Ethics denotes the values and morality which is upheld by the people (Dewey, 2016). When it comes to the ethics of the companies, they are similar to that of the people, but are amplified, due to the number of stakeholders that are involved. When it comes to the companies, the application of the race horse metaphor presents contrasting views from the famous scholars (Grant, 2016). Friedman on one hand provides that the companies should only work on making the profit for the shareholders; and on the other hand, Freeman has the view that the businesses need to operate under the ethical basis. In the following parts, an analysis has been undertaken whereby the need for convergence of these two approaches has been highlighted.
When it comes to business ethics, stakeholder is deemed as a prominent contribution towards which the entire business revolves (Freeman, 2010). There are dissenting views on whether the business should be conducted for the stakeholders or whether the same should be undertaken for the bottom line, i.e., for earning profits. Friedman (1970) presented the view that the social responsibility of the businesses was only to increase the profits of the company. He disregarded the notion that the businesses were working towards profits along with promoting the desirable social ends. He stated that the businesses had only one social conscience and that was to earn profits, and that when any business was asked to speak the truth, they would clearly state that they work towards earning profits, instead of reasons like elimination of discrimination, employment, avoiding pollution and the like, which were just the catchwords of contemporary times. He further stated that in a free enterprise, the corporate executive was just the business owners’ employee and that he had his responsibility directed towards the employers. The business had to be conducted as per the desires of the owners, which was to make as much money as possible. And when this was being done, the basic rules of society were cornered, which included the ones embodied in ethical customs and law.
Friedman (1970) also presented that the different stakeholders could spend their own money for undertaking a specific action where they wished to do so. A distinctive social responsibility would be deemed to be exercised by the executive instead of serving as a stakeholder’s agent when the money would be spent in different manners, instead of the one in which they want it to be spent. However, when this is done, the executive imposes taxes on one hand and on the other hand, decides how the tax proceeds have to be spent. As a result of this, two political questions were raised, which were related to the principle and consequences. The imposition of taxes was a government function on political principle. And when it came to consequences, nothing was certain. In other words, there were too many possible results of the undertaken action, where the questions like the executive being fired by the stockholders was a possibility. These possibilities presented the difficulty in exercising social responsibility as it presented that the companies could do good but at their own personal expense. He also stated that using the cloak of social responsibility, the prestigious and influential businesses harmed the foundations of a free society, more than they did well for the society.
However, there are a number of scholars who have presented dissenting views from Friedman. Freeman (2007) presented that the businesses and the executives who undertake the work of the company and manage the business, actually create value for the different stakeholders, included in which are the employees, the shareholders, the communities, the suppliers and the customers. He also stated that the executives had a special role to play when it came to the stakeholder responsibility. He also highlighted that during the twentieth century, ethics has become an integral part of the businesses and that there was a need to uphold ethical practices when conducting the business of the company. In this regard, he highlighted the reliance of business on different stakeholders for conducting its operations in an effective manner. For instance, the businesses require shareholders and the financial institutions for capital funding, or that the work of the company can only be undertaken through the employees. The stakeholders being integral part of the business, made it important for the businesses to work for their interest. He presented certain key arguments for the business to focus on ethics, which included the argument of consequences, of rights, and of character.
Jensen (2002) highlighted the concept of enlightened value maximization where he discussed on the relationship between the stakeholder theory and the value maximization. As per his enlightened value maximization, the structure of the stakeholder theory was used and also accepted that in the long run, maximization was a major concept for making the relevant trade-offs between the stakeholders as it specified long term value maximization and sought to attain the objectives of the firm. Thus, his theory made an attempt to balance out the two contradictory views where the stakeholders and the profit maximization were both given emphasis. Boatright (2006) also highlighted on what was right and wrong with stakeholder management, in order to present the advantages and disadvantages of the concentration upon the stakeholder interests and the value maximization, thus, highlighting the need of integrating the two concepts, to get the best combination of the two worlds. In order to do so, he highlighted the points of both stakeholder management and profit maximization, to show the place where each of the theories excelled and where each of the theories lacked.
The majority of scholars have made an attempt to integrate the two concepts where they have tried to integrate the stakeholder value with profit maximization. Benson and Davidson (2010) stated that irrespective of the focus of the company on one of the two issues, the outcomes were irreconcilable. And due to these reasons, there was a need for attaining a harmony between these two concepts. Though, they also had their focus on Jensen’s (2001) value maximization theory. Though, for this, they highlighted that there was a need for accomplishing the objective of the managers, which is earning profits. Smith (2003) highlighted the examples of WorldCom, Enron, ImClone, Global Crossing and Tyco International scandals for highlighting the need to focus on this issue. Though, he highlighted that the focus on each of these theories was wrong as none of these were solely the right one. Argandoña (2011) also discussed this issue and stated that there was a need to create economic value in a conflict free manner, where the core relationship at focus was both the stakeholders and the company. Thus, there was a need to identify the values for stakeholder theory and take it to a higher level by focusing on this theory in light of value creation. In this regard, Bainbridge (2002) highlighted that even the directors, who run the business of the company consider the views of the shareholders and the different stakeholders, before making any business decision. Only after considering the impact of their business decision on the different stakeholders, is a decision taken, no matter the magnitude of the profitability of such decision.
When it comes to the companies, there are a number of stakeholders who are impacted due to the proximity of business activities with these stakeholders. The stakeholders include customers, employees, local communities, shareholder, suppliers, government, and distributors. It is a well known fact that the goal of the companies is to earn profits, so as to maximize the returns for the investors (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). However, in order to truly reach heights of success, there is a need to focus on the interests of the stakeholders and at the same time, maximize the value. Where the company decides to focus on the interests of the stakeholders, the society as a whole is benefited. This can be explained in the perspective of each and every stakeholder group (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015).
When it comes to the customers, they are directly affected by the actions undertaken by the company. So, where a company decides to use a product which is cheaper in order to reduce the overall costing of the product, it may result in the product not being as good as before, which directly affects the person purchasing the product, i.e., the ultimate customer (Martin, 2010). At times, there are cases brought due to such factors, under the tort of negligence or under the consumer laws. Hence, in order to safeguard the company from such cases, there is a need to focus on the interests of the consumer, so that the consumer is not harmed in any manner. Similarly, where a company decides to dump the toxic waste in abandoned land, not only the land is harmed, but the people surrounding it are also harmed, i.e., the local community. The James Hardie scandal is a leading example of this (Comino, 2014). Hence, there is a need to take into consideration the impact of actions undertaken by the company on the local community as well.
The suppliers and distributors are also affected by the actions undertaken by the company. If a company decides to abandon a particular supplier for another, a chain reaction is caused where the people dependent on such supplier also have to bear the consequences. This does not mean that a better supplier is not to be chosen. The focus here is not to cause such unhealthy competition between the suppliers, that no matter which supplier is selected, both are harmed (Crane & Matten, 2016). The employees of the company are also directly affected by the acts of company. So, where the company decides to undertaken a pay cut, without genuine reasons, the employees and the ones dependant on him, are affected. The shareholders have to face the consequences of the company undertaking unethical conduct, where the value of shares held by them is diminished, if not completely gone (Rönnegard & Smith, 2013).
Thus, there is a need for the companies understand that the actions undertaken by the company affect the primary and secondary shareholders, where not only the direct consumers, and employees are affected, but the ones who are dependent on them, are affected. As these stakeholders form the society, by adopting a broader view, the society could be benefitted.
There are a number of ethical theories which support the view that there is a need to uphold the interests of the stakeholders before giving preference to the profit maximization. However, there are some perspectives which require the need to focus on the profits of the company. The theory of utilitarianism is a leading ethical theory as per which, the action which results in the greater good being achieved, and where the utility of any action can be maximized, is the right and ethical approach to undertake such activity (Blowfield, 2013; Albee, 2014). Based on this theory, there is a need for the companies to adopt an ethical approach and work towards the interests of the different stakeholders, as the needs of the stakeholders would satisfy a larger audience, in comparison to profit maximization of the company, where only the company would be beneficial.
Another leading ethical theory is that of Kantianism, where the rationale thing to be done is to work with dignity and respect. It is a deontological branch which states that all the actions differ from each other and the action is to be judged on the basis of morality of such action. Hence, before ultimate good, there is a need to consider rationality (Beiser, 2014). In this regard, the companies have to be rationale and this would make them work towards their own profits. One more reason for working on their profits is that by focusing on the company’s profits, a chain reaction is caused, where the investors are benefited, along with the employees, the shareholders, the consumers, the government and the suppliers, as each one gets a share of such benefit, in a direct or indirect manner. However, where the focus is shifted from company profits to stakeholder interests, it becomes irrational, as the steps are taken in a different direction in such case.
Another ethical theory which is actually a part of deontological ethics is virtue ethics, where there is a need to take into consideration the virtues of mind and character. A virtuous person needs to show justice, honesty, and integrity. And the best action would be such which would show that the honest and just action is undertaken (Hooft, 2014). As a virtuous company, there is a need to show honesty, justness and integrity in their work. So, where the wealth is distributed in an equal manner, it could be argued that would be availability of more disposable income in pockets of a number of people, which would in turn result in the growth of economy. Hence, in sense of justice, there is a need for the companies to focus on value maximization as it would automatically result in stakeholder interests being upheld. When it comes to the theories of justice and normative morality, one could argue the stance of duty of care being owed to the stakeholders. When this stance is mixed with justness, it becomes the duty of the companies to discharge the duty of care in a manner that the stakeholder value is maximized, which can be undertaken by working towards maximizing the profits of the company.
In essence, the combination of the two focuses, based on the different ethical theories, would help in fulfilling the different ethical theories. This is because in order to fulfil the actions of the company based on the utilitarian view, there is a need for the stakeholders to be benefitted. This can be done by adopting the sense of justness, whereby the work of the company is conducted in a manner where the focus is on the profit earning. This would indirectly result in greater good being attained as the profits would ultimately be distrusted and change hands. Thus, the ethical theories align with the theme of this discussion, whereby the stakeholder interest is merged in the best possible manner with the profit maximization.
There are various other theories where the view of sustainability of the firm and these are that of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and creating shared values (CSV) (Gomez & Gomez, 2012). Corporate social responsibility refers to the responsibility of the companies whereby they evaluate the impact of their decisions and their activities, on the society and the environment (Zhao, 2014). It is a strategy of management, whereby the environment, economy and social benefit towards the stakeholders is combined. It is also referred to as the triple bottom line as the focus of this concept is on people, planet and profit. It is going beyond the legal obligations and working towards the society and the environment (Dima, 2016).
By adopting CSR activities, the companies focus on the needs of the society and the environment and work on improving the same, while at the same time, continues to earn well. In some nations, CSR activities have been mandated, so that the companies are forced to work for the different stakeholders (Crowther, 2008). When company undertaken CSR activities, at the initial stages, their costs are raised, however, in the long run, it proves to be a beneficial thing as the company is able to take advantage of the enhanced face value of the company, which results in increased revenues, which again takes a full circle and is distributed amongst the different stakeholders in a direct and indirect manner (Crane, 2008).
CSV was introduced in the Harvard Business Review and is a leading business concept which has been constantly expanded since its formation. As per this concept, the shared value is mutually dependent upon the competitiveness of a company and on the health of the communities (Dembek, Singh & Bhakoo, 2011). This concept also states that there is a need to capitalize on these connections between the economic progress and the societal one, for unleashing the next wave of worldwide growth and for redefining capitalism. It is stated that a shared value approach helps in reconnecting the success of the company with the social progress. Michael Porter, the creator of this concept stated that “Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or sustainability, but a new way for companies to achieve economic success” (Porter & Kramer, 2011).
As per CSV, this can be undertaken in three different manners, i.e., by redefining productivity in value chain, reconceiving products and markets, and by building supportive industry clusters at the locations of the company (Nandi & Nandi, 2017). This concept essentially works towards the integration of the two issues, which were shown to be dissenting through the literature review. Hence, in order for the companies to excel, they do not have to keep their focus on of the two options from maximizing value and stakeholder interests, and instead, the need was to amalgamate the two in a manner whereby the best result is attained (Beschorner, 2014).
Conclusion and Recommendations
On the basis of the discussion carried above, one thing becomes very clear that as against the views of the different scholars, where the concept of shareholder value and the profit maximization goal of the company were highlighted as two sides of a coin, it is far from the truth. There is a need for the companies to take these two concepts and merge them in order to grow and in order to earn higher profits. If the same is not done, the company cannot survive in the long run. If the focus remains on the profit maximization, the company would come to an end, as happened in the James Hardie case. And if the company continues its focus upon the stakeholders, it would run out of proper finances to even support the primary stakeholders, like the employees. Hence, it is recommended for the companies to adopt an integrated approach and take the benefit of both the approaches.
References
Albee, E. (2014). A history of English utilitarianism. Oxon: Routledge.
Argandoña, A. (2011). Stakeholder Theory and Value Creation. Working Paper- 922.
Bainbridge, S.M. (2002). Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of Corporate Governance. UCLA, School of Law Research Paper No. 02-06. Retrieved from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.300860
Beiser, F. C. (2014). The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism, 1796-1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benson, B.W., & Davidson, W.N. (2010). The Relation between Stakeholder Management Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization. Financial Management, 39(3), 929-963.
Beschorner, T. (2014). Creating shared value: The one-trick pony approach. Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(17), 106-112.
Blowfield, M. (2013). Business and Sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boatright, J.R. (2006). What’s Wrong—and What’s Right— with Stakeholder Management. Journal of Private Enterprise, 21(2), 106-130.
Comino, V. (2014). James Hardie and the problems of the Australian civil penalties regime. UNSWLJ, 37, 195.
Crane, A. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crowther, D. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility. London: Bookboon.
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: a theoretical concept or a management buzzword?. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 231-267.
Dewey, J. (2016) Ethics. Worcestershire: Read Books Ltd.
Dima, J. (2016). Comparative Perspectives on Global Corporate Social Responsibility. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Scarborough: Nelson Education.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R.E. (2007). Managing for Stakeholders. Retrieved from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1186402
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Retrieved from: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
Gomez, A.M.D., & Crowther, D. (2012). Human Dignity and Managerial Responsibility: Diversity, Rights, and Sustainability. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Ltd.
Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary Strategy Analysis Text Only. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Hooft, S.V. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Oxon: Routledge.
Jensen, M.C. (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235-256.
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2014). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Martin, R.L. (2010). The Age of Customer Capitalism. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2010/01/the-age-of-customer-capitalism
Nandi, S., & Nandi, M. L. (2017, January). Porter and Kramer’s Creating Shared Value (CSV): Evidence from International Business Models. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 16257). New York: Academy of Management.
Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review January–February 2011 Issue.
Rönnegard, D., & Smith, N. C. (2013). Shareholders vs. stakeholders: How liberal and libertarian political philosophy frames the basic debate in business ethics. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 32(3/4), 183-220.
Smith, J.J. (2003). The Shareholders vs. Stakeholders Debate. Retrieved from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-shareholders-vs-stakeholders-debate/
Zhao, J. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility in Contemporary China. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download