The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1994
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
Goodpaster,-Kenneth-E,-1944; Investor-relations; Stockholders; Directors-of-corporations; Business-Social-aspects; Corporation-law; Corporate-stakeholders
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
No discipline assigned
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-351-257
(Last edited on
2003/03/08 06:59:10 US/Mountain)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Stakeholder theory is examined in an attempt to clarify certain foundational issues. Kenneth Goodpaster has suggested that a "stakeholder paradox" exists at the heart of stakeholder theory. However, there is no stakeholder paradox, and the principle on which such a paradox is established, the Separation Thesis, is nicely self-serving to business and ethics academics. If such a thesis is renounced, it is evident that there is no stakeholder theory. Rather, stakeholder theory becomes a genre that is quite rich, and it becomes one of many ways to join together the main concepts of business with those of ethics. Rather than take each concept of business individually or the whole of "business" together and hold it to the light of ethical standards, the stakeholder concept can be employed to form more fine-grained analyses that combine business and ethics.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
3/1256
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|