Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 109, Issue 1, pp 3–13 | Cite as

Citizens as Contractualist Stakeholders

Article

Abstract

This article examines the way that for-profit businesses should take into account the interests of the citizens in the liberal democratic societies in which they operate. I will show how a contractualist version of stakeholder theory identifies the relevant moral interests of both shareholders and citizen stakeholders, and provides a method for giving their interests appropriate consideration. These include (1) the interests that individuals have with respect to private property, (2) the interests citizens have in receiving equitable consideration in the political process, and (3) citizens’ interests which give them the collective right to determine the legal and economic structure of their societies. Using this contractualist analysis, I argue that corporations should consciously take into account the interests of citizen stakeholders when there is no other social mechanism for protecting their interests as citizens.

Keywords

Ethics Contractualism Democratic theory Political philosophy Stakeholder theory 

References

  1. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).Google Scholar
  2. Beitz, C. (1990). Political equality: An essay in democratic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowie, N. (1999). Business ethics, a Kantian perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Christiano, T. (1996). The rule of the many. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.Google Scholar
  7. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (2000). Précis for: Ties that bind. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evan, W., & Freeman, R. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (4th ed., pp. 75–93). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, R. E. (2008a). Ending the so-called “Friedman-Freeman Debate”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 162–166.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R. E. (2008b). Interview transcript: R. Edward Freeman on Stakeholder Theory, May 22, 2008. Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, Masters Seminars in Business Ethics.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, R., & Evan, W. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, R., & Phillips, R. A. (2002). Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  16. Gowri, A. (1998). Speech and spending: Corporate political speech rights under the first amendment. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1835–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Himmelstein, D. U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., & Woolhandler, S. (2009). Medical bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a national study. American Journal of Medicine, 122(8), 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar, R. (2001). Contractualism on saving the many. Analysis, 61(270), 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mufson, S. (2007, February 2). Exxon mobil warming up to global climate issue. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  20. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scanlon, T. (2003). The diversity of objections to inequality. In The difficulty of tolerance: Essays in political philosophy (pp. 202–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair in Business and Professional Ethics, W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, The Sauder School of BusinessThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations