Stakeholder Duties: On the Moral Responsibility of Corporate Investors
- Martin E. Sandbu
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
- Arnold, D. (2006). Corporate moral agency. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, 279–291. CrossRef
- Boatright, J. R. (1994). Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: Or, what’s so special about shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 393–407. CrossRef
- Bratman, M. E. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104(1), 97–113. CrossRef
- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
- Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
- Gilbert, M. (2006). Who’s to blame? Collective moral responsibility and its implications for group members. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, 94–115. CrossRef
- Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.
- Graver, H. P. (2003). Report from the government commission on ethical guidelines for the government petroleum fund. Oslo: Government of Norway, Ministry of Finance.
- Hobbes, T. (1991 ). In R. Tuck (Ed.), Leviathan, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kutz, C. (2000). Complicity: Ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Leys, J., Vandekerckhove, W., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2009). A puzzle in SRI: The investor and the judge. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 221–235. CrossRef
- Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–233. CrossRef
- Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
- Sandberg, J. (2011). What are your investments doing right now?, Chapter 10. In W. Vandekerckhove et al. (Eds.), Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil. Issues in Business Ethics (Vol. 31, pp. 165–177). New York: Springer.
- Sandbu, M. E. (2010). The constitutive theory of corporate moral responsibility, unpublished manuscript.
- Sandbu, M. E. (2011). Sets of acts, unpublished manuscript.
- Silver, D. (2006). Collective responsibility, corporate responsibility and moral taint. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, 269–278. CrossRef
- Spurgin, E. W. (2001). Do shareholders have obligations to stakeholders? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4), 287–297. CrossRef
- Stout, L. A. (2002). Bad and not-so-bad arguments for shareholder primacy. Southern California Law Review, 75, 1190–1209.
- Tuomela, R., & Miller, K. (1988). We-intentions. Philosophical Studies, 53(3), 367–389. CrossRef
- United Nations and Mercer. (2007). Demystifying responsible investment performance: A review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative.
- Stakeholder Duties: On the Moral Responsibility of Corporate Investors
Journal of Business Ethics
Volume 109, Issue 1 , pp 97-107
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Collective intention
- Corporate ethics
- Ethical investing
- Financial ethics
- Stakeholder theory
- Industry Sectors
- Martin E. Sandbu (1) (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Wharton School, Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 2. The Financial Times, London, UK