Businesses need to consider many individuals when dealing with the decisions of their companies. In the case of “Selling Family Dollar,” it appears the two major contributing factors are the wants of the board of directors and CEO and then those desires of the employees. The question is, however, which course of action would be most morally correct. If Family Dollar sells to Dollar General they would be making the most off the sell; however, if they decide to sell to Dollar Tree, the two businesses would differ just enough that many current employees would be able to keep their jobs. If we were to look at the option that would produce the greatest net good, a business that operates as an association rather than a community would have an obligation to whoever the majority of the “dependents” were. In the cases of most operations, the majority would be the employees. In an economic sense, there are many flaws with the stockholder theory. Primarily speaking, markets are not self-regulating and need some sort of control. In the end, those stockholders who are making large amounts of money off a company are going to put their own self-interests first rather than looking at the overall effect their decisions will have. Rather, the stakeholder theory will protect the interests of others who may not always have a …show more content…
Because of the closing, many people lost their jobs and overall the city went downhill quickly due to growing poverty rates and families moving out. As we saw in that case, the loss of jobs many people experienced had a negative impact both on the community surrounding them and on their individual families. The decision to merge Family Dollar with Dollar General may not have the same effect that the Flint plant closing had due to it being located in an upper-middle class town; however, it still would hinder prosperity and growth of