Two main theories in business ethics:
Stockholder Theory
Stakeholder Theory
Argued that the sole social responsibility of business is to increase profits while operating within the rules (competition, honesty).
Friedman expressed skepticism on government solutions, suggesting they can worsen problems.
Core Principle: Business exists primarily to maximize stockholder profits.
Friedman stated that only individuals carry responsibilities, not businesses as entities.
Corporate executives must follow the directives of stockholders.
Spending on social responsibility can lead to increased costs for consumers.
Friedman argued that social responsibility could undermine capitalism.
Social responsibility is seen as a socialist viewpoint.
The market should dictate the allocation of resources.
Difficulties in identifying how corporate actions contribute to social goals.
Advocated that social responsibility could lead to market failure.
Society is a collection of individuals and voluntary groups.
The only true social responsibility of business is profit maximization within the law.
Managers are expected to operate within legal bounds and ensure honest dealings.
Pursuing unauthorized social goals may conflict with stockholder agreements.
Developed by Edward Freeman (1988).
Advocates for corporate management to consider all stakeholder interests (customers, employees, etc.).
Management functions as an agent for all stakeholders.
Corporations should prioritize the interests of stakeholders.
Management must act in the interests of stakeholders and the corporation.
Internal: Employees, Managers, Owners.
External: Suppliers, Customers, Society, Government, Creditors.
Corporate management must balance interests of various stakeholders.
Managers have a fiduciary duty to run corporations for the benefit of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
Importance of determining corporate culpability in ethical violations.
Notable cases include Ford Pinto, Johnson and Johnson, and the Challenger disaster.
Created to impose fair corporate punishment and accountability.
Daiwa Bank case: Significant fines for concealing trading losses.
Hoffman-LaRoche: Fines for anti-competitive practices in the vitamin market.
Culpability assigned to the corporation for employees' criminal acts without need for directly linking management.
Culpability based on management knowledge and involvement in the crime.
Focuses on corporate policies, systems, and prior history of violations in determining responsibility.
Corporations can be held accountable but are not culpable in the same way individuals are.
Corporations as collective moral agents, with responsibility shifting from individuals to the organization as a whole.
Responsibility lies with individuals within the organization; institutions cannot act independently of the people who comprise them.
Charged for selling untested chips and falsifying records, but no individuals were held accountable, only the company as a whole.