Are shareholder value maximizing managers like Valmiki of Mahabharata?

Those who have read the Mahabharata would recognize what I'm alluding it. For the others, it is suffice to explain that saint Valmiki was originally a highway robber, who robbed others for a living. Once, he tried to rob a wise person who asked him about whom was he doing all that for. When the robber replied that he was doing this to support his family, the wise person asked him to return home and confirm with them whether they endorsed his actions or not. Hea was quite confident that the very people he was doing it for, would endorse and support his actions. To his shock, his wife and children(for whom he was robbing others) said that they did not want his sins to rub on to them. They felt that a basic living was his duty to provide, but they certainly did not want to share in his sins. Shocked by this, the robber saw his error and then reformed, to become the renowed saint Valmiki.

So what is the point of this parable? Under the garb of shareholder value maximization, other stakeholders are often squeezed. Suppliers are compelled to sell at unremunerative prices and often paid late; employees are underpaid and overworked; society is denuded of clean air/water and loaded with congestion/pollution; Governments are deprived of their due tax revenues etc. But it is often argued that this is what shareholders want! But in the absence of direct democracy for routine issues, it is not possible to ask them. But if companies did ask their shareholders, I'm sure their response would be similar to that of Valmiki's family. After all, psychological studies show that humans are not 100% rational, and are often suckers for a sob story.

Now, some may point to the 'Knowing Doing' gap i,e the importance of looking at people's actions instead of their professed sentiments. There is some truth in this because people are aware of the causes and ill effects of smoking, obesity and a host of other vices. Still, they remain addicted to it OR inertia stops them from changing habits. Similarly, in the investing context, though many investors especially the institutional ones have learnt the importance of inclusive corporate governance etc, it is doubtful that they give a damm, With the exception of Norway SWF, Calpers and a handful of other investors; few investors have behaved like Valmiki's family(censure and repudiation) when confronted with evidence of corporate wrong doing. The market capitalization may suffer in fear of economic penalties but not otherwise. So the managers may not be wrong, when they feel that they have the support of their shareholder family, in whatever they do.