In essence, both theories present a well fought case. However, the stakeholder theory is better for a society as a whole. Sure a company can care for nothing but its shareholders, but what will happen to those who do not own stock yet are still affected by the companies actions? If a company is polluting the surrounding area, where there are towns and people, is it not doing harm because it is only working towards a profit? I'm sure the people of that town would beg to differ. Even though conflicting agendas can arise in a stakeholder company at least it wouldn't be causing harm to those not associated with the company. I believe stockholders must take that risk when deciding to invest in the market. They must realize that not everyone in this society owns stock, and the ruthless actions of the corporations should not affect those people who freely decided to avoid the market.…
