sure they can raise their voice but they're limited in what they can achieve, legally speaking. Especially in large companies with a lot of shareholders. Unless the companies by-laws give shareholders undue influence, which would be unusual.
It's true that activists can make a nuisance of themselves if there are enough of them but they basically have to hope to get sections of the press on their side and for the company to care about that. The risk, of course, is the bad press ends up hurting their own investment.
In short, they have no legal recourse unless the company mislead them in some way.
Are you really this unfamiliar with this or being obtuse about it? Of course it is unlikely that a single shareholder will have enough stock to hold clout, but that's not how these people operate. Just like no one person makes a difference when protesting anything. You find like minded people, gather together, and make your large number of people heard. Sure, it's not easy to get a large enough percentage of the stock, but there are ways of doing it and it has been done and will continue to be done. A recent tech example is how Disney was pushed by its investors to pursue the streaming options [0].
Have you tried playing this out to the end? You're hung up on words like "require" that I, some random dude on the interweb used, rather than actually realizing the intent or spirit of the comment. You think any company receiving negative press is going to just allow that to continue without addressing the concerns somehow? An activist investor/shareholder doesn't just stop with press briefings. If they still feel agrieved, they can attempt to manipulate the board by having their own member installed. From there, they can direct if the CEO even gets to keep their job. As a board member, they have a lot more power.
I feel like you're limiting your imagination on how much power stockholders can have. Some companies are probably a little more resielient against this type of "attack", but rich people play all sorts of games because they feel slighted or bored. Watch the TV show "Billions" if you want some fun fictional aspects, but these stories are not made in a vacuum.
Btw, naming calling does not help you make your case, whatever that may be. Neither does watching a fictional TV show. I'm really not inclined to continue this if this is the level of discourse.
Can you show me one instance of activist shareholders of a major company ousting a CEO via filling the board with shareholder nominated directors? And no, "imagining" it happening isn't evidence of it happening.
If you think the term obtuse is name calling then that's kind of on you. That's not my intent. It's just a word that aptly describes the conversation. Obtuse and ignorant are often misunderstood and taken as name calling when if someone was name calling words like stupid and dumb would be better suited.
Shareholder activism can work. Yes, there are plenty of search results titles that show the activism attempts to oust someone failed. However, I did not pursue further (beyond the scope of your question and lack of willing to search on your own) if the attempt still had a change towards the activist's agenda.
It seems that shareholder activists seem to be disliked in the normal business world, but the normal business world has taken us down some dark paths so I think they can take a hike. Businesses have shown they care little to nothing about the "greater good", but are only concerned about the stockholders. So people have gotten savvy to that notion, and have started to weaponize stock ownership. Just like anything else, it can used for "evil" and it was for a long time with hostile takeovers. Now, these takeovers can have an impetus for good instead of greed.
This is not true. Public companies are only required to be honest with shareholders, no more or less. The shareholders are free to invest elsewhere if the don't like how a company is run, or to exercise whatever voting rights they bought with the shares.