Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 91, Issue 3, pp 329–341 | Cite as

The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?

  • John Hardwig
Article

Abstract

Business ethics – both stockholder and stakeholder theories – makes the same mistake as the one made by the traditional ethics of medicine. The traditional ethics of medicine was a teleological ethics predicated on the assumption that the goal of medicine was to prolong life and promote better health. But, as bioethicists have made plain, these are not the only or even the overriding goals of most patients. Most of us have goals and values that limit our desire for medical treatments. Similarly, the view of the stockholder in business ethics is that the stockholder has only one interest – profit. If stockholders have no other values or interests that would limit their desire for additional profit, their sole interest is in profit maximization. But investors are real people with interests and values that balance and limit their desire for profit. It would be an extremely odd individual who cared for nothing except more profit. And institutional investors are supposed to serve the interests of individual investors. Stockholders hold many stakes in the firms in which they invest. The conclusion that most stockholders have interests that would limit the pursuit of maximum profit has significant implications both for business ethics and for the management of for-profit corporations. Something like “informed consent for investors” is needed. Corporate managers, to the extent that they are to be agents of their stockholders, must not simply pursue profit maximization. They must ascertain the interests and values of their investors that limit the single-minded pursuit of profit.

Keywords

stockholder stockholder values stockholder theory stakeholder theory bioethics corporate management informed consent 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Denis Arnold, George Brenkert, Matt Deaton, Betsy Postow and two anonymous reviewers for helpful criticisms and suggestions.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar
  2. T. L. Beauchamp and L. B. McCullough. 1984. Medical Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. John R. Boatright. 2002. “Ethics and Corporate Governance: Justifying the Role of Shareholder”. In: Norman E. Bowie, (ed). The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 38-60.Google Scholar
  4. John Hardwig. 1990. “What About The Family? – The Role of Family Interests in Medical Decision Making,” Hastings Center Reports 20 (2): 5-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. John Hardwig. 1997. “Is There a Duty to Die?”. Hastings Center Report, 27 (2): 34-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. John Hasnas. 1998. “The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed,” Business Ethics Quarterly 8: 19-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael C. Jensen. 2002. “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12: 235-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonsen, A. R. and A. Jameton: 2003, ‹Medical Ethics, History: The United States in the Twenty-First Century’, in S. G. Post (editor in chief), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd edition (Farmington Hills, MI. Thomson-Gale).Google Scholar
  9. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Robert E. Lane. 2002. The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ortwein Renn, Thomas Webler and Peter Weidemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation; Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  12. R. M. Veatch: 2003. The Basics of Bioethics 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy University of TennesseeKnoxvilleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations