Here in Finland, the law states that if the pedestrian is on the pedestrian crossing or is ready to cross at one, the motorist has to let them cross unimpeded.
Merging back to the original topic, how does anyone tell that better/tolerant culture yields better results (compare road culture wrt traffic accidents and deaths), to large companies?
It is interesting to me how the negative developments I saw in academia have now reached even large multinational companies, which risk more than ever by letting ideologically programmed people at the Cxx level.
I mean, in a politically charged environment with a near even split, it is obvious that being apolitical and walking the centerline makes the most business sense, because any deviation will only reduce your customer base. Switching from one to the other (Like Bud Light) makes no business sense at all; and remotely disabling home appliances because of an accusation, when the company is trying to push home automation and "smart" home appliances, seems absolutely counter to business interests.
In many Western countries, there are laws that require publicly traded companies' officers to put owners' financial interest in front of personal interests, with the ability of the owners to sue the officers for damages etc. if they fail to do so. Apparently, because the owners are now large companies themselves with their Cxx-level officers having the same ideologically loaded university education and background, this does not seem to be a concern anymore.
Note: My point stands regardless of whether one agrees the ideas pushed are good or not.