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.
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.