Which Duties of Beneficence Should Agents Discharge on Behalf of Principals? A Reflection through Shareholder Primacy

Scholars who favor shareholder primacy usually claim either that managers should not fulfill corporate duties of beneficence or that, if they are required to fulfill them, they do so by going against their obligations to shareholders. Distinguishing between structurally different types of duties of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBusiness ethics quarterly Vol. 31; no. 3; pp. 421 - 449
Main Author Mejia, Santiago
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago Cambridge University Press 01.07.2021
Subjects
Acting
Business ethics
Charity
Fiduciaries
Morality
Philosophers
Primacy
Stockholders
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Scholars who favor shareholder primacy usually claim either that managers should not fulfill corporate duties of beneficence or that, if they are required to fulfill them, they do so by going against their obligations to shareholders. Distinguishing between structurally different types of duties of beneficence and recognizing the full force of the normative demands imposed on managers reveal that this view needs to be qualified. Although it is correct to think that managers, when acting on behalf of shareholders, are not required to fulfill wide duties of charity, they are nevertheless required to fulfill a variety of narrow duties of beneficence. What is more, the obligation to fulfill these duties arises precisely because they are acting on behalf of shareholders. As such, this article 1) refines our understanding of the duties of corporate beneficence and 2) helps to identify which duties of beneficence are imposed on managers when they are acting on behalf of shareholders.
ISSN:1052-150X
2153-3326
DOI:10.1017/beq.2020.28