Business Ethics-Is It Really Common Sense?

The major corporate climate debate of the moment is whether business should be solely answerable to stockholders or whether much broader stakeholder responsibilities must be brought into play. In this article I discuss "Business Ethics" and how old-fashioned views of stockholders alone are broadening out into a wider conception of value creation.
I have avoided Twitter for some time. My reluctance stemmed from the fear of another social networking site tearing chunks of time out of my day. However, I've surrendered, and despite my first inclination to only follow the likes of Stephen Fry and other celebs I've actually found it rather thought provoking. Of course, there are many mundane tweets which don't put a spark in my day (such as trips to the dentists or school runs) - but there are others which have made me stop and think about some of the bigger business questions of our day.
A recent Tweet was 'Business ethics is an oxymoron' - a well used phrase but one which never fails to get my goat. My initial reaction was to reply saying, "Why is it that we feel we must accept an outdated view of business as 'dog-eat-dog, each bastard for themselves'? Can't we instead embrace the social collaboration of value creation that modern capitalism can be if only we all try?" - but that was more than 140 characters. So I thought perhaps I'd try to explain my view in a bit more fully.
A successful business is obviously one who seeks and achieves economic growth. Milton Friedman's famous assertion that "A business's only responsibility is to its shareholders" is often quoted as the ethical foundation of capitalism. In seeking to act responsibly to anyone other than the stockholders of the business, owners and managers are actually behaving unethically. But does this argument really hold much water?
If a successful business is one which seeks and achieves (sustainable) economic growth, how does it do this? It is likely to be working with suppliers who understand its needs and works innovatively to provide it with the best product or service. It is likely to provide value-rich products or services for its customers. It will be complying with legislation and working in all ways to act justly. In short, it will be taking into account multiple stakeholders to achieve the best possible return for each.
This much broader view of responsibilities - Stakeholder Theory - has been around for quite some time and owes much to the work of R. Edward Freeman. In his words, "For any business to be successful it has to create value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and financiers (shareholders, banks, the people with the money)."
The interests of all the stakeholders must be considered and best integrated in a broad-fronted quest for value creation. In finding the common ground of these stakeholders - rather than seeking only to mitigate against conflict and searching for trade-offs - businesses are better able to create value for all.
Business cannot be values-free or ethics-free simply because it is not people-free. Customers, suppliers, financiers, employees and communities are all made up of humans with names and faces. The co-creation of value for all of these stakeholders relies heavily on collaboration.
Is "Business Ethics" an oxymoron?. No - in fact the phrase itself is actually more of an irrelevance than an oxymoron. Good ethics in all parts of our lives actually come back to common sense.