One problem for any system of business ethics is how to make choices among competing interests in zero-sum situations, in which any decision will leave some stakeholders worse off. How does one prioritize the interests of the many different stakeholders in a large corporation? It might be objected that Catholic social thought gives managers too little guidance as to how to do so, because—like all stakeholder theories—it does not provide “the kind of systemic, prescriptive, prioritizing guidance that is so crisply present in shareholder wealth-maximization theory.” Lee A. Tavis, "Modern Contract Theory and the Purpose of the Firm," in Rethinking the Purpose of Business: Interdisciplinary Essays from the Catholic Social Tradition, ed. S. A. Cortright and Michael J. Naughton (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 215, 221.
In fact, however, Catholic social thought offers two straightforward principles for prioritizing among stakeholders; namely, the preferential option for the poor and the special position of workers within the firm. “The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern.” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005), 182. Likewise, the Church teaches that “[I]t is essential that within a business the legitimate pursuit of profit should be in harmony with the irrenounceable protection of the dignity of the people who work at different levels in the same company.” Ibid., 340. Those “workers constitute ‘the firm's most valuable asset’ and the decisive factor of production.” Ibid., 344.
By itself, of course, this point does not disprove the validity of shareholder primacy as a normative guide for corporate decision making, it simply eliminates one argument against Catholic social thought’s wider perspective.
