From Shareholder Primacy to Stakeholder Well-being: An Indian Knowledge Systems Perspective on Human Resource and Marketing Management

The architectural limits of twenty-first-century capitalism have exposed a profound crisis of purpose within modern corporate governance. For decades, the reductionist focus on shareholder primacy has driven material efficiency at the cost of severe ecological degradation, deep socioeconomic fragmentation, and a widespread erosion of organizational trust [1][3][4]. While contemporary Western adaptations like ESG frameworks and shared-value initiatives attempt to mitigate these externalities, they remain inherently transactional, treating stakeholder welfare as a strategic instrument for risk mitigation rather than an intrinsic moral good [7][8]. This study resolves this conceptual impasse by introducing an integrated, dual-lens framework derived from Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). By mapping timeless philosophical pillars directly onto the operational cores of business, Human Resource Management and Marketing Management, we demonstrate that organizational health is a function of system-wide harmony rather than isolated financial optimization. Internally, grounding HR practices in Dharma, Seva, and Sarvodaya transforms employee management from transactional utility maximization into a supportive relational covenant that naturally fosters psychological safety, intrinsic motivation, and long-term capability building [19]. Externally, aligning marketing strategies with Lokasangraha and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam elevates brand management beyond superficial perception management toward authentic, ethical value co-creation with consumers, suppliers, and the wider community [18][22]. Ultimately, this paper rejects the conventional false dichotomy that positions financial viability against ethical execution. When an enterprise transitions from the extraction of private shareholder surplus to the cultivation of holistic stakeholder well-being, financial returns emerge not as an aggressive target, but as a sustainable by-product of a healthy, deeply resilient ecosystem [13][15]. As global markets become increasingly volatile, the survival of the modern enterprise relies on its capacity to evolve from an isolated, profit-seeking entity into a responsible custodian of societal and ecological health. By synthesizing classical Eastern wisdom with the strategic execution required by contemporary organizations, this framework offers a conceptually rigorous and actionable paradigm shift. It provides a timeless blueprint for navigating twenty-first-century disruption—reminding us that true organizational excellence is achieved only when economic performance remains anchored in universal righteousness and collective welfare.

1.      Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32–33. 2.      Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X 3.      Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but different: Choosing between sustainability and responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 54(1), 105–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12141 4.      George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007 5.      Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. 6.      Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. 7.      Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992 8.      Dierksmeier, C. (2011). The freedom-critique of sustainability: The case of Milton Friedman. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0771-4 9.      Jack, G., Westwood, R., Srinivas, N., & Khan, F. (2011). Deepening, broadening and diversifying postcolonial management studies. Organization, 18(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411398730 10.   Barkema, H. G., Chen, X. P., George, G., Luo, Y., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 460–479. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.4002