in my opinion, a company's responsibility is to its shareholders, however shareholders are NOT only concerned about PROFIT. to deliver a profit, companies must provide a good service to CUSTOMERS and have good relations with STAKEHOLDERS and EMPLOYEES. i own shares in a certain company and i am just as concerned about the annual Co2 emmisions, water use and ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE as I am about the dividend
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Companies etc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter neo o
- Start date
K
katie_tully
Guest
You truly are a tool.neo_o said:Do you think John Smith living at Ayers Rock should receive the same service, at the same cost as John Smith living in Sydney? For some reason, people in the bush feel that Telstra owes them something, and that Telstra should operate at a loss (wires, less people etc) and deliver telecommunications services to the bush, at the same cost as in the city.
The mind boggles
Also natstar, I think you and leftright just had a misunderstanding. He was pointing out that while Maccas considers its customer (all businesses have to) like you said, they didn't create the healthy menu because they were concerned about the health of their customers (ethical reasons) they created it to take advantage of what customers WANT, and thus deliver increased profit to their shareholders.
If John Smith from Ayres rock is paying the same as John Fuckhead from Sydney, then yes Telstra owes him something.
Phanatical
Happy Lala
Agreed, Telstra, as a government owned corporation, has a Responsibility to the people whom that government represents, and should provide the same quality service whether they're from woop-woop or the city.
thorrnydevil
Ancient Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,521
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Nah, do you have girls germs?natstar said:
this is such a silly business studies type question. The business has internal stakeholers and external stakeholders. The shareholders in the business are internal stakeholders and one important aspect in which the business aims to maintain is keeping the satifiaction of the shareholders.
However, while the business is trying to satisfy the interest of the shareholders, the business must also keep in mind the other stakeholders in the business. the employees are important. Look at James Hardie, they didn't look after their employees and now they have a huge dileima and look what that has done to their share price. The cusotmers and community also are important for the business, they reflect the interest and reputation of the business. Think about it when BHP shut up work in Newcastle, and the impact that had upon the company. The business must also act within the laws of the government. The government is also a stakeholer, because they gain revenue from taxes and also are acting in the best interests of the country (or meant to be). If there are disputes the government aims to minimise them and achieve quick and effective justice for the business as a reflecetion of society. The whole indurtial relations set up by the state and federal government looks at disputes between employers and employees, and looks at resolving them.
In conclusion, yes the business must look after the interests of the shareholders. However, the interests of other stakeholders in the business are important and can have a impact upon the shareholders, wheather the business aims to do so or not. Profitablilty can be achieved in so many ways, but maintaining a link between the business and it's shareholders keeps this in tact.
However, while the business is trying to satisfy the interest of the shareholders, the business must also keep in mind the other stakeholders in the business. the employees are important. Look at James Hardie, they didn't look after their employees and now they have a huge dileima and look what that has done to their share price. The cusotmers and community also are important for the business, they reflect the interest and reputation of the business. Think about it when BHP shut up work in Newcastle, and the impact that had upon the company. The business must also act within the laws of the government. The government is also a stakeholer, because they gain revenue from taxes and also are acting in the best interests of the country (or meant to be
). If there are disputes the government aims to minimise them and achieve quick and effective justice for the business as a reflecetion of society. The whole indurtial relations set up by the state and federal government looks at disputes between employers and employees, and looks at resolving them. In conclusion, yes the business must look after the interests of the shareholders. However, the interests of other stakeholders in the business are important and can have a impact upon the shareholders, wheather the business aims to do so or not. Profitablilty can be achieved in so many ways, but maintaining a link between the business and it's shareholders keeps this in tact.
Xayma
Lacking creativity
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,953
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Just to show an example:
Volvo developed and subsequently patented the 3-point seat belt. Yet they allowed any company to use it without cost to them, deeming that public safety is more important.
They stood to make millions more when people would buy their car for its safety features, and hence their responsibility to their shareholders only would have been to prevent others from using it.
Volvo developed and subsequently patented the 3-point seat belt. Yet they allowed any company to use it without cost to them, deeming that public safety is more important.
They stood to make millions more when people would buy their car for its safety features, and hence their responsibility to their shareholders only would have been to prevent others from using it.
Goodwill to others improves the company's image and as such enhances its share value.
Though a company may have other responsibilities, nobody can dispute that its primary responsibility is to generate a profit and as a result meet the needs of the shareholders. I am not disputing the fact that other factors may be considered, but any company that wishes to continue trading would not put its operational capacity at risk just to appease a social justice campaign (for example) .
Just for the record, I'm answering this question with respect to a company's primary responsibility.
Though a company may have other responsibilities, nobody can dispute that its primary responsibility is to generate a profit and as a result meet the needs of the shareholders. I am not disputing the fact that other factors may be considered, but any company that wishes to continue trading would not put its operational capacity at risk just to appease a social justice campaign (for example) .
Just for the record, I'm answering this question with respect to a company's primary responsibility.