Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Nature of the Firm, Agency Theory and Shareholder Theory: A Critique from Philosophical Anthropology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard accounts on the nature of the firm are highly dependent on explanations by Coase, coupled with inputs from agency theory and shareholder theory. This paper carries out their critique in light of personalist and common good postulates. It shows how personalist and common good principles create a framework that not only accommodates business ethics better but also affords a more compelling understanding of business as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alford H. J. and Naughton M. J. (2001). Managing as if Faith Mattered. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki M. (1984). The Co-Operative Game Theory of the Firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard Ch.I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohren O. (1998). The Agent’s Ethics in the Principal-Agent Model. Journal of Business Ethics 17(7):745-755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan M.J. (1994). Incentives, Rationality and Society. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 7:31-39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz R.A. and Rosenthal S.B. (1998). Business Ethics: The Pragmatic Path beyond Principles to Process. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16):386-405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase R. (1991a). The Nature of the Firm: Meaning. In: Williamson O. E. and Winter S. G. (eds) The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution, and Development. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 48–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase R. (1991b). The Nature of the Firm: Influence. In: Williamson O. E. and Winter S. G. (eds) The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution, and Development. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • D”Ors, A.: 1979, “Reflexiones civilistas sobre la reforma de la empresa”, La Ley, Vol. B (April 16), pp. 841–45.

  • DeGeorge R. T. (1992). Agency Theory and the Ethics of Agency. In: Bowie N. E. and Freeman R. E. (eds) Ethics and Agency Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson J. (1997). Finance Ethics: The Rationality of Virtue. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P.: 2001, “The Next Society”, The Economist, November 1st, Survey: The Near Future, p. 16.

  • Duska R. F. (1992). Why Be a Loyal Agent? A Systemic Ethical Analysis. In: Bowie N.E. and Freeman R.E. (eds), Ethics and Agency Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 143–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review 14(1):57-74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan W. M. and Freeman R. E. (1993). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism”. In: Beauchamp T. L. and Bowie N. E. (eds) Ethical Theory and Business, 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 75-84

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama E. F. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy 88(2):288-307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy Ch. (2001). The Elephant and the Flea: Looking Backward to the Future. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M. and Meckling W. (1976). The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3(4):305-360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John Paul II (1991). Centessimus Annus. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 83:793-867

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy A. A. (2000). The End of Shareholder Value: Corporations at the Crossroads. Perseus, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Koford K. and Penno M. (1992). Accounting, Principal-Agent Theory, and Self-Interested Behavior. In: Bowie N. E. and Freeman R. E. (eds) Ethics and Agency Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 127–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski P. (1983). Mechanistische und organistische Analogien in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft - eine verfehlte Alternative. Kyklos 36:308-12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llano C. (1994). El postmodernismo en la empresa. McGraw-Hill, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Llano C. (1998). Dilemas éticos de la empresa contemporánea. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland I. (1994). The Morality of the Corporation: An Empirical or Normative Disagreement?. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 445-458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Echevarría, M.A.: 2000, Hacia una nueva teoría de la empresa, Cuadernos de Empresa y Humanismo, No. 79 (Empresa y Humanismo, Pamplona).

  • Melé D. (1997). La actuación social de la empresa. In: Pastor A., Pérez-López J. A. and Melé D. (eds) La aportación de la empresa a la sociedad. Folio, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill Sh. (1997). Impartiality in Context: Grounding Justice in a Pluralist World. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-López J. A. (1991). Teoría de la acción humana en las organizaciones: la acción personal. Rialp, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-López J.A. (1995). Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas. Rialp, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow Ch. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd edition. Random House, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Putman R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn D. P. and Jones T. M. (1995). An Agent Morality View of Business Policy. Academy of Management Review 20(1):22-42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross S. A. (1973). The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal”s Problem. American Economic Review 63(2):134-139

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney M. and Parikh D. (2001). Where Value Lives in a Networked World. Harvard Business Review 79(1):79-86

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankman N. A. (1999). Reframing the Debate between Agency and Stakeholder Theories of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics 19(4):319-334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sison A.J.G. (2003). The Moral Capital of Leaders. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vélaz I. (1996). Motivos y motivación en la empresa. Díaz de Santos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright P., Mukherji A. and Kroll M. J. (2001). A Reexaminaton of Agency Theory: Assumptions, Extensions and Extrapolations. The Journal of Socio-Economics 30:413-429

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Business in Society, IESE Business School, Avda. Pearson, 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Joan Fontrodona

  2. Philosophy Department, Institute for Enterprise and Humanism, University of Navarra, 31080, Pamplona, Spain

    Alejo José G. Sison

Authors
  1. Joan Fontrodona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejo José G. Sison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Fontrodona.

Additional information

Joan Fontrodona is Assistant Professor of Business Ethics and Academic Director of the Center for Business in Society at IESE Business School. He is member of the Academic Board of EABIS and member of the Executive Committee of EBEN-Spain.

Alejo José G. Sison is the Rafael Escolá Chair of Professional Ethics (TECNUN) with appointments from the Philosophy Department and the Institute of Enterprise and Humanism of the University of Navarra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fontrodona, J., Sison, A.J.G. The Nature of the Firm, Agency Theory and Shareholder Theory: A Critique from Philosophical Anthropology. J Bus Ethics 66, 33–42 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9052-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9052-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation