IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v117y2013i3p583-599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Mansell

Abstract

This article draws on the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant to explore whether a corporate ‘duty of beneficence’ to non-shareholders is consistent with the orthodox ‘shareholder theory’ of the firm. It examines the ethical framework of Milton Friedman’s argument and asks whether it necessarily rules out the well-being of non-shareholders as a corporate objective. The article examines Kant’s distinction between ‘duties of right’ and ‘duties of virtue’ (the latter including the duty of beneficence) and investigates their consistency with the shareholder theory. The article concludes that it is possible within the ethical framework of shareholder theory for managers to pursue directly the happiness of non-shareholders. Furthermore, shareholders have a duty to hold management to account for the moral consequences of the firm’s activities on non-shareholding stakeholders. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:117:y:2013:i:3:p:583-599
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1542-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1542-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-012-1542-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. Yonca Ertimur & Fabrizio Ferri & Volkan Muslu, 2011. "Shareholder Activism and CEO Pay," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(2), pages 535-592.
    3. Lea, David, 2004. "The Imperfect Nature of Corporate Responsibilities to Stakeholders," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 201-217, April.
    4. Van Buren, Harry J., 2001. "If Fairness is the Problem, Is Consent the Solution? Integrating ISCT and Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 481-499, July.
    5. Marcoux, Alexei M., 2003. "A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. Donaldson, Thomas & Dunfee, Thomas W., 1995. "Integrative Social Contracts Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 85-112, April.
    7. J. Kaler, 2006. "Evaluating Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 249-268, December.
    8. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2006. "A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (I): Rational Bargaining and Justification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 259-281, October.
    9. Thomas, Randall S. & Cotter, James F., 2007. "Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 368-391, June.
    10. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2004. "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a model of "extended" corporate governance. an explanation based on the economic theories of social contract, reputation and reciprocal conformism," LIUC Papers in Ethics, Law and Economics 142, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    11. Agle, Bradley R. & Donaldson, Thomas & Freeman, R. Edward & Jensen, Michael C. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Wood, Donna J., 2008. "Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 153-190, April.
    12. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    13. Velamuri, Rama & Venkataraman, Sankaran, 2005. "Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A knightian insight," IESE Research Papers D/591, IESE Business School.
    14. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    15. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    16. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eleanor Burt & Samuel Mansell, 2019. "Moral Agency in Charities and Business Corporations: Exploring the Constraints of Law and Regulation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 59-73, September.
    2. Tobey Scharding, 2019. "Individual Actions and Corporate Moral Responsibility: A (Reconstituted) Kantian Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 929-942, February.
    3. Farman Ullah Khan & Vanina Adoriana Trifan & Mioara Florina Pantea & Junrui Zhang & Muhammad Nouman, 2022. "Internal Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Chinese Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Stephanie Collins, 2019. "Collective Responsibility Gaps," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 943-954, February.
    5. Bruce Barry & Mara Olekalns & Laura Rees, 2019. "An Ethical Analysis of Emotional Labor," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 17-34, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    2. Giovanni Ferri & Angelo Leogrande, 2015. "Was the Crisis due to a shift from stakeholder to shareholder finance? Surveying the debate," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 108, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    3. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    4. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    5. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    6. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    7. Magali Fia & Lorenzo Sacconi, 2019. "Justice and Corporate Governance: New Insights from Rawlsian Social Contract and Sen’s Capabilities Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 937-960, December.
    8. Giorgia Nigri & Mara Del Baldo & Armando Agulini, 2020. "Governance and accountability models in Italian certified benefit corporations," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2368-2380, September.
    9. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    10. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    11. Manouchehr Ansari & Masoumeh Javaherian, 2018. "Responsible Business Model: A Corporate Social Responsibilitiy Aprproach to Business Model," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 8(2), pages 1-8.
    12. Silvana Signori & Leire San-Jose & Jose Luis Retolaza & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2021. "Stakeholder Value Creation: Comparing ESG and Value Added in European Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Jocelyn D. Evans & Elise Perrault & Timothy A. Jones, 2017. "Managers’ Moral Obligation of Fairness to (All) Shareholders: Does Information Asymmetry Benefit Privileged Investors at Other Shareholders’ Expense?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 81-96, January.
    14. Johannes Jahn & Rolf Brühl, 2018. "How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 41-52, November.
    15. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    16. Bradley W. Benson & Wallace N. Davidson, 2010. "The Relation between Stakeholder Management, Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 929-964, September.
    17. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Sacconi, Lorenzo, 2013. "Social responsibility, activism and boycotting in a firm–stakeholders network of games with players’ conformist preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 216-226.
    18. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    19. Giacomo Degli Antoni & Elisa Portale, 2009. "The effect of corporate social responsibility on social capital creation: an empirical study on participation in social cooperatives," Econometica Working Papers wp03, Econometica.
    20. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Joyce van der Laan Smith, 2015. "Responsible Accounting for Stakeholders," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 935-960, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:117:y:2013:i:3:p:583-599. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.