<didl:DIDL xsi:schemaLocation="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:02-DIDL-NS 
			 http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/MPEG-21_schema_files/did/didmodel.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:didl="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:02-DIDL-NS"><didl:Item><didl:Descriptior><didl:Statement mimeType="application/xml; charset=utf-8"><dii:Identifier xsi:schemaLocation="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS
		 	http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/MPEG-21_schema_files/dii/dii.xsd" xmlns:dii="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS">http://orgprints.org/11344/</dii:Identifier></didl:Statement></didl:Descriptior><didl:Descriptior><didl:Statement mimeType="application/xml; charset=utf-8"><oai_dc:dc xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
        <dc:title>Corporate Responsibility: The Stakeholder Paradox Reconsidered</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Jensen, Karsten Klint</dc:creator>
        <dc:subject>Consumer issues</dc:subject>
        <dc:description>Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the stakeholder paradox: either we have ethics without business or we have business without ethics.&#13;
&#13;
Through a different route, I reach the same solution to this paradox as Goodpaster, namely that a corporation is the instrument of the shareholders only, but that shareholders still have an obligation to act ethically responsible. To this, I add discussion of Friedman’s claim that this responsibility consist in increasing profits. I show that most of his arguments fail. Only pragmatic considerations allow to a certain extent that some of the ethical responsibility is left over to democratic regulation.&#13;
</dc:description>
        <dc:date>2007</dc:date>
        <dc:type>Journal paper</dc:type>
        <dc:type>NonPeerReviewed</dc:type>
        <dc:format>source</dc:format>
        <dc:identifier>http://orgprints.org/11344/1/11344.doc</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>Jensen, Karsten Klint (2007) Corporate Responsibility: The Stakeholder Paradox Reconsidered. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. [ In Press , 2007] *</dc:identifier>
        <dc:relation>http://orgprints.org/11344/</dc:relation></oai_dc:dc></didl:Statement></didl:Descriptior><didl:Component><didl:Descriptior><didl:Statement mimeType="application/xml; charset=utf-8"><dii:Identifier xsi:schemaLocation="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS
		 	    http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/MPEG-21_schema_files/dii/dii.xsd" xmlns:dii="urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS">http://orgprints.org/11344/1/</dii:Identifier></didl:Statement></didl:Descriptior><didl:Resource ref="http://orgprints.org/11344/1/11344.doc"></didl:Resource></didl:Component></didl:Item></didl:DIDL>