This isn't 'a person', this is one of 'THE' people. Elon Musk is technically just 'a person' at Tesla, but their actions have clear and profound effects. The same is true here.
When you're a founder or one of the c-suite your actions represent the full company. That's part of your job.
I disagree. Daniel's private actions does not represent the company. The difference between the private actions of a CEO and an employee's is that if the actions are controversial they are much more likely to affect the company's reputation if a CEO did them than if an employee did them.
Does Swedish corporate law not have the concept of bringing the company into disrepute?
In the European countries I'm familiar with, company directors are held to a higher standard precisely because they represent the company and have a duty to avoid damaging it through their private as well as public acts. Is Sweden really so very different?
If this is the law in Sweden it should be immediately repealed, precisely in order to prevent people from arguing that a political donation counts as legally-punishable "damage to a company" if it's the wrong kind of political donation.
The fact that you're claiming that a donation to an anti-immigration political party is the sort of conduct that people "held to a higher standard" by law should be forbidden from doing is a type of political censorship that you're trying to enact via the mechanism of corporate law, and it's worth destroying that mechanism of corporate law over it.
He has clearly brought the company into disrepute. The appalled reaction of so many of their customers is ample evidence of that.
It doesn't really matter how that's happened - it wouldn't be the donation that's the problem from the pov of corporate law in other countries, it's the fact that a company director has harmed the company.
