At Goldman Sachs' (NYSE: GS) annual meeting, CEO Lloyd Blankfein (Lloyd Blankfein news) intoned that "there is no bigger priority for our Board of Directors and management than to undertake a comprehensive review of all of our business practices. This effort will be defined by one central question: Are the clients of Goldman Sachs and the broader public interest being served in a manner entirely consistent with their highest expectations?"

The interesting part is the "broader public interest" comment. What exactly does Goldman Sachs owe the public? Well, I'm sure it would agree that it has a moral obligation to be a good corporate citizen, but what really does that entail? And what if that obligation is at odds with client interests? And what if it results in less revenue?

Eleanor Bloxham CEO of the advisory firm of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance, notes that there was a day when Goldman Sachs stood against the idea of non-voting stock as somehow undemocratic, definitely going against the grain way back then. "With that kind of moral leadership, in keeping with its 140-year history, Goldman will not underwrite product, even if clients want it, if that product would be harmful to the broader capital markets."

Lots of CEOs would argue that they have a moral obligation to stockholders to keep the stock up. It will be interesting to see if Blankfein's words are translated into anything concrete.  

For more:
- here's Bloxham's essay in Fortune

Related Articles
How onerous would a Goldman Sachs' settlement be?
Goldman Sachs, another Drexel Burnham Lambert?
Goldman Sachs to lose more customers soon?