Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opportunities and Problems of Standardized Ethics Initiatives – a Stakeholder Theory Perspective

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

Abstract

This article explains problems and opportunities created by standardized ethics initiatives (e.g., the UN Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative, and SA 8000) from the perspective of stakeholder theory. First, we outline differences and commonalities among currently existing initiatives and thus generate a common ground for our discussion. Second, based on these remarks, we critically evaluate standardized ethics initiatives by drawing on descriptive, instrumental, and normative stakeholder theory. In doing so, we explain why these standards are helpful tools when it comes to ‘managing’ stakeholder relations but also face considerable limitations that can eventually hamper their successful expansion. We suspect that this discussion is necessary to conduct meaningful empirical research in the future and also to provide managers with a more clear-cut picture about a successful application of such initiatives. Third, we outline possible ways to cope with the identified problems and thus demonstrate how standard-setting institutions can improve the initiatives they offer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FLA:

Fair Labor Association

GRI:

Global Reporting Initiative

ISEA:

Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability

MNC:

Multinational Corporation

NGO:

Non-Governmental Organization

SA 8000:

Social Accountability 8000

SAI:

Social Accountability International

UN:

United Nations

References

  • Andriof J., Waddock S., Husted B., R. S. Sutherland 2003, Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2 – Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance. Sheffield: Greenleaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Agle B. R., Mitchell R. K., J. A. Sonnenfeld 1999, Who Matters to CEOs – An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J. B. 2002, Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck M., P. Walgenbach 2005, Technical Efficiency of Adaptation to Institutional Expectations? – The Adoption of ISO 9000 Standards in the German Mechanical Engineering Industry, Organization Studies 26(6), 841–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belal A. R. 2002, Stakeholder Accountability or Stakeholder Management: A Review of UK Firms’ Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting (SEAAR) Practices, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9(1), 8–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman S., Wicks A. C., Kotha S., T. M. Jones 1999, Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? – The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 488–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beschorner T. 2006, Ethical Theory and Business Practices – The Case of Discourse Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics 66(1), 127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird F. B. 1996, The Muted Conscience – Moral Silence and the Practice of Ethics in Business. Quorum: Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird F. B. 2003. The Value-Added Approach to Business Ethics, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 4(2), 148–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright J. R. 2000, Globalization and the Ethics of Business, Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1), 1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N. 1989, The Organization of Hypocrisy – Talk, Decision, and Actions in Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N., B. Jacobsson 2000, The Contemporary Expansion of Standardization, in N. Brunsson, B. Jacobsson (eds.), A World of Standards Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson P., M. S. Blodgett 1997, International Ethics Standards for Business – NAFTA, Caux Principles and Corporate Codes of Ethics, Review of Business 18(3), 20–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. B. 1989, Business and Society – Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Cincinnati/OH: South-Western

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh G. F. 2004, Global Business Ethics – Regulation, Code, or Self-Restraint, Business Ethics Quarterly 14(4), 625–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. B. 1991, Defining, Evaluating, and Monitoring Corporate Social Performance – A Stakeholder Management Model, In J. E. Post (ed.) Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Greenwich: JAI Press, 331–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. B. 1995, A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane A., S. Livesey 2003, Are You Talking to Me? – Stakeholder Communication and the Risks and Rewards of Dialogue, In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, R. Sutherland (eds.) Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking 2 – Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance. Greenleaf: Sheffield, 39–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane A., D. Matten 2004, Business Ethics – A European Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRuisseau D. 2002, Social Auditing – An Auditor’s Perspective, In A. G. Scherer, K.-H. Blickle, D. Dietzfelbinger, G. Hütter (eds.) Globalisierung und Sozialstandards Hampp: München/Mering, 223–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., T. W. Dunfee 1994, Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 252–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., L. E. Preston 1995, The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation – Concepts, Evidence, and Implications, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan W. M., R. E. Freeman 1988, A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation – Kantian Capitalism, In T. Beauchamp, N. Bowie (eds.) Ethical Theory and Business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 75–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Fair Labor Association (FLA): 2006a, Workplace Code of Conduct. http://www.fairlabor.org, Accessed: 12th June 2006

  • Fair Labor Association (FLA): 2006b, Principles of Monitoring. http://www.fairlabor.org/all/code/FLA_PRINCIPLES_ OF_MONITORING.pdf, Accessed: 24th August 2006

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. E., D. L. Reed 1983, Stockholders and Stakeholders – A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review 25(3), 88–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman A. L., S. Miles 2002, Developing Stakeholder Theory, Journal of Management Studies 39(1), 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman A. L., S. Miles 2004, Stakeholder Theory and Communication Practice, Journal of Communication Management 9(1), 89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost R. 2005, ISO 26000 Launched, Business and the Environment 16(5), 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung A. 2003, Deliberative Democracy and International Labor Standards, Governance – An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 16(1), 51–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson K. 2001, The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory, Journal of Business Ethics 26(3), 245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert D. U. 2001, Social Accountability 8000 – Ein praktikabeles Instrument zur Implementierung von Unternehmensethik in international tätigen Unternehmen? Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 2(2), 123–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert D. U. 2003, Institutionalisierung von Unternehmensethik in internationalen Unternehmen – ein Ansatz zur Erweiterung der Zertifizierungsinitiative Social Accountability 8000, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 73(1), 25–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U. and A. Rasche: 2007, ‘Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability – The Ethics of SA 8000’, Business Ethics Quarterly 17(2), 187–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): 2002, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines on Economic, Environmental, and Social Performance. Boston: GRI

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodell E. 1999, Standards of Corporate Social Responsibility. San Francisco: Social Venture Network

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder M., P. Desmond 2000, Is Ethical Sourcing Simply a Question of Good-Supply Chain Management? in Thamotheram, R. (eds.) Visions of Ethical Sourcing. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray R. 2001, Thirty Years of Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing: What (if anything) Have we Learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1), 9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R. 2002. The Social Accounting Project and Accounting Organizations and Society Privileging Engagement, Imaginings, New Accountings and Pragmatism over Critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(7), 687–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göbbels M., J. Jonker 2003, AA1000 and SA8000 Compared: A Systematic Comparison of Contemporary Accountability Standards, Managerial Auditing Journal 18(1), 54–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. 1993, Justification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. 1996, Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge/MA: Blackwell Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. 1999, The Inclusion of the Other – Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge/MA: Blackwell Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. 2006, The Divided West. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanock S. 1998, Fair’s Fare. Supply Management 3(22), 22–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess D. 1999, Social Reporting – A Reflexive Law Approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness, The Journal of Corporation Law 25(4), 42–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess D. 2001, Regulating Corporate Social Performance – A New Look at Social Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(2), 307–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill C. W. L., T. M. Jones 1992, Stakeholder-Agency Theory, Journal of Management Studies 29(2), 131–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A. J., G. D. Keim 2001, Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues – What’s the Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal 22(2), 125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschland, M. and L. Kantor: 2006, Supply Chain Compliance – A Decade of Experience and the Road Ahead, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta

  • Institute for Social, Ethical AccountAbility: 1999, AA 1000 Framework – Standards, Guidelines and Professional Qualifications. London: ISEA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. M., A. C. Wicks 1999, Convergent Stakeholder Theory, Academy of Management Review 24(2), 206–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler J. 2002, Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder Identification, Journal of Business Ethics 39(1–2), 91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler J. 2003, Differentiating Stakeholder Theories, Journal of Business Ethics 46(1), 71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I.: 1788/1997, Critique of Practical Reason (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

  • Kaptein M. 2004, Business Codes of Multinational Firms – What Do They Say, Journal of Business Ethics 50(1), 13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein M., R. van Tulder 2003, Toward Effective Stakeholder Dialogue, Business and Society Review 108(2), 203–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley M. 1988, A Social Contract Theory of Organizations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell G. 2005, The Global Compact – Selected Experiences and Reflections. Journal of Business Ethics 59(1/2), 69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kell G., D. Levin 2003, The Global Compact Network – an Historic Experiment in Learning and Action, Business and Society Review 108(2), 151–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG: 2002, International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002 (Druckgroep Maasland, Maasland)

  • Kolk A., R. van Tulder 2004, Ethics in International Business: Multinational Approaches to Child Labor, Journal of World Business 39(1), 49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leipziger D. 2001, SA 8000. The Definitive Guide to the New Social Standard. London et al.: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipziger D. 2003, The Corporate Responsibility Code Book. Sheffield: Greenleaf

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J.: 1690/1948, The Second Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)

  • Lozano J. F. 2001, Proposal for a Model for the Elaboration of Ethical Codes Based on Discourse Ethics, Business Ethics: A European Review 10(2), 157–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamic I. 2005, Managing Global Supply Chain: The Sports Footwear, Apparel and Retail Sectors, Journal of Business Ethics 59(1), 81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews M. R. 1997, Twenty-Five Years of Social and Environmental Accounting Research: Is There a Silver Jubilee to Celebrate?, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(4), 481–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh M., Thomas R., Leipziger D., G. Coleman 2003, Living Corporate Citizenship – Strategic Routes to Socially Responsible Business. London et al.: FT Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonet P, P. Selznick 1978, Law and Society in Transition – Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer B., G. Madden 2006, A Survey of Code Content and Enforcement Procedures, Journal of Business Ethics 63(3), 217–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann G., H. Salzman 2002, Stumbling Giants –The Emptiness, Fullness, and Recursiveness of Strategic Management, Soziale Systeme 8(2), 205–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts E. W. 1995, Reflexive Environmental Law, Northwestern University Law Review 89(4), 1227–1340

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen D. L., Swift T. A., Humphrey C., M. Bowerman 2000, The New Social Audits – Accountability, Managerial Capture or the Agenda of Social Champions, European Accounting Review 9(1), 81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. L., T. A. Swift and K. Hunt: 2001, ‘Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting’, Accounting Forum 25(3), 264–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajunen K. 2006, Stakeholder Influences in Organizational Survival, Journal of Management Studies 43(6), 1261–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose E. 1995, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. 2003, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R., Freeman E. R., A. C. Wicks 2003, What Stakeholder Theory is Not, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4), 479–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitelis C. N., M. W. Wahl 1998, Edith Penrose – Pioneer of Stakeholder Theory, Long Range Planning 31(2), 252–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power M., R. Laughlin 1996, Habermas, Law and Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(5), 441–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston A. M., Cooper D. J., Scarbrough D. P., R. C. Chilton 1995, Changes in the Code of Ethics of the U.S. Accounting Profession, 1917 and 1988 – The Continual Quest for Legitimation, Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(6), 507–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J. 1971, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche A., D. E. Esser 2006, From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability – Applying Habermasian Discourse Ethics to Accountability Research, Journal of Business Ethics 65(3), 251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A. et al.: 2007, ‘Corporations as Political Actors: A Report on the First Swiss Master Class in Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, Forthcoming

  • Reed D. 1999, Stakeholder Management Theory – A Critical Theory Perspective, Business Ethics Quarterly 9(3), 453–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohitratana K. 2002, SA 8000 – a Tool to Improve Quality of Life, Managerial Auditing Journal 17(1/2), 60–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok W, H. Wagner 2003, Internationalization and Performance: an Organizational Learning Perspective, Management International Review 43(1), 63–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg K. 2006, Groundwork Laid for ISO 26000, Business and the Environment 17(1), 14

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage G. T., Nix T. W., Whitehead C. J., J. D. Blair 1991, Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders, Academy of Management Executive 5(2), 61–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‘Towards a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 32(4), 1096–1120

  • Schnebel E. 2000, Values in Decision-making Processes. Systematic Structures of J. Habermas and N. Luhmann for the Appreciation of Responsibility in Leadership, Journal of Business Ethics 27(1), 79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi S. P. 1999, Codes of Conduct for Multinational Corporations – An Idea Whose Time Has Come, Business and Society Review 104(3), 225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P.: 2003, “Global Compact is Another Exercise in Futility”, The Financial Express, 8th September 2003, 1

  • Sethi S. P., O. F. Williams 2000, Creating and Implementing Global Codes of Conduct – an Assessment of the Sullivan Principles as a Role Model for Developing International Codes of Conduct: Lessens Learned and Unlearned, Business and Society Review 105(2), 169–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith D. 2002, Demonstrating Corporate Values – Which Standard for your Company? London: Institute of Business Ethics

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Accountability International: 2001, SA 8000 Guidance Document. New York: SAI

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Accountability International: 2005, About Social Accountability 8000. http://www.sa-intl.org/AboutSAI/AboutSAI.htm, Accessed: 20th December 2005

  • Solomon R. C., L. Lewis 2002, Incentives and Disincentives for Corporate Environmental Disclosure, Business Strategy and the Environment 11(3), 154–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoney C., D. Winstanley 2001, Stakeholding – Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain, Journal of Management Studies 38(5), 603–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman M. 1995, Managing Legitimacy – Strategic and Institutional Approaches, Academy of Management Review 20(3), 571–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm-Hallström K. 2000, Organizing the Process of Standardization, in N. Brunsson, B. Jacobsson (eds.) A World of Standards. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 85–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm-Hallström, K.: 2006, ISO Expands Its Business Into Social Responsibility (SR), Paper Presented at the Annual Colloquium of the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS), Bergen/Norway

  • Teubner G. 1983, Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law, Law and Society Review 17(2), 239–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G. 1984, Autopoiesis in Law and Society – A Rejoinder to Blankenburg, Law and Society Review 18(2), 291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler-Carter R. 1999, Social Accountability 8000, HR Magazine 44(6), 106–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas T., Schermerhorn J. R., J. W. Dienhart 2004, Strategic Leadership of Ethical Behavior in Business, Academy of Management Executive 18(2), 56–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Thérien J.-P., V. Pouliot 2006, The Global Compact – Shifting the Politics of International Development, Global Governance 12(1), 55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulder R. v., A. Kolk 2001, Multinationality and Corporate Ethics: Codes of Conduct in the Sporting Goods Industry, Journal of International Business Studies 32(2), 267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, P.: 1998, Integrative Economic Ethics – Towards a Conception of Socio-Economic Rationality. Working Paper No. 82 (University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland)

  • Unerman J., M. Bennett 2004, Increased Stakeholder Dialogue and the Internet – Towards Greater Corporate Accountability or Reinforcing Capitalist Hegemony, Accounting, Organizations and Society 29(7), 685–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations: 2006, The Global Compact, http://www.unglobalcompact.org, Accessed: 7th September 2006

  • Velasquez M. 2000, Globalization and the Failure of Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1), 343–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S. 2004, Creating Corporate Accountability – Foundational Principles to Make Corporate Citizenship Real, Journal of Business Ethics 50(4), 313–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S., N. Smith 2000, Corporate Responsibility Audits – Doing Well by Doing Good, Sloan Management Review 41(2), 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, A.: 2000, ‘Companies Come Under Pressure to Alter course of Ethical Investment’, Financial Times, 8th July, 35

  • Williams O. F. 2004, The UN Global Compact – The Challenge and the Promise, Business Ethics Quarterly 14(4), 755–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek S. 2004, The Path to Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business Review 82(12), 125–132

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Economics, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Kochstrasse 4(17), Erlangen, 91054, Germany

    Dirk Ulrich Gilbert

  2. Department of Organization and Logistics, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Holstenhofweg 85, Hamburg, 22043, Germany

    Andreas Rasche

Authors
  1. Dirk Ulrich Gilbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Rasche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Rasche.

Additional information

Dirk Ulrich Gilbert is currently a Professor of Management at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. He received his PhD in international management from Frankfurt University, Germany. Prior to his current appointment he was an Assistant Professor of International Management at The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. He has published articles in Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of International Business and Economy, Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, and several other German top tier journals. He has also published three books and numerous book chapters on international business ethics. Most of his publications are related to international accountability standards, the philosophical foundations of business ethics in an international context, trust in organizations, and the implementation of business ethics in multinational corporations.

Andreas Rasche received his PhD from European Business School, Germany and is currently Assistant Professor for Business Ethics at Helmut-Schmidt-University, University of the Federal Armed Forces in Hamburg, Germany. He has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly and authored numerous book chapters on international accountability standards. He has gained working experience at the United Nations in Washington D.C. and New York and works closely with the United Nations Global Compact Office. His research interests and publications focus on the process of standardization in the field of CSR and the adoption of standards by corporations. More information is available under http://www. arasche.com

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gilbert, D.U., Rasche, A. Opportunities and Problems of Standardized Ethics Initiatives – a Stakeholder Theory Perspective. J Bus Ethics 82, 755–773 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9591-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9591-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation