Skip to main content
Log in

Organizing Ethics: A Stakeholder Debate

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article summarizes the development of the stakeholder concept in the last decade. The academic debate has been dominated over the last ten years by the managerial version of the stakeholder concept. The case of Shell in Ogoniland is elaborated to demonstrate that the managerial version does not pay sufficient respect to other interpretations of the concept. The article criticizes this dominant interpretation and argues for the need of an ongoing — academic and practical — debate on organizing and ethics. An ongoing "organizational stakeholder debate" is required. Social and ethical accounting, auditing, and reporting can be seen as one way to operationalize this notion of the "organizational debate", if it addresses the creation and diversity of moral meaning in the context of organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M and H. Willmott (eds.): 1992, Critical Management Studies (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambler, T. and A. Wilson: 1995, ‘Problems of Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics; A European Review 4(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institutes for Research: 1979, Assessment of Stakeholders’ Needs (American Institutes for Research, Washington DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M.: 1984, The Co-operative Game Theory of the Firm (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Argenti, J.: 1993, Your Organization: What Is It For?(McGraw-Hill, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U.: 1992, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity(Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, S.: 1985, Diagnosing the System for Organisations(Wiley, Chichester).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, S.: 1994, Beyond Dispute: The Intervention of Team Syntegrity(Wiley, Chichester).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R.: 1994, ‘Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder Management Relation: Or, What’s So Special about Shareholders’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 393–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N.: 1991, ‘New Directions in Corporate Social Responsibility; Moral Pluralism and Reciprocity’, Business Horizons 34(4), 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. and R. E. Freeman: 1992, Ethics and Agency Theory (Oxford University Press, NewYork).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner S. N. and P. Cochran: 1991, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: Implications for Business and Society Theory and Practice’, Proceedings of the International Society for Business and Society (Sundance, Utah).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S. (ed.): 1983, Stakeholder-based Evaluation(Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K. and C. P. Dunn: 1996, ‘Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1993, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 2nd ed. (South-Western, Cincinnati, OH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, T. L.: 1993, ‘Does the Stakeholder Theory Constitute A New Kind of Theory of Social Responsibility’, Business Ethics Quarterly 3(2), 171–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(10), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S.: 1996, ‘Stakeholders and Consent’, Business & Professional Ethics Journal 14(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins J. C. and J. I. Porras: 1996, Built to Last. Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Century Ltd., London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahler-Larsen, P.: 1996, ‘Organizational Identity and Moral Functionality. A Perspective on the New Moralized Discourses in Organizations’. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Advances in Management (Boston).

  • Des Jardin, J. R. and J. J. McCall: 1985, Comtemporary Issues in Business Ethics (Belmont, Wadsworth).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, E. M.: 1979, ‘Societal, Managerial, and Legal Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility - Product and Process’, The Hastings Law Journal 30(May), 1287–1320.

  • Espejo, R.: 1994, ‘What is Systems Thinking?’, System Dynamics Review 10(2–3), 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo, R. et al.: 1996, Organizational Transformation and Learning (Wiley, Chichester).

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo, R. and A. Reyes: 1997, ‘Responsive Accounting: A Grounding of the Informational Domain in the Operational Domain of an Organization’, in J. Achterbergh et al. (eds.), Organizational Cybernatics, Research memorandum (Catholic University Nijmegen), pp. 151–172.

  • Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1993, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business(Prentice Hall, Englwood Cliffs, NJ), pp. 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. and D. Reed: 1983, ‘Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance’, in C. Huizenga (ed.), Corporate Governance: A Definitive Exploration of the Issues (UCLA Extension Press, Los Angeles).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. and W. M. Evan: 1990, ‘Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(4), 337–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. and J. Liedtka: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach’, Business Horizons( July-August), 92–98.

  • Freeman, R. E. and D. R. Gilbert, Jr.: 1992,’ Business, Ethics and Society: A Critical Agenda’, Business & Society 31(1), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1985, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in J. R. Desjardin and J. J. McCall (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Business (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA), pp. 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerwen, J. van: 1994, ‘Employers’ and Employees’ Rights and Duties’, in B. Harvey (ed.), Business Ethics. A European Approach (Prentice Hall, Herdfordshire), pp. 57–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K.: 1993, ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis’, in E. R. Winter and J. R. Coombs (eds.), Applied Ethics: A Reader(Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 227–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W.: 1986, ‘Principled Organizational Dissent: A Theoretical Essay’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 8 ( JAI Press, Greenwich Conn.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C.: 1995, Beyond Certainty(Hutchinson, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. F. and C. H. St. John: 1996, ‘Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders’, Academy of Management Executive 10(2), 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • HaHosmer, L. T.: 1991, ‘Managerial Responsibilities on the Micro Level’, Business Horizons(July/ August), 49–55.

  • Hosseini, J. C. and S. N. Brenner: 1992, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology to Generate Value Matrix Weights’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(2), 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory. A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitson, A. and R. Campbell: 1996, The Ethical Organisation (Macmillan Business, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, J. W. and D. W. Shriver, Jr.: 1991, Beyond Success: Corporations and Their Critics in the 1990s (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Langtry, B.: 1994, ‘Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.: 1981, After Virtue(University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.: 1988, Whose Justice: Which Rationality?(University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I.: 1994, ‘The Morality of the Corporation: An Empirical or Normative Disagreement?’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 445–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997,’ Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts ‘, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I.: 1983, Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G.: 1986, Images of Organizations(Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E. and H. J. Sapienza: 1990, ‘Stakeholder Management and Corporate Performance’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(4), 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, W.: 1994, Considering Stakeholders’ Interests(Corporate Social Responsibility Consultants).

  • Saro-Wiwa, K.: 1995, A Month and a Day. A Detention Diary (Penguin, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharplin, A. and L. D. Phelps: 1989, ‘A Stakeholder Apologetic for Management’, Business and Professional Ethics Journal 8(2), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C.: 1992, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business(Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C.: 1995, ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, J.: 1988, Ethics after Babel(Beacon Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C.: 1989, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thyssen, O.: 1992, ‘Ethics as Second Order Morality’, Cybernatics & Human Knowing 1(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, R.: 1993, Feminine and Feminist Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M.: 1988, Business Ethics. Concepts and Cases (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1995, Sensemaking in Organizations(Sage, Thousand Oaks).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H.: 1983, ‘The Stakeholder Approach to Evaluation: Origins and Promise’, in A. S. Bryk (ed.), Stakeholder-based Evaluation( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J. W.: 1994, Business Ethics: A Managerial, Stakeholder Approach (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H.: 1985, Persons, Rights and Corporations(Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

  • Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, Jr. and R. E. Freeman: 1994, ‘A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E.: 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (Free Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S., P. Pruzan and R. Evans: 1997, Building Corporate Accountability (Earthscan, London).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hummels, H. Organizing Ethics: A Stakeholder Debate. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1403–1419 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006083213359

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006083213359

Keywords

Navigation