The narrow application of Rawls in business ethics: A political conception of both stakeholder theory and the morality of markets
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 97 (4):563-579 (2010)
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 stakeholder theory – in terms of citizens – raises a further question, what rights and obligations do economic agents have, beyond those attached to their roles as citizens? Rawls would reject additional rights and obligations of this sort for two reasons, one tied to freedom and one tied to pluralism. Rawls’ work therefore presses us to re-conceptualize the place of ethical claims in the economic context
|Keywords||Rawls stakeholder theory (normative foundations) social contract theory Moral Markets approach organizational ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Douglas Bishop (2008). For-Profit Corporations in a Just Society. Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (2):191-212.
John R. Boatright (1999). Does Business Ethics Rest on a Mistake? Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (4):583-591.
G. A. Cohen (2000). If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're so Rich. Journal of Ethics 4 (1-2):1-26.
Norman Daniels (2003). Democratic Equality: Rawls's Complex Egalitarianism. In Samuel Richard Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press. 241--76.
Burton Dreben (2003). 8 On Rawls and Political Liberalism1. In Samuel Richard Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press. 316.
Citations of this work BETA
Montgomery Van Wart, David Baker & Anna Ni (forthcoming). Using a Faculty Survey to Kick-Start an Ethics Curriculum Upgrade. Journal of Business Ethics.
Similar books and articles
Iwao Taka & Thomas W. Dunfee (1997). Japanese Moralogy as Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (5):507 - 519.
Corey Brettschneider (2007). The Rights of the Guilty. Political Theory 35 (2):175-199.
Robert A. Phillips (1997). Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7 (1):51-66.
Alan Strudler (2002). The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):215-233.
Nachoem M. Wijnberg (2000). Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and Politics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 25 (4):329 - 342.
Craig P. Dunn (1996). Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 6 (2):133-147.
Eric W. Orts & Alan Strudler (2002). The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):215-234.
J. Kaler (2006). Evaluating Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 69 (3):249 - 268.
Added to index2010-07-03
Total downloads48 ( #36,553 of 1,099,994 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #33,390 of 1,099,994 )
How can I increase my downloads?