Corporate responsibility: the stakeholder paradox reconsidered

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Corporate responsibility : the stakeholder paradox reconsidered. / Jensen, Karsten Klint.

In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2007, p. 515-532.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Jensen, KK 2007, 'Corporate responsibility: the stakeholder paradox reconsidered', Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 515-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3

APA

Jensen, K. K. (2007). Corporate responsibility: the stakeholder paradox reconsidered. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(6), 515-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3

Vancouver

Jensen KK. Corporate responsibility: the stakeholder paradox reconsidered. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2007;20(6):515-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3

Author

Jensen, Karsten Klint. / Corporate responsibility : the stakeholder paradox reconsidered. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2007 ; Vol. 20, No. 6. pp. 515-532.

Bibtex

@article{70d70fa0a1c311ddb6ae000ea68e967b,
title = "Corporate responsibility: the stakeholder paradox reconsidered",
abstract = "Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty to act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the stakeholder paradox: either we have ethics without business or we have business without ethics. Through a different route, I reach the same solution to this paradox as Goodpaster, namely that a corporation is the instrument of the shareholders only, but that shareholders still have an obligation to act ethically responsibly. To this, I add discussion of Friedman's claim that this responsibility consists in increasing profits. I show that most of his arguments fail. Only pragmatic considerations allow to a certain extent that some of the ethical responsibility is left over to democratic regulation.",
keywords = "Former LIFE faculty, democracy, ethical responsibility, freedom, free rider",
author = "Jensen, {Karsten Klint}",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "515--532",
journal = "Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics",
issn = "1187-7863",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corporate responsibility

T2 - the stakeholder paradox reconsidered

AU - Jensen, Karsten Klint

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty to act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the stakeholder paradox: either we have ethics without business or we have business without ethics. Through a different route, I reach the same solution to this paradox as Goodpaster, namely that a corporation is the instrument of the shareholders only, but that shareholders still have an obligation to act ethically responsibly. To this, I add discussion of Friedman's claim that this responsibility consists in increasing profits. I show that most of his arguments fail. Only pragmatic considerations allow to a certain extent that some of the ethical responsibility is left over to democratic regulation.

AB - Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty to act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the stakeholder paradox: either we have ethics without business or we have business without ethics. Through a different route, I reach the same solution to this paradox as Goodpaster, namely that a corporation is the instrument of the shareholders only, but that shareholders still have an obligation to act ethically responsibly. To this, I add discussion of Friedman's claim that this responsibility consists in increasing profits. I show that most of his arguments fail. Only pragmatic considerations allow to a certain extent that some of the ethical responsibility is left over to democratic regulation.

KW - Former LIFE faculty

KW - democracy

KW - ethical responsibility

KW - freedom

KW - free rider

U2 - 10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3

DO - 10.1007/s10806-007-9068-3

M3 - Journal article

VL - 20

SP - 515

EP - 532

JO - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

JF - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

SN - 1187-7863

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 8094752