|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 29, 2013 8:51:58 GMT -5
Do companies have a primary obligation to their shareholders (people who own stock) or to their stakeholders (people who are affected by the company's actions)?
[See page 79 of Catholic Ethics In Today's World for an explanation of the difference between these two positions.]
|
|
|
|
Post by roccodistasio on May 6, 2013 17:01:33 GMT -5
Although it sounds cruel my answer would be the shareholders. This is because shareholders are the ones who are able to finance the company helping it move forward. If companies make decisions that are harmful to shareholders, they'll become worried that they could lose their investment and as a result will try to sell their shares to another person. When shareholders try to sell, they harm the company by implying that they believe that investing in that company is not safe ruining the value of stock harming the company even more which can have a worse effect on stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmelson on May 6, 2013 18:51:51 GMT -5
I agree with Rocco but, at the same time they should have an obligation to their stakeholders as well. I believe that a company has obligation to both shareholders and stakeholders because no matter what, both parties are affected in either a positive or negative way. A company has the obligation to do right by both their stake and share holders because a company must work toward the common good. They must work for a common good by examining hiow their decisions would affect both their stakehoders and share holders. After they have analyzed this they must make the decision that best affects both paries and the company itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyb96 on May 6, 2013 19:40:59 GMT -5
Unlike those who have already posted, I believe that a company's sole concern should be that of the stakeholders. This is because, as we learned in class, the number of stakeholders generally outweigh the number of shareholders. Additionally, a concern of a company should be the health of other people. As shown by the videos in class, it currently is not, but, nonetheless, the stakeholders need to be taken into account first before caring about the shareholders.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristennoto on May 6, 2013 22:34:06 GMT -5
I have to agree with danny. I feel that a company should be concerned with both stakeholders and shareholders. Although it is important to take care of stakeholders, it is also very important to take care of shareholders. Shareholders are the ones who make the company successful. It has to be a balance. If companies do not care about the shareholders, the shareholders could loose a lot of money and be severely affected in the end. It goes with stakeholders as well. Decisions have to be made carefully by companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by geekay55 on May 20, 2013 19:47:54 GMT -5
I completely agree with rocco. I think that a company should be way more concerned with their shareholders because they are the ones who are invested in the company. If the shareholders sold their shares the company would go broke and therefore lead the stakeholders to go broke. Also i think that the main shareholders in a company get a pretty big say on what the companys next move will be and will therefore help the stakeholders. So all in all i think the shareholders should recieve most of the attention because in the end they basically own the company.
|
|
tlaz
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by tlaz on May 23, 2013 14:43:19 GMT -5
I agree with danny, because a company should be concerned with both stakeholders and shareholders, but I think that stakeholders our what the company should mostly be looking at because the choices they make will hurt or help them dirctly, that it is their life that will be affeceted.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnybuns on May 23, 2013 14:58:45 GMT -5
I believe that if a company strives to be ethically correct then it should have a primary obligation for stakeholders because they are affected directly. But in this world today most companys strive to be at its best finnantially so in that case it would be a primary obligation for shareholders. I think that companys should have a primary obligation for shareholders because it is not ok to put the company at stake finantially because if the company dies down then all the jobs will be gone anyway.
|
|
