<mods:mods version="3.0" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-0.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3"><mods:titleInfo><mods:title>Corporate Responsibility: The Stakeholder Paradox Reconsidered</mods:title></mods:titleInfo><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">Karsten Klint</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">Jensen</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:abstract>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;
</mods:abstract><mods:classification authority="lcc">Consumer issues</mods:classification><mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8061">2007</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo><mods:genre>Journal paper</mods:genre></mods:mods>