Journal of Business Ethics 5 (5):385 - 390 (1986)
Abstract |
This paper attempts to address the question of the ethical obligations of stockholders. Having presumed a rather narrow conception of the nature of property, and citing the limitations on stockholders rights and/or power, some have suggested that stockholders have no significant moral responsibilities. Others say that stockholders have moral responsibilities which they derive from the fact that the shareholders of a corporation are the legal owners of it. This article first of all, contests the view that stockholders have no responsibilities regarding the moral or immoral activities of the corporation in which they invest. It will be maintained, however, that while stockholders have moral responsibilities to monitor corporate decisions and perhaps, to actively try to influence the corporation to act morally, such ethical obligations cannot be derived solely from the stockholders' legal ownership of the corporation. The true ground of the moral obligations of stockholders is a social/political one and one which embraces a broadened conception of the nature of property.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/BF00382784 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Institutional Ownership of Stock and Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Empirical Examination. [REVIEW]Betty S. Coffey & Gerald E. Fryxell - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (6):437 - 444.
It’s a Matter of Principle: The Role of Personal Values in Investment Decisions. [REVIEW]William R. Pasewark & Mark E. Riley - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 93 (2):237 - 253.
The Ethics of Investing: Making Money or Making a Difference?Joakim Sandberg - 2008 - Dissertation, University of Gothenburg
It’s a Matter of Principle: The Role of Personal Values in Investment Decisions.William R. Pasewark & Mark E. Riley - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 93 (2):237-253.
Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? A Literature Review of Theories and Recent Empirical Findings.Christian M. Faller & Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß - 2018 - Journal of Business Ethics 150 (1):15-40.
Similar books and articles
Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders.Andrew Wicks - 1999 - Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (2):273-293.
The Morality of the Corporation: An Empirical or Normative Disagreement?Ian Maitland - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):445-458.
The Libertarian Conception of Corporate Property: A Critique of Milton Friedman's Views on the Social Responsibility of Business.Richard Nunan - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (12):891 - 906.
Conflicting Approaches of Managers and Stockholders in a Developing Country: Bangladesh Perspective.Muhammad Z. Mamun & Mohammad Aslam - 2009 - International Corporate Responsibility Series 4:317-335.
Beyond Stockholders and Stakeholders: A Plea for Corporate Moral Autonomy. [REVIEW]James M. Humber - 2002 - Journal of Business Ethics 36 (3):207 - 221.
GM and Corporate Responsibility.Richard T. George - 1986 - Journal of Business Ethics 5 (3):177 - 179.
A Comparison of Japanese and U.S. Corporate Financial Accountability and its Impact on the Responsibilities of Corporate Managers.Alejandro Hazera - 1995 - Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (3):479-497.
Distributive Justice in Firms: Do the Rules of Corporate Governance Matter?Ian Maitland - 2001 - Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1):129-143.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
95 ( #124,492 of 2,519,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,480 )
2009-01-28
Total views
95 ( #124,492 of 2,519,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,480 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads