Journal of Business Ethics 14 (4):265 - 277 (1995)
AbstractThe neoclassical paradigm assumes that shareholders'' utility is solely a function of their wealth, and prescribes that management should act in a manner consistent with share price maximization. The stakeholder view also assumes that shareholders'' utility derives from wealth, but prescribes that managers must balance the shareholder wealth maximization objective against the rights of other constituencies. Thus, while neoclassicists and stakeholder theorists have different prescriptives for management behavior, their definitions of the shareholders'' interest are consistent — shareholders are self-interested economic agents whose utility is best served by share price maximization. However, if shareholders are other-interested, and attack importance to ethical and moral values, then both the neoclassical and stakeholder view derive from invalid assumptions. In this paper, I present evidence that much shareholder behavior is ethically motivated. As a result, the basis for both the neoclassical and the stakeholder view are weakened.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Similar books and articles
Shareholder Initiative: An Informal Social Choice and Game Theoretic Approach.Jeffrey N. Gordon - manuscript
A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory.Alexei M. Marcoux - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (1):1-24.
Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory.Wesley Cragg - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):113-142.
Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: Or, What's so Special About Shareholders?John R. Boatright - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):393-407.
Ethical Investing: Ethical Investors and Managers.Richard Hudson - 2005 - Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (4):641-657.
Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy.Adele Santana - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2):257-265.
Insiders' Personal Stock Donations From the Lens of Stakeholder, Stewardship and Agency Theories.Sudip Ghosh & Maretno A. Harjoto - 2011 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 20 (4):342-358.
The Role of Ethics in Executive Compensation: Toward a Contractarian Interpretation of the Neoclassical Theory of Managerial Renumeration. [REVIEW]Linda L. Carr & Moosa Valinezhad - 1994 - Journal of Business Ethics 13 (2):81 - 93.
The Ethical Implications of Ignoring Shareholder Directives to Remove Antitakeover Provisions.Victoria B. McWilliams - 2008 - Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (3):321-346.
References found in this work
Ethical Issues in Business a Philosophical Approach.Thomas Donaldson & Patricia Hogue Werhane - 1983 - Prentice-Hall.
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.
Citations of this work
The Quest to Improve the Human Condition: The First 1 500 Articles Published in Journal of Business Ethics. [REVIEW]Denis Collins - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 26 (1):1 - 73.
Stakeholders as Citizens? Rethinking Rights, Participation, and Democracy.Andrew Crane, Dirk Matten & Jeremy Moon - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):107-122.
Communicating Corporate Responsibility to Investors: The Changing Role of the Investor Relations Function. [REVIEW]Kai Hockerts & Lance Moir - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 52 (1):85-98.
The Value of Environmental Social Responsibility to Facility Managers: Revealing the Perceptions and Motives for Adopting ESR. [REVIEW]Haylee Uecker-Mercado & Matthew Walker - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 110 (3):269-284.