Related categories
Siblings:
59 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 59
  1. Bradley R. Agle, Thomas Donaldson & R. Edward Freeman (2008). Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (2):153-190.
    A quick look at what is happening in the corporate world makes it clear that the stakeholder idea is alive, well, and flourishing; and the question now is not “if ” but “how” stakeholder theory will meet the challenges of its success. Does stakeholder theory’s “arrival” mean continued dynamism, refinement, and relevance, or stasis? How will superior stakeholder theory continue to develop? In light of these and related questions, the authors of these essays conducted an ongoing dialogue on the current (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Tim Ambler & Andrea Wilson (1995). Problems of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics 4 (1):30–35.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Antonio Argandoña (1998). The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (9-10):1093-1102.
    The theory of the social responsibility of the firm oscillates between two extremes: one that reduces the firm's responsibility to the obtainment of (the greatest possible) profit for its shareholders, and another that extends the firm's responsibility to include a wide range of actors with an interest or "stake" in the firm. The stakeholder theory of the social responsibility of business is more appealing from an ethical point of view, and yet it lacks a solid foundation that would be acceptable (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. D. Bevan & P. H. Werhane (2011). Stakeholder Theory. In Mollie Painter-Morland & René ten Bos (eds.), Business Ethics and Continental Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 37--60.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Steven N. Brenner (1992). The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm. Business Ethics Quarterly 2 (2):99-119.
    Various authors advocate consideration of stakeholder value concerns in organizational decision making. Brenner and Cochran (1990, 1991) propose a stakeholder theory of the firm which contains several propositions and a stakeholder value matrix. In order to begin any stakeholder rnodel validation, an approach is needed to measure stakeholder value and influence weights. We propose a multicriteria decision modeling approach, utilizing the analytic hierarchy process, to estimate stakeholder value matrix weights. This approach is illustrated using a simplified example and suggestions are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Rogene A. Buchholz & Sandra B. Rosenthal (2005). Toward a Contemporary Conceptual Framework for Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):137 - 148.
    . Atomic individualism is embedded in most definitions of stakeholder theory, and as a result, stakeholders are not integral to the basic identity of the corporation which is considered to be independent of, and separate from, its stakeholders. Feminist theory has been suggested as a way of developing a more relational view of the corporation and its stakeholders, but it lacks a systematically developed conceptual framework for undergirding its own insights. Pragmatic philosophy is offered as a way of providing this (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Rogene A. Buchholz & Sandra B. Rosenthal (2004). Stakeholder Theory and Public Policy: How Governments Matter. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 51 (2):143-153.
    The Social Issues in Management Division has had a long history of research into various aspects of governmental influences on business. Recent years, however, have seen stakeholder theory sort of sweep the field, and under a stakeholder theory of capitalism, governments will matter less then they have in the past as stakeholder principles are implemented throughout the corporate world. This article will examine the nature of this claim by discussing problems with the implementation of stakeholder theory and examining the role (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thomas L. Carson (1993). Does the Stakeholder Theory Constitute a New Kind of Theory of Social Responsibility? Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (2):171-176.
    In arecent paper, Kenneth Goodpaster formulates three versions of the stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility. He rejects the first two versions and endorses the third. I argue that the theory that Goodpaster defends under the name “stakeholder theory” is aversion (albeit a somewhat different version) of Milton Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. I also argue that the first two formulations of the stakeholder theory which Goodpaster discusses are at most only slight modifications of other theories. I conclude by (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Marc A. Cohen (2010). The Narrow Application of Rawls in Business Ethics: A Political Conception of Both Stakeholder Theory and the Morality of Markets. Journal of Business Ethics 97 (4):563-579.
    This paper argues that Rawls’ principles of justice provide a normative foundation for stakeholder theory. The principles articulate (at an abstract level) citizens’ rights; these rights create interests across all aspects of society, including in the space of economic activity; and therefore, stakeholders – as citizens – have legitimate interests in the space of economic activity. This approach to stakeholder theory suggests a political interpretation of Boatright’s Moral Market approach, one that emphasizes the rights/place of citizens. And this approach to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Geert Demuijnck (2004). Stakeholder of Partner? De NGO's En de Geloofwaardigheid van de Sociale Clausules Opgelegd Door Multinationale Onderneminge. Ethiek and Maatschappij 7:78-87.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Cathy Driscoll & Mark Starik (2004). The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 49 (1):55-73.
    This article furthers the argument for a stakeholder theory that integrates into managerial decision-making the relationship between business organizations and the natural environment. The authors review the literature on stakeholder theory and the debate over whom or what should count as a stakeholder. The authors also critique and expand the stakeholder identification and salience model developed by Mitchell and Wood (1997) by reconceptualizing the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, as well as by developing a fourth stakeholder attribute: proximity. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Niklas Egels-Zandén & Joakim Sandberg (2010). Distinctions in Descriptive and Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Challenge for Empirical Research. Business Ethics: A European Review 19 (1):35-49.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Yves Fassin (2008). Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model's Graphical Representation. Journal of Business Ethics 80 (4):879 - 888.
    The success of the stakeholder theory in management literature as well as in current business practices is largely due to the inherent simplicity of the stakeholder model––and to the clarity of Freeman’s powerful synthesised visual conceptualisation. However, over the years, critics have attacked the vagueness and ambiguity of stakeholder theory. In this article, rather than building on the discussion from a theoretical point of view, a radically different and innovative approach is chosen: the graphical framework is used as the central (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Timothy L. Fort (2001). 6. Stakeholder Theory. The Ruffin Series in Business Ethics:119-135.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. William C. Frederick (1995). Stakeholder Theory Ethically Resuscitated. The Ruffin Series in Business Ethics:226-228.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. R. Edward Freeman (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):409-421.
    The purpose of this paper is to enter the conversation about stakeholder theory with the goal of clarifying certain foundational issues. I want to show, along with Boatright, that there is no stakeholder paradox, and that the principle on which such a paradox is built, the Separation Thesis, is nicely self-serving to business and ethics academics. If we give up such a thesis we find there is no stakeholder theory but that stakeholder theory becomes a genre that is quite rich. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. R. Edward Freeman, Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar (2007). Stakeholder Capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics 74 (4):303 - 314.
    In this article, we will outline the principles of stakeholder capitalism and describe how this view rejects problematic assumptions in the current narratives of capitalism. Traditional narratives of capitalism rely upon the assumptions of competition, limited resources, and a winner-take-all mentality as fundamental to business and economic activity. These approaches leave little room for ethical analysis, have a simplistic view of human beings, and focus on value-capture rather than value-creation. We argue these assumptions about capitalism are inadequate and leave four (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. R. Edward Freeman & Robert A. Phillips (2002). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):331-350.
    Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to suggest that at least one strain of what has come to be called “stakeholder theory” has roots that are deeply libertarian. We begin by explicating both “stakeholder theory” and “libertarian arguments.” We show how there are libertarian arguments for both instrumental and normative stakeholder theory, and we construct a version of capitalism, called “stakeholder capitalism,” that builds on these libertarian ideas. We argue throughout that strong notions of “freedom” and “voluntary action” are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Peter A. French, Jeffrey Nesteruk & David T. Risser (1992). Corporations in the Moral Community. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
  20. Kevin Gibson (2000). The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26 (3):245 - 257.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Jon Griffith (2009). A Cautionary Note on Stakeholder Theory and Social Enterprise. Philosophy of Management 8 (3):75-79.
    Much ink has been spilt over the last decade in discussion of the theories and practices of social enterprise - see especially Peattie and Morley for a comprehensive review of the field, including of other reviews.This brief paper is about a specific aspect of these theories and practices: the effort to establish social enterprises as distinctive from others in having at least a double bottom-line (or in some cases a triple bottom-line, or even some greater multiple of bottom-lines).The effort to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. John Hardwig (2010). The Stockholder – a Lesson for Business Ethics From Bioethics? Journal of Business Ethics 91 (3):329 - 341.
    Business ethics – both stockholder and stakeholder theories – makes the same mistake as the one made by the traditional ethics of medicine. The traditional ethics of medicine was a teleological ethics predicated on the assumption that the goal of medicine was to prolong life and promote better health. But, as bioethicists have made plain, these are not the only or even the overriding goals of most patients. Most of us have goals and values that limit our desire for medical (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Jeffrey S. Harrison (2002). A Stakeholder Perspective of Entrepreneurial Activity. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2002:143-150.
    Venkataraman (2000) described entrepreneurship as a method for resolving stakeholder value anomalies. His description provides strong normative support for encouraging entrepreneurship in society on the basis of reducing inequities and promoting social harmony. However, a stakeholder perspective of entrepreneurship also has the potential to provide a flexible and comprehensive description of the entrepreneurial process through its various stages. In addition, a stakeholder perspective, combined with resource-based theory, can help researchers in identifying factors that lead to entrepreneurial success or failure. Specifically, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Andrew C. Wicks (2013). Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance. Business Ethics Quarterly 23 (1):97-124.
    This paper argues that the notion of value has been overly simplified and narrowed to focus on economic returns. Stakeholder theory provides an appropriate lens for considering a more complex perspective of the value that stakeholders seek as well as new ways to measure it. We develop a four-factor perspective for defining value that includes, but extends beyond, the economic value stakeholders seek. To highlight its distinctiveness, we compare this perspective to three other popular performance perspectives. Recommendations are made regarding (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. John Hasnas (2013). Whither Stakeholder Theory? A Guide for the Perplexed Revisited. Journal of Business Ethics 112 (1):47-57.
    The nature of stakeholder theory and its fundamental normative prescriptions are the subject of much confusion and academic debate. This article attempts to provide an account of both the fundamental normative implications of stakeholder theory and the theory’s range of application that both stakeholder advocates and critics can agree upon. Using exclusively the language of leading stakeholder theorists, the article identifies the essential prescriptions of the theory and the type of organizations to which stakeholder theory applies in the hope of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Michael C. Jensen (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):235-256.
    Abstract: In this article, I offer a proposal to clarify what I believe is the proper relation between value maximization and stakeholder theory, which I call enlightened value maximization. Enlightened value maximization utilizes much of the structure of stakeholder theory but accepts maximization of the long-run value of the firm as the criterion for making the requisite tradeoffs among its stakeholders, and specifies long-term value maximization or value seeking as the firm’s objective. This proposal therefore solves the problems that arise (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. T. Jones, A. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman (2002). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. In Norman E. Bowie (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Blackwell. 19--37.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Thomas M. Jones (1994). Is There a Theory in Stakeholder Theory. Business and Society 33 (1):98-101.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Dominic Kaeslin, Ruth Schmitt & Jerry Calton (2007). Decentered Stakeholder Theory. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 18:448-452.
    In this workshop, a decentered approach to stakeholder theory is proposed, where a shared network problem, rather than a firm, frames stakeholder interactions. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the potential usefulness of adopting a decentered perspective on firm-stakeholder relations. Multi-stakeholder learning dialogues and actor-network theory are introduced as examples of possible theoretical frameworks that allow the adoption of a decentered perspective.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. J. Kaler (2009). An Optimally Viable Version of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 86 (3):297 - 312.
    This article is the final one in a series of four papers investigating the stakeholder approach to running businesses. It argues that the optimally viable version of that approach is one in which employees have a co-equal status as stakeholders with shareholders (the maximum allowed for under stakeholder theory) while other groupings only have a minimal status as stakeholders and are generally restricted to just customers, suppliers, and lenders. This version is argued for on the grounds that it both overcomes (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. J. Kaler (2006). Evaluating Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 69 (3):249 - 268.
    This paper is the third in a series of four that is directed at understanding and assessing stakeholder theory for the purposes of business ethics. It addresses the suitability and viability of the theory, rejecting objections of a moral and efficiency sort based (respectively) on claims about property rights and the economic superiority of the alternative stockholder approach, but accepting that implementation problems require limiting both the number of groupings admitted to stakeholder status and the degree of responsibility towards them. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. John Kaler (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theories. Journal of Business Ethics 46 (1):71 - 83.
    Following on from work on stakeholder identification, this paper constructs a typology of stakeholder theories based on the extent to which serving the interests of non-shareholders relative to those of shareholders is accepted as a responsibility of companies. A typology based on the division of stakeholder theories into normative, descriptive, and instrumental is rejected on the grounds that the latter two designations refer to second order theories rather than divisions within stakeholder theory and the first is a designation which, for (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. John Kaler & Senior Lecturer (2004). Arriving at an Acceptable Formulation of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics 13 (1):73–79.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Sheldon Leader (1999). Participation and Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (2-3):97 - 109.
    This paper puts forward an argument for stakeholder rights. It begins by exploring two major answers to the question, 'in whose interests should the commercial company function?'. One claims parity for other stakeholders alongside the shareholder on the basis of a theory of property rights, and another on a theory of citizenship. Each of these answers, it is argued, fail to convince. The way forward is to recast the initial question, not asking in whose interest the company should function, but (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Laurent Leduc (2004). Corporate Governance with a Difference: Fiduciary Duty for a Wisdom Economy. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 1 (s 2-3):147-161.
    Fiduciary duty is not restricted merely to the property of shareholders but includes ethical obligations to a wider constituency stakeholders in terms of power. Several approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR) are considered in terms of their respective orientations to the external world. Robert Greenleaf's notion of "service to others" or "servant-leadership" is considered as a case of the fifth level approach to CSR. An historical perspective offers a precedent for reclaiming corporate charter grants as a means for reinstating the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Alexei M. Marcoux (2003). A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (1):1-24.
    Critics attack normative ethical stakeholder theory for failing to recognize the special moral status of shareholders that justifiesthe fiduciary duties owed to them at law by managers. Stakeholder theorists reply that there is nothing morally significant about shareholders that can underwrite those fiduciary duties. I advance an argument that seeks to demonstrate both the special moral status of shareholders in a firm and the concomitant moral inadequacy of stakeholder theory. I argue that (i) if some relations morally requirefiduciary duties, and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Dirk Matten & Andrew Crane (2005). What is Stakeholder Democracy? Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics 14 (1):6–13.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Domènec Melé (2009). The View and Purpose of the Firm in Freeman's Stakeholder Theory. Philosophy of Management 8 (3):3-13.
    Stakeholder Theory (ST), presented by R. Edward Freeman, is a managerial theory which sees the firm as ‘connected networks of stakeholder interests’. The purpose of the firm in Freeman’s theory is ‘value creation and trade’ and ‘creation of value for each appropriate stakeholder’. This article argues that although ST presents important insights, its view of the firm is incomplete and its vision of the purpose of the business in society needs to be refined.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Ronald K. Mitchell (2002). Entrepreneurship and Stakeholder Theory. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2002:175-195.
    In his Ruffin Lecture on stakeholder value and the entrepreneurial process, Professor S. Venkataraman asserted that two processes: value creation, and value sharing, are common ground for both the field of business ethics and the field of entrepreneurship (Venkataraman, 1999). In this article I further explore the connections between entrepreneurship and stakeholder theory raised in the Lecture, as they relate to both the production and the distribution of wealth in society. Through the application of transaction cognition theory, which suggests that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Mark T. Nelson (1998). An Aristotelian Business Ethics? Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (1):89–104.
    Elaine Sternberg's Just Business is one of the first book-length Aristotelian treatments of business ethics. It is Aristotelian in the sense that Sternberg begins by defining the nature of business in order to identify its end, and, thence, normative principles to regulate it. According to Sternberg, the nature of business is 'the selling of goods or services in order to maximise long-term owner value', therefore all business behaviour must be evaluated with reference to the maximisation of long-term owner value, constrained (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Jeffrey Nesteruk & David T. Risser (1993). Conceptions of the Corporation and Ethical Decision Making in Business. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 12 (1):73-89.
  42. Benjamin A. Neville & Bulent Menguc (2006). Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions Between Stakeholders. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 66 (4):377 - 391.
    While stakeholder theory has traditionally considered organization’s interactions with stakeholders in terms of independent, dyadic relationships, recent scholarship has pointed to the fact that organizations exist within a complex network of intertwining relationships [e.g., Rowley, T. J.: 1997, The Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887–910]. However, further theoretical and empirical development of the interactions between stakeholders has been lacking. In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding and measuring the effects upon the organization of competing, complementary and cooperative stakeholder (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Eric W. Orts & Alan Strudler (2009). Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):605 - 615.
    The primary appeal of stakeholder theory in business ethics derives from its promise to help solve two large and often morally difficult problems: (1) how to manage people fairly and efficiently and (2) how to determine the extent of a firm's moral responsibilities beyond its obligations to enhance its profits and economic value. This article investigates a variety of conceptual quandaries that stakeholder theory faces in addressing these two general problems. It argues that these quandaries pose intractable obstacles for stakeholder (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Robert A. Phillips (1997). Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7 (1):51-66.
    Stakeholder theory has become a central issue in the literature on business ethics / business and society. There are, however, a number of problems with stakeholder theory as currently understood. Among these are: 1) the lack of a coherent justificatory framework, 2) the problem of adjudicating between stakeholders, and 3) the problem of stakeholder identification. In this essay, I propose that a possible source of obligations to stakeholders is the principle of fairness (or fair play) as discussed in the political (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Robert Phillips, R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks (2003). What Stakeholder Theory Is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):479-502.
    The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means differentthings to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Lauren S. Purnell & R. Edward Freeman (2012). Stakeholder Theory, Fact/Value Dichotomy, and the Normative Core: How Wall Street Stops the Ethics Conversation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 109 (1):109-116.
    A review of the stakeholder literature reveals that the concept of "normative core" can be applied in three main ways: philosophical justification of stakeholder theory, theoretical governing principles of a firm, and managerial beliefs/values influencing the underlying narrative of business. When considering the case of Wall Street, we argue that the managerial application of normative core reveals the imbedded nature of the fact/value dichotomy. Problems arise when the work of the fact/value dichotomy contributes to a closed-core institution. We make the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Scott J. Reynolds, Bradley P. Owens & Alex L. Rubenstein (2012). Moral Stress: Considering the Nature and Effects of Managerial Moral Uncertainty. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 106 (4):491-502.
    To better illuminate aspects of stress that are relevant to the moral domain, we present a definition and theoretical model of “moral stress.” Our definition posits that moral stress is a psychological state born of an individual’s uncertainty about his or her ability to fulfill relevant moral obligations. This definition assumes a self-and-others relational basis for moral stress. Accordingly, our model draws from a theory of the self (identity theory) and a theory of others (stakeholder theory) to suggest that this (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Scott J. Reynolds, Frank C. Schultz & David R. Hekman (2006). Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decision-Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 64 (3):285 - 301.
    Stakeholder theory is widely recognized as a management theory, yet very little research has considered its implications for individual managerial decision-making. In the two studies reported here, we used stakeholder theory to examine managerial decisions about balancing stakeholder interests. Results of Study 1 suggest that indivisible resources and unequal levels of stakeholder saliency constrain managers’ efforts to balance stakeholder interests. Resource divisibility also influenced whether managers used a within-decision or an across-decision approach to balance stakeholder interests. In Study 2 we (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Julia Roloff (2008). A Life Cycle Model of Multi-Stakeholder Networks. Business Ethics 17 (3):311–325.
    In multi-stakeholder networks, actors from civil society, business and governmental institutions come together in order to find a common solution to a problem that affects all of them. Problems approached by such networks often affect people across national boundaries, tend to be very complex and are not sufficiently understood. In multi-stakeholder networks, information concerning a problem is gathered from different sources, learning takes place, conflicts between participants are addressed and cooperation is sought. Corporations are key actors in many networks, because (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Joakim Sandberg (2013). Profit Motive. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.
    The profit motive refers to what is generally taken to be the underlying motivation of business and commercial activity: to collect revenues in excess of costs or, more simply, to make money. While both “profit” and “profit motive” may be given more technical definitions in economics, the latter's meaning is typically broader in philosophical discussions and so, for example, even managers of nonprofit organizations may be accused of sometimes acting from a profit motive. The profit motive is typically the object (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 59