The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good

Author(s): Antonio Argandoña

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 9/10, How to Make Business Ethics
Operational: Creating Effective Alliances: The 10th Annual EBEN Conference (Jul., 1998), pp.
1093-1102
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25073938 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 18:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Stakeholder Theory
and the Common Good Antonio Argando?a

ABSTRACT. The theory of the social responsibility greatest possible) profit for its shareholders
of the firm oscillates between two extremes: one that and another
that extends the
(Friedman, 1970),
reduces the firm's responsibility to the obtainment of to include a wide
firm's responsibility range of
(the greatest possible) profit for its shareholders, and actors with an interest or "stake" -
in the firm
another that extends the firm's responsibility to
the shareholders themselves, managers,
employees
include a wide range of actors with an interest or
and workers, suppliers, customers, interest
"stake" in the firm. The stakeholder theory of the
groups, unions, competitors and so on, broad
social responsibility of business ismore appealing from
ening out via the local community to society in
an ethical point of view, and yet it lacks a solid foun
dation that would be acceptable to a variety of schools general and, eventually, the whole world.
of thought. The stakeholder
theory of the social respon
In this paper I argue that the stakeholder theory sibility the more
of business
is appealing of the
could be founded on the concept of the common two from an ethical point of view, at least if
good. First, I explain the foundations of the theory we understand ethics in a broad sense.2 And yet
of the common good, the concept itself, how it relates it lacks a solid and
philosophical, sociological
to the individual good, and its role in the firm. economic foundation that would be acceptable
Following that, I explain how the theory of the to a variety of schools of thought.
common good could be applied to the stakeholder In this paper I argue that the stakeholder
I draw some conclusions.
theory. Finally, could be founded on the concept
theory of the
common good. The term "common good" has
time-honoured philosophical roots but, for our
Introduction1
purposes, it has two disadvantages: first, it is
liable to vague and contradictory interpretations,
The theory of the social responsibility of the firm
and second, it appears not to be accepted by
oscillates between two extremes: one that reduces
certain schools of thought. Nevertheless, I feel
the firm's responsibility to the obtainment of (the
that reflecting on the concept of the common

good and applying it to stakeholder theory may

Antonio Argando?a is Professor at IESE - International us
to not
help clarify only the theory of stake
Graduate School ofManagement, University ofNavarra holders but also the meaning of the common
(Spain). He isfounder and Secretary General ofEBEN good itself.3
Spain, and has been Treasurer of EBEN until 1996.
In this paper I shall explain the foundations
He is editor of Noticias (the Newsletter of EBEN of the theory of the common good, the concept
Spain) and Member of the Standing Committe on
itself, how it relates to the individual good, and
Extortion and Bribery of the International Chamber of
its role in the firm. Following that, I shall explain
Commerce. He has edited and authored many books and
articles including People in Corporations: Ethical how the theory of the common good could be
and Effectiveness applied to the stakeholder theory. Finally, I shall
Responsibilities Corporate (with
G. Enderle and B. Almond), La ?tica en la empresa draw some conclusions.4

(Ethics in Business), and The Ethical Dimension of

Financial Institutions and Markets.

Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1093-1102, 1998.

? 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1094 Antonio Argando?a

Society and sociability into being as a result of a social contract, a pact

between equals for the purpose of mutual self
Man is a social being. This assertion belongs to help, culminating in the surrender of part of each
the realm of experience, and yet it also has a one's personal freedom to the State, in order to

philosophical significance: the human person guarantee their collective protection in the
needs a social life, which for him is not an of
their aims.
pursuit personal
optional extra, nor a whim, nor the product of If this is the case, it seems reasonable to argue
an instinct. To say that man is a social being that itself does not pursues any
society specific
means: 1) that he needs others to satisfy his own end of its own, but simply guarantees the more
needs, and 2) that he improves himself (becomes or less spontaneous social harmony that makes it
"more human", exercises and develops his capac possible for each individual to attain his personal

ities) in his relationships with others. Living in goals; it is an open, generalized, abstract social

society is not, therefore, a limitation for man but order that facilitates the greatest coop
possible
a
good.
eration in the pursuit of individual goals and

Sociability leads to the existence

society, of protection against arbitrary violence by third
not only as a group of individuals, but also as an parties. Accordingly, there can be no such thing
organic bond between them, as a unifying prin as a common purpose of society (a common
ciple that goes beyond each individual. Now, the good), but
only individual goods; at best, we

key to a correct of the concept could of a "common interest", as the sum

understanding speak
of the common is the order of priority total of private goods or interests. In this theory,
good
established between society and the individual. the law, the exercise of political authority, the
For the advocates of the theory of the institutions, everything in society is oriented
common good, the origin, the and the exclusively towards individual interests. There is
subject
no room for a common nor -
ultimate purpose of society and of all institutions good of society,
is and must be the human person. Thus, we are needless to say - for any duties towards stake
not talking about a group of "individuals" (like holders other than oneself.
bees in a hive), but of "persons", who are capable At the other extreme of the ideological
of knowing what society is, what it does for them spectrum are the collectivist attitudes6 that do
and what it needs from them, and who also can away with the role of the individual, except as a
want a society and are free to cooperate
to build mere component, a molecule of the social
to achieve this. This is precisely what sociability organism. Here, the good of the individual is
demands of people, for the two reasons men subordinated to the smooth running of the
tioned above: because
society fulfils the needs economic and social mechanism. Man is reduced
that the individual cannot fulfil on his own, and to his role in society, and the concept of the
because it allows individuals to develop as human person as theindependent subject of moral
far what could on choice of society cannot
beings beyond they manage disappears. This concept
their own (that is, of course, if they could survive serve as a foundation for the stakeholder theory.
in such conditions). When they enter into Firstly, because it suppresses the identity of the

society, individuals retain their essential freedom, subject that relates to the stakeholders (the indi
because society has no existence independently vidual good is suppressed or becomes a residual).
of that of its members.5 And secondly, because it obliterates the variety
- or groups
This
concept of society is clearly differentiated of stakeholders persons each with
?
from two extreme positions. One of these is the their own particular interests with the result
idea of society as a mere conglomeration of indi that the only holder of relationships and rights
viduals, who are obliged to cooperate because is society as a whole (and ultimately the State,

they are incapable of surviving on their own, which represents society).

the fact of belonging to society does The theorists of the common good, in
although
not contribute in any way to their development expounding their ideas, talk about society as a
as persons. According to this view, society comes whole, so-called "civil society". However, the

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good 1095

social nature of man also manifests itself in his by all precisely because all are members of

tendency to associate with other men in the the same

society.
? a certain
pursuit of all kinds of goals cultural, scientific, From point of view, the common
-
economic, etc. and all these associations answer
good can be understood as the set of social
more or less urgent needs, from the family to the assumptions or conditions that make it
local community, the sports club, the business possible for the members of
society (and
enterprise or the political party. Thus, we can see also for the lesser societies) to realise their
that there is a generic sociability, which expresses personal objectives. This means that, in the
itself in society as such, and other specific socia broader view, the common good includes
bilities, which give rise to lesser "societies" the law and the institutions that uphold the
within society. And this applies to all the com law, the institutions that defend society, such
munities that human beings are involved in. as the army, and those that meet the general
need foreducation, culture, health care,
social welfare, etc.
The common As a corollary of what I have just said, these
good
conditions clearly do not come about of
As its name suggests, a common is every their own accord, but are created the
good by
thing that is good to more than one person, that members of society themselves.
more than one person, that is common The common good can also be seen as the
perfects
to all. Strictly the common good is set of means (or aids) that society makes
speaking,
"the overall conditions of life in society that available to its members to enable them
allow the different groups and their members to achieve their goals: for example, the law,
achieve their own perfection more fully and more which is designed to safeguard the rights of
this definition as our basis, we all.
easily".7 Taking
can start to clarify the concept as it is used by The common good is also the of
sharing
the writers we are dealing with here. society's members (and of the lesser associ
ations) in the goods resulting from their

Society's ultimate goal is the common good, cooperation. All contribute and all receive
insofar as society affords individuals (with (probably not in the same measure as they
their cooperation) the help need in contribute). This is not a that indi
they good
order to achieve
their personal goals. viduals do to the collective, or to other
The common good is the good of society individuals; they themselves have a share in
and also the good of its members, insofar it: it is a good given and received by each
as they are part of society, since the goal of person.

society is not independent of the goals of It is thus the good of the social whole,
its members. realised in its members.
The common good is not a partial good, The common good is not simply the sum
but belongs equally to all men (as social of particular interests. Nor is it equivalent

beings). Therefore, it is not confined to to social welfare, however widely distrib

such things as law and order, civic educa uted; nor is it a social order to be preserved,
tion or the provision of public all or a balance of power between groups. It
goods:
this is part of the common but the cannot be defined in statistical terms, or in
good,
common is much more than the sum terms of a country's wealth, or the volume
good
of all these partial goods. of public and private goods and services
Because it is common, it cannot be the available to its citizens, or the level of con
-
good of a few, nor even of a majority, but sumption. All of this along with truth,
only of all the members of society and of beauty, peace, art, culture, freedom, tradi
each one individually (at the same time and tion, the good life, the "bonum honestum",
for the same reason): it is the good shared etc. - can in one way or another be a part

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1096 Antonio Argando?a

of the common good, but it can never be for him one way of securing his own personal
the whole thing.8 Nor is the common good.
good "something" that is tacked on to our The common has primacy over the
good
personal wellbeing, much less a burden particular good, but not for any quantitative

imposed on us by virtue of some alien reason; in other words, not because it is the
dictate. This conception of the common good of more people. The common good has

good distinguishes it from the utilitarian and primacy because it is the good of the whole of

consequentialist conception (Finnis, 1983; which individuals are a part ? of a whole that

Velasquez, 1992). is specifically distinct from its parts. It is there

fore a greater and better good, more perfective
At this point, we need to pause and consider than the good of the parts (in that society
an important distinction. A
good is particular enables its members to achieve a greater degree
when it is possessed and enjoyed by a single of perfection).
person, or a limited number of persons, to the At the same time, the common good is
exclusion of all others (for example, a oriented towards man, who does not exist for the
dwelling).
- to live with
A good is collective when it is owned by the sake of society merely in order
- a a transcen
collective but is not shared by all the members others but has goal of his own,
of the collective (for a in dent goal, which is higher than that of society.
example, dwelling
collective or state ownership). And a good is Thus, man's duty to contribute to the good of
common or universal when it can be communi society derives from his duty to seek good for
cated to or shared byall, at least in theory himself. The primacy of the common good,
(everyone can admire the beauty of a dwelling therefore, is man's duty to seek what benefits all,
and benefit from the communal life that the because it also benefits him. What is subordinated
existence of the makes possible). A to the common
good is the private good that
dwelling
truth, for example, is a common good: everyone man has as a part of society. The primacy of the
can possess it fully (at least, all those who are common good does not exclude the pursuit of
able to apprehend it); nobody can be excluded private ends as such; it only excludes the pursuit
from possessing it; and each can possess it in its of private ends to the detriment of the common
as common as an instrument
entirety, something personal. good, using the good
for private ends.
The common is not, therefore, essen
good
Common and tially different from personal good. The same
good personal good
thing can be both a common good and a
Sometimes, common and individual personal good: health, for example, can be a goal
good good
are seen as conflicting, as if the pursuit of a for a whole society (hence, forexample, the
or were obligatory vaccination campaigns) or for a single
personal objective good incompatible
with the good of society, or as if the latter were person. The common good has primacy when
a burden to individuals. That is not the case. it is equal or superior in kind to the particular
The rule for understanding the rela For the to bear a part of the
golden good. example, duty
tionship between common good and personal economic burdens of society by paying fair taxes

good has already been stated: the origin, subject takes precedence over the right of an individual
and ultimate purpose of all institutions is and or a family to freely dispose of its income;
must be the human person. For theorists of the however, if the individual or family is unable to
common good, society is for man, not man for cover its own basic needs, its particular good
does not conflict takes priority over the good of society.
society. The good of individuals (survival)
with that of society, but is part of it. The two The common of society has primacy over
good
are not opposed, nor even separate: man seeks the good of the individual if it respects his dignity
but he cannot achieve it in and "flows" back towards the individual, con
good, except society;
for that reason, the good of is to his improvement as a person.
seeking society tributing

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good 1097

In summary, the tension between the indi fulfilment, freedom, satisfaction, etc.), all this in
vidual and society, between and a perspective.
personal good long-term
common good, is resolved
dynamically: the indi So what is the common good of the company
vidual has the duty to contribute to the common as I have just defined it? Not the volume of sales,
nor nor
good of society, which in turn is oriented profits, nor job creation, the prestige of
towards the individual, whose dignity and destiny its directors, although all of this can be part of
are superior to the community. And the human the company's common good. The common

person can only achieve this destiny by collabo good of the company is the fulfilment of the
in the vocation of society, which company's purpose as a company: namely, to
rating worldly
is the common good. create the conditions that will enable its members
(that is to say, all those that have a part in the

company) to achieve their personal goals. And

The common and the firm yet this common is a good in its own right:
good good
it is the goal of the company and, as such, can
every human society has its own be distinguished from the goals of the company's
Naturally,
common The content of the common members. It is not the sum of the individual
good.
be different a family,
for a company, of the members: firstly, because these indi
good will goals
a union, the local a nation, or the vidual include many more things than the
community, goals
whole of human It is to company can
possibly provide; and secondly,
society. important
the common good of the particular com because the company facilitates the achievement
identify
munity of persons we happen to be dealing with; of personal goals indirectly, through the achieve
in our case, the business enterprise. ment of its own goals.
If, in line with the definition given above, The simple example of the joint marketing
the common has to
do with venture could easily be extended. When we
good creating
the conditions that will enable those involved in make the distinction between shareholders, on
the business to achieve their personal we the one hand, and employees on and workers,
goals,
can say that there is no conflict between the the other, we are suggesting that what each of
common and the individual or these groups expects from the company may
good personal
good. be something different. The shareholders may
Indeed, let us consider a very simple enter be looking for sustained profitability, limited
a group of farmers who agree to market risk, business opportunities, etc. The workers,
prise:
their goods jointly, each contributing money managers and employees may
looking for
be
ideas, labour and produce. What does decent pay, employment, career opportu
(capital), steady
each one hope to obtain from this common nities, recognition of their worth, a chance to
venture? On the most basic level, they hope for improve their professional qualifications, cover
than ill health or old age, and much more
better economic results they could obtain against
on their own or by selling to a middleman. besides. Whatever theirpersonal interests, they
They also hope to guarantee the future of their must all contribute to
the company's goals, in
business, to gain recognition of their worth, to other words, to its common good, which will

acquire and improve their professional qualifica consist in producing useful goods and services,
tions, to be
able to provide
for their family, to and producing them efficiently (so as to create
build a spirit of cooperation in their locality, to wealth) and sustainably, so as to guarantee the
foster the prosperity of their region. . . .And conditions in which each participant receives

moving on to the
deeper motives, they hope that from the company what he or she can reasonably
the enterprise will help them to achieve their expect.
aims in life: firstly, to satisfy their needs (better If we accept this view of the firm, it becomes
than by any other means); and secondly, to clear that there will always be conflict, but

develop as persons (or any other definition of not between the common good of the firm
this ultimate personal aim in life: saintliness, self (properly understood) and the individual good

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1098 Antonio Argando?a

(again, properly understood) of those that have owners, and 3) the "new synthesis" proposed by
a part in it. If there is conflict, it will be between Goodpaster, which distinguishes between certain
the particular interests of one person or group fiduciary responsibilities towards the owners
and those of another; between particular and other restricted, non-fiduciary responsibili
interests and a misunderstood good. common ties towards the other stakeholders (cfr. also
Because, to the extent that the company develops Boatright, 1994; Carson, 1993; Goodpaster and
its common good, all will have a share in it Holloran, 1994).
in different ways and in different pro Who are the stakeholders?
According to
(although
portions). Freeman (1984, p. 25), they are any group or
As I have already said, the common good of individual who may affect or be affected by the
is built obtainment of the company's a
any society by the members of that goals. However,
society (in our case, the company); it is realised stakeholders theory based on this definition lacks
in that society; and it is shared by the members any normative rationale or criteria for identifying
of the society also by other people).
(and The who the stakeholders are or for allocating the

capital provided by the shareholders, the cre rights corresponding to each one (Donaldson,
ativity of the managers, and the labour of the 1989). In fact: why should stakeholders be

employees, for example, make it possible for the taken into account in the company's decision
company to stay in business in the long term. making? Because they "affect" (or may affect) the
This long-term success is reflected in specific cir company's now or at any point in
performance,
cumstances, such as the desirability of working the future? This answer justifies, at the very most,
for the company, the buoyancy of its shares, or the strategic approach mentioned above and
the confidence of financial institutions. And one cannot be used as a foundation for moral duties:
way or another, all those involved share in this it is "prudent" to take them into account but
success: some with security, others with this does not mean that any duties are created
job
prestige, others with highly valued shares, and towards them.9 And, if we take into account
so on. those who "are affected" (or may be affected)

by the company's decisions, the situation will

become even
vaguer.
The stakeholders9 theory The problem is that the stakeholders theory,
as it has been presented, has no solid basis in tra
The stakeholders
theory has been presented both ditional ethical theories (Dunn, 1990; Dunn and
within the framework of organisation theories Brady, 1995). All attempts to find other founda
1984; Freeman and Gilbert, 1988, tions have been as has been the
(Freeman, unsatisfactory,10
1992; Freeman and Reed, 1983; Mitroff, 1983) to present the theory as a "genre" in
proposal
and within that of business ethics
(Carroll, 1989) which various theoretical rationales could be
as a step beyond the neoclassic theory in which included (Freeman, 1994).
the company's is identified as being the
goal
maximization of profit and, therefore, the only
stakeholders in this goal are the The common good and stakeholders
achieving
company's owners. Goodpaster (1991) talks of
three levels in the stakeholders 1) the theory: What I have saying in the previous
been pages
level, which advocates into us to understand, against the background
strategic "taking helps
account" the (non-owner) stakeholders' interests of the theory of the common good, in what
as a means of achieving the company's (eco sense the shareholders, managers, employees and

nomic) goals but without any moral content; 2) workers of a company are stakeholders, and from
the multiple-trustee which, on amoral where derive their rights and duties as
approach they
level, attributes a fiduciary responsibility to the members of the company. The main duty of each
managers towards all of the stake one of them is to play their part in achieving
company's
holders alike, whether be owners or non the company's goal, in other words, to contribute
they

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good 1099

to its common good: by providing into a list of rights and duties of citizens towards
firstly,
whichever factor (capital or labour) they have society (or any of the lesser societies within
agreed to provide; and secondly, by helping to society).
create the conditions in which the common good In fact, is a good
this thing. The duties of a
of the company can which means company towards, say, the people living in the
develop,
creating the conditions in which each member immediate vicinity of its factory need to be
of the company receives from the company analysed case by case, taking into account the
whatever he can reasonably expect from it, and specific circumstances of the company and the
whatever he has a right to receive by virtue of local community, and type of relationship
the
his contribution (which goes well the there is between them (in a word, the type of
beyond
payment of a wage or dividend, as I have already formal or informal society they have formed).
said). The duties of a construction company that occa
However, the common good extends beyond sionally builds up a block of flats in the town will
the confines of the company. If the common be very different from those of an animal feed

good comes from human sociability, all the factory that has its premises actually in the town

company's relationships will carry an element of and works mainly for local customers using local
common to extend the and local or those of an auto
good. We therefore have employees capital;
list of stakeholders to include customers and sup mobile spare parts factory operating on an indus

pliers, banks and unions, the local community, trial estate on the outskirts of the town and
the authorities (at different levels), interest selling to companies based in other countries,
groups, competitors, and so on, until it encom using qualified personnel from outside of town.
passes all men of all times, by virtue of the unity In each case, there is a different type of "society",
of the human family.11 and therefore also a different common good (and
At this the concept of the common a different nature of the rights and duties of the
point,
good again throws light on the nature of the firm).
company's duties towards all of these stake However, the theory of the common good
holders, and their duties towards the company. introduces a major in the traditional
change
It is not a question of drawing up a list of duties; approach to stakeholders. This approach identi
such as the duty not to cause pollution, or the fies stakeholders as those who have an
being
duty to create jobs and to practice sponsorship "interest" in the company (so that the firm, in
or the an "interest"
in the local community, duty to inform, turn, may have in satisfying their

recognize and talk with the unions; because any demands) and this may provide a sufficient
such list will always be partial and The basis for a positive theory of
organisationthe
arbitrary.
important thing is to consider what kind of social (although, probably, incomplete). The theory of
relations the company (and its internal members) the common good is based on the classic concept
maintain with the various internal and external of "good": the company does "good" to many
stakeholders, in order to identify the common people, to some by obligation and to others more
good of the society thus defined, and the rights or less And "it must do good" to
involuntarily.
and duties that emanate from that common certain groups by virtue of its obligation to

good. contribute to the common good, which goes

It is quite clear that the theory of the common from the common good of the company itself

good, as here, provides a solid foun to that of the local community, the country and
presented
dation for the theory of stakeholders, their rights all humankind, including future generations. In
and duties, and the company's social responsi any case, the concept of good seems to provide
bilities, which have been a centre of debate for a more foundation for an ethical
appropriate
decades. I say that it provides a "foundation", theory than the concept of interest.
which is certainly something, but it cannot The doctrine I have been discussing also allows
the entire building, because the doctrine us to draw some
provide practical (although only very
of the common good cannot simply be translated general) conclusions regarding the way persons

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1100 Antonio Argando?a

(and firms) share in the common good. In prin the intiative and responsibility of persons and
ciple, they take an active part, but obviously we intermediate institutions.12
have to bear in mind the circumstances and pos
sibilities of eachperson (or company). We must

apply the principles of efficiency or and Conclusion

capacity
need: the duty to play an active role increases
with the agent's capacity to act and the recipient's The critics of the of the responsibility
theory
need. of the towards its stakeholders often
company
The possible forms of participation range from that the doctrine lacks a theoretical
complain
trying not to obstruct others in their efforts to even though it is very on
foundation, appealing
promote the common good, or passively com account of its implications. The lack of solid
plying with the commands of authority, to foundations not only weakens the theory but also
getting personally and
actively involved in the makes formulation of the company's
any rights
public administration,creating new channels of and duties towards its internal and external stake
participation (the media, cultural initiatives, etc.), holders somewhat arbitrary.
forming or joining companies or associations and In this paper I have tried to outline a
possible
organizations aimed at promoting the common theoretical foundation based on the theory of the
etc. common I have explained of this the basis
good, good.
However, it is not necessarily a question of its and its The con
theory, nature, implications.
"doing something special". A company that clusions are, in principle, the
encouraging: theory
shows a normal ethical concern for the problems of the common offers a sufficiently solid
good
of the local
community fulfils most of its duties basis for
the theory of stakeholders, and also the
towards that community in the ordinary run of means for determining, in each specific case, the
its activities: or sub in accor
hiring employees locally rights and duties of the participants,
to local firms, dance with the common
contracting avoiding pollution, good of the company,
paying local taxes, obeying the law and encour of the particular it has with its stake
"society"
aging its employees to behave as model citizens and of as a whole.
holders, society
(all of which, obviously, goes beyond simply
obtaining the greatest possible profit). This is not
to say that if the company is aware of a specific Notes
need and has the necessary resources it will not
do something more, such as joining the board 1
The author would like to thank N. Chinchilla, J.
of some social body, sponsoring schools or
M. D.
Fontrodona, Guillen, Mele, J. R. Pin, J. E.
housing cooperatives, or even nominating its A. Rodriguez, M. Torres and T. Voltz for
Ricart,
managers or employees for prominent public their valuable comments.
to the benefit of 2
positions the community (not But see the criticisms
of Maitland (1994).
3
of the company). Velasquez (1992) makes an interesting attempt to
All the same, the theorists of the common apply the theory of the common good to the ethical
out that the State justifies itself by the behaviour of multinational corporations.
good point 4
and promotion of the common The main in the theory of the
defense good of developments
common good, building on the ideas of Aristotle,
civil society, of citizens, and of intermediate insti
have been the work of Christian writers. The two
tutions. That is precisely the raison d'?tre of
most important are Saint Augustine (Confess., Book
public authority, given that private initiative is
III, Ch. 8; De Civit., Book XIX, Ch. 13) and Saint
not sufficient to achieve, maintain and enhance
Thomas of Aquinas (In Ethicor., Book I, Reading 2,
the common good, much less ensure that it No. 30; S. Theol., I?II, q. 29, a. 3 ad 1; q. 39, a 2
over In any case, the ad 2; q. 66, a. 8). There are some interesting ideas
prevails private good.
common good must be promoted in accordance in Calvez and Perrin Maritain
(1959), (1966),
with the principle of subsidiarity: neither the Millan-Puelles (1968, 1974), Ramirez (undated) and
State nor any other wider society should supplant Todoli (undated). Numerous handbooks of philosophy

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good 1101

expound the theory of the common good; for References

example, Wallace (1977). For a general summary, see
Millan-Puelles (1971). Boatright, J. R.: 1994, 'Fiduciary Duties and the
5
to a used men are to Relation: Or, What's
According widely example, Shareholder-Management
society as the parts to awhole; but not like the arms So Special About Shareholders?', Business Ethics
are to the since the arms have no existence
body, Quarterly 4(4) (October).
separate from the body, whereas man retains his per Brenner, S. N. and P. Cochran: 1990, 'A Stakeholder
sonality intact in the face of society. The ultimate Theory of the Firm', Working Paper MGMT
purpose of the arms is to serve the good of the body, 90-1 (Portland State University, Portland, Oregon).
but the ultimate purpose of man is not to serve the Brenner, S. N. and P. Cochran: 1991, The
good of society. Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: Implications
6
Not to be confused with communitarianism. for Business and Society Theory and Practice',
7
The definition is taken from the Second Vatican Proceedings of the International Association for Business
Council (1965), no. 26. As I have already pointed out, and Society (Sundance, Utah).
the concept of the common good was developed Burton, B. K. and C P. Dunn: 1996, 'Feminist Ethics
mainly in the context of Christian social doctrine. as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory',
8
The clubhouse, the course and the equipment of a Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2) (April).
golf club are part of the common good shared by its Calvez, Y. and J. Perrin: 1959, Eglise et soci?t?
members, but the common is more than these
good ?conomique (Paris).
things. Cf. Yepes (1996), p. 252. Carroll, A.: 1989, Business and Society (South Western,
9
At the most, one could discuss what are the
very Cincinnati).
means for combining everyone's interests (Brenner Carson, T. L.: 1993, 'Does the Stakeholder Theory
and Cochran, 1990, 1991; Freeman, 1994; Hosseini Constitute a New Kind of Theory of Social
and Brenner, 1992). Responsibility?', Business Ethics Quarterly 3(2)
10
See the Kantian (Evan and Freeman, 1993), con (April).
tractualist (Donaldson, 1989), feminist (Burton and Donaldson, T.:1989, The Ethics of International
Dunn, 1996; Freeman and Gilbert, 1992; Wicks, Business
(Oxford University Press, New York).
Gilbert and Freeman, 1994), fairness (Phillips, 1997), Dunn, C: 1990, 'The Stakeholder Approach as
dual investor (Schlossberger, 1994), etc. interpreta Ethical Theory: A Critical Review', paper pre
tions. Mention should also be made of the attempts sented at the Academy of Management annual
to provide more precise definitions of who the stake meeting.
holders are (Carson, 1993; Langtry, 1994) which Dunn, C.
and N. Brady: 1995, 'From Rules to
delimit more specifically the nature (contractual or Relationships: A Review of the Search for an
not, fiduciary or not) of the responsibility but do not Ethical Justification of Stakeholder Interests',
enable any progress to be made in providing a foun
Proceedings of the International Association for Business
dation for it. and Society.
11
In the 20's, Mary Parker Follet introduced a wide Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1993, 'A

range of social duties that the entrepreneur held with Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation:
respect to the community but not as something added Kantian Capitalism', in T. Beauchamp and N
to his primary economic functions [production, profit, Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business, 4th. ed.
she that social and economic
etc.]; argued responsi (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
bilities were one and the same (Parker, 1996, p. 289). Finnis, J.: 1983, Fundamentals of Ethics (Clarendon
Cfr. Follet (1996), chap. 11 (this is a lecture given in Press, Oxford).
1925). Follett, M. P.: 1996, Prophet ofManagement (Harvard
12
This means that the less a social system hinders University Press, Cambridge).
individuals from achieving their own goals, the better Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A
it will be; the more it decentralizes power and Stakeholder Approach (Pitman Press, Boston).
devolves decision-making to the lesser instances, the Freeman, R. E.: 1994, 'The Politics of Shareholder
more valuable it will be; and the less it resorts to Some Future Directions', Business Ethics
Theory:
coercive methods and the more it uses the
persuasion, Quarterly 4(4) (October).
more efficient itwill be. This is true of civil authority, Freeman, R. E. and D. R. Gilbert: 1988, Corporate
and also of businesses.
Strategy and the Search for Ethics (Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1102 Antonio Argando?a

Freeman, R. E. and D. R. Gilbert: 1992, 'Business Mitroff, I. I.: 1983, Stakeholders of the Organization
Ethics and Society: A Critical Agenda', Business & Mind (Jossey Bass, San Francisco).
- Least Heeded: The
Society 31(1). Parker, P.: 1996, 'Most Quoted
Freeman, R. E. and D. L. Reed: 1983, 'Stockholders Five Senses of Follett', in M. P. Follett (1996).
and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Cor Phillips, R. A.: 1997, 'Stakeholder Theory and a
porate Governance', California Management Review Principle of Fairness', Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1)
25 (Spring). (January).
Friedman, M.: 1970, 'The Social Responsibility of Ramirez, S. M.: s.f., La doctrina pol?tica de Santo Tom?s
Business is to Increase its Profits', The New York (CSIC, Madrid).
Times Magazine (September 13th). Schlossberger, E.: 1994, 'ANew Model of Business:
Goodpaster, K. E.: 1991, 'Business Ethics and Dual-Investor Theory', Business Ethics Quarterly
Stakeholder Analysis', Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1) 4(4) (October).
(January). Second Vatican Council: 1965, 'Gaudium et spes',
Goodpaster, K. E. and T. E. Holloran: 1994, 'In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58, 1966.
Defense of a Paradox', Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4) Todoli, J.: s.f., El bien com?n (Madrid).
(October). Velasquez, M.: 1992, 'International Business, Morality,
Hosseini, J. C. and S. N. Brenner: 1992, 'The and the Coommon Good', Business Ethics Quarterly
Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology 2(1) (January).
to Generate Value Matrix Weights', Business Ethics Wallace, W. A.: 1977, The Elements of Philosophy. A
Quarterly 2(2) (April). Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (Alba
Langtry, B.: 1994, 'Stakeholders and the Moral House, New York).
Responsibility of Business', Business Ethics Quarterly Wicks, A. C, D. R. Gilbert and R. E. Freeman:
4(4) (October). 1994, 'A Feminist Reinterpretion of the
Maitland, I.: 1994, The Morality of the Corporation: Stakeholder Concept', Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4)
An Empirical or Normative Disagreement?', (October).
Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4) (October). Yepes, R.: 1996, Fundamentos de Antropolog?a. Un ideal
Maritain, J.: 1966a, The Person and the Common Good de la excelencia humana (Eunsa, Pamplona).
(University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame).
Maritain, J.: 1966b, Humanismo integral (Lohl?, Buenos
Aires). ?
IESE International Graduate
Millan-Puelles, A.: 1968, Persona humana y justicia
School ofManagement,
social (Rialp, Madrid).
Millan-Puelles, A.: 1971, 'Bien com?n', en Gran University of Navarra,
vol. IV Av. Pearson 21,
Enciclopedia Rialp, (Rialp, Madrid).
Millan-Puelles, A.: 1974, Econom?a y Libertad (Con 08034 Barcelona, Spain
federaci?n Espa?ola de Cajas de Ahorro, Madrid). E-mail: argandona@iese.edu

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:09:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions