IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i1p97-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Duties: On the Moral Responsibility of Corporate Investors

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Sandbu

Abstract

Stakeholder theory usually focuses on the moral responsibility of corporations towards their stakeholders. This article takes the reverse perspective to shed light on the moral responsibility of stakeholders—specifically, investors or ‘financiers’. It explicates a distinction between two types of financiers, creditors and shareholders. Many intuitively judge that shareholders have greater or more extensive moral responsibility for the actions of the corporations they invest in than do bondholders and other creditors. Examining the merits of possible arguments for or against treating owners and creditors differently elucidates which arguments can support the moral duties of investors generally, and different duties for different groups of investors specifically. The paper considers three possible lines of arguments, rooting investors’ responsibility, respectively, in how they enable corporate conduct, how they benefit from it, and to what extent they are complicit in it. The paper argues that a notion of complicity is the only tenable ground for holding investors liable; sketches an account of complicity based on the recent philosophical literature on collective intention and collective action; and concludes that shareholders but not creditors can generally be seen as complicit on this account. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Sandbu, 2012. "Stakeholder Duties: On the Moral Responsibility of Corporate Investors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 97-107, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:97-107
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1382-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1382-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-012-1382-7?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. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    2. Orts, Eric W. & Strudler, Alan, 2002. "The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 215-233, April.
    3. Boatright, John R., 1994. "Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: or, What's so Special About Shareholders?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 393-407, October.
    4. Jos Leys & Wim Vandekerckhove & Luc Liedekerke, 2009. "A Puzzle in SRI: The Investor and the Judge," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 221-235, January.
    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. Frederick Ahen, 2019. "Making Resource Democracy Radically Meaningful for Stakeowners: Our World, Our Rules?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    3. Oana Branzei & Jeff Frooman & Brent Mcknight & Charlene Zietsma, 2018. "What Good Does Doing Good do? The Effect of Bond Rating Analysts’ Corporate Bias on Investor Reactions to Changes in Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 183-203, March.
    4. Luluk Widyawati, 2020. "A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 619-637, February.
    5. Susan Castro, 2014. "The Morality of Unequal Autonomy: Reviving Kant’s Concept of Status for Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 593-606, June.

    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, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Robbin Derry, 2012. "Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 253-264, December.
    4. Nicolae Al. Pop & Steluta Todea & Cristina-Veronica Partenie & Cristina Ott, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Perception Regarding Sustainable Universities," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(54), pages 330-330, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Ali, Tanweer, 2015. "Beyond shareholders versus stakeholders: Towards a Rawlsian concept of the firm," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 126-141.
    7. Mihret, Dessalegn Getie, 2014. "How can we explain internal auditing? The inadequacy of agency theory and a labor process alternative," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 771-782.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Alma Acevedo, 2012. "Personalist Business Ethics and Humanistic Management: Insights from Jacques Maritain," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 197-219, January.
    11. Skip Worden, 2009. "A Genealogy of Business Ethics: A Nietzschean Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 427-456, February.
    12. Tae Wan Kim & Alan Scheller-Wolf, 2019. "Technological Unemployment, Meaning in Life, Purpose of Business, and the Future of Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 319-337, December.
    13. Jose Lopez-De-Pedro & Eva Rimbau-Gilabert, 2012. "Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 147-158, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Jesus Barrena-Martinez & Macarena López-Fernández & Pedro M. Romero-Fernandez, 2018. "Drivers and Barriers in Socially Responsible Human Resource Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Mariya Georgieva, 2020. "About the Corporate Social Responsibility Beyond the Framework of Charity," Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna. Economic Sciences Series, Union of Scientists - Varna, Economic Sciences Section, vol. 9(1), pages 35-44, April.
    17. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2008. "Corporate citizenship as stakeholder management: An ordonomic approach to business ethics," Discussion Papers 2008-4, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    18. Yusen Dong & Pengcheng Ma & Lanzhu Sun & Daniel Han Ming Chng, 2024. "Goodwill Hunting: Why and When Ultimate Controlling Owners Affect Their Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 535-553, September.
    19. Ana Esteves & Mary-Anne Barclay, 2011. "New Approaches to Evaluating the Performance of Corporate–Community Partnerships: A Case Study from the Minerals Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 189-202, October.
    20. Jose Luis Retolaza & Maite Ruiz & Leire San‐Jose, 2009. "CSR in business start‐ups: an application method for stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 324-336, 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:109:y:2012:i:1:p:97-107. 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.