Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)Shareholders versus stakeholders: Corporate mission statements and investor returns.Mohammed Omran, Peter Atrill & John Pointon - 2002 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 11 (4):318–326.
    This paper seeks to discover whether companies that adopt a stakeholder approach, and thereby demonstrate a wider remit of corporate responsibility, provide inferior returns to those that embrace the shareholder value approach. To classify approaches, mission statements were analysed, the final sample comprising 32 shareholder oriented companies and 48 stakeholder oriented companies. To assess performance both accounting–based and market–based measures were used. A number of moderating variables were taken into account: systematic (beta) risk, gearing (long–term debt to total long–term finance), (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Review of Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom[REVIEW]Milton Friedman - 1962 - Ethics 74 (1):70-72.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   688 citations  
  • Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation.John R. Boatright - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):393-407.
    The claim that managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to run the corporation in their interests is generally supported by two arguments: that shareholders are owners of a corporation and that they have a contract or agency relation with management. The latter argument is used by Kenneth E. Goodpaster, who rejects a multi-fiduciary, stakeholder approach on the grounds that the shareholder-management relation is “ethically different” because of its fiduciary character. Both of these arguments provide an inadequate basis for the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  • The Politics of Stakeholder Theory.R. Edward Freeman - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):409-421.
    The purpose of this paper is to enter the conversation about stakeholder theory with the goal of clarifying certain foundational issues. I want to show, along with Boatright, that there is no stakeholder paradox, and that the principle on which such a paradox is built, the Separation Thesis, is nicely self-serving to business and ethics academics. If we give up such a thesis we find there is no stakeholder theory but that stakeholder theory becomes a genre that is quite rich. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   405 citations