Living in agreement with a contract: The management of moral and viable firm–stakeholder relationships
Journal of Business Ethics 68 (3):243 - 258 (2006)
| Abstract | In a contractual firm–stakeholder relationship the participants are expected to act according to the agreement and for mutual benefit. By acting against the agreement at the expense of the other participant, however, may result in higher individual profits within a short period of time. Building on the unlocked iterated prisoner’s dilemma (PD) setting, Scanlon’s [Scanlon, T.␣M.: 1998, What We Owe to Each Other (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass)] version of contractualism, and the social dilemma literature, this article considers what types of behaviors should be followed by both parties in an established firm–stakeholder relationship in order to reach an outcome that is defensible both in terms of morality and viability. It is argued that a normative foundation, which advises firms and stakeholders to ground their behavior on principles that could not reasonably be rejected by others, forms a basis for moral and viable behavior that can be expressed in the form of a strategic rule that excludes defection and utilizes the option to exit in response to the other participant’s defection. Then, a set of testable propositions is developed that describe how a firm and its stakeholders can further promote moral and viable relationships. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJosé A. Plaza-Úbeda, Jerónimo de Burgos-Jiménez & Eva Carmona-Moreno (2010). Measuring Stakeholder Integration: Knowledge, Interaction and Adaptational Behavior Dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics 93 (3).
Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen (2011). All Animals Are Equal, but …: Management Perceptions of Stakeholder Relationships and Societal Responsibilities in Multinational Corporations. Business Ethics 20 (2):177-191.
Troy R. Harting, Susan S. Harmeling & S. Venkataraman (2006). Innovative Stakeholder Relations. Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (1):43-68.
Päivi Myllykangas, Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki (2010). Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What Do We Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency? Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):65-72.
Andrew C. Wicks & Shawn L. Berman (2004). The Effects of Context on Trust in Firm-Stakeholder Relationships. Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (1):141-160.
Bruce Langtry (1994). Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):431-443.
Bruce Langtry (1994). Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):431-443.
Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens, Muel Kaptein & J. van Oosterhout (2004). Ties That Grind? Corroborating a Typology of Social Contracting Problems. Journal of Business Ethics 49 (3):235-252.
Neil A. Shankman (1999). Reframing the Debate Between Agency and Stakeholder Theories of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics 19 (4):319 - 334.
Kalle Pajunen (2010). A “Black Box” of Stakeholder Thinking. Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):27-32.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #277,212 of 556,807 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
