Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 329–342 | Cite as

Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and Politics

  • Nachoem M. Wijnberg


Stakeholder theory is an important part of modern business ethics. Many scholars argue for a normative instead of an instrumental approach to stakeholder theory. Recent examples of such an approach show that problems appear with respect to the ethical foundation as well as the specification of the norms and the relation between corporate and individual responsibilities. This paper argues for the relevance of Aristotle's ideas on ethics and politics, and especially the link between them, for stakeholder theory. An Aristotelian approach suggests that the corporation should be considered as existing to allow the decision maker, who normally is a manager, to live a complete and good life and to make decisions that involve the interests of different stakeholders. This approach leads to a number of implications regarding the role of organizational politics and the managerial function.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bacharach, S. B. and E. J. Lawler: 1980, Power and Politics in Organizations (Jossey Bass, San Fransisco).Google Scholar
  2. Blau, J. R.: 1996, ‘Organizations as Overlapping Jurisdictions: Restoring Reason in Organizational Accounts’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (March), 172–179.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three-dimensional Model of Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497–505.Google Scholar
  4. Child, J.: 1997, ‘Strategic Choice in the Analysis of Action, Structure, Organizations and Environment: Retrospect and Prospect’, Organization Studies 18(1), 43–76.Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  6. Dahl, R. A.: 1989, Democracy and its Critics (Yale University Press, New Haven & London).Google Scholar
  7. Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1994, ‘Towards a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory’, Academy of Management Review 19(3), 252–284.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Drory, A. and T. Romm: 1988, ‘Politics in Organization and its Perception within the Organization’, Organization Studies 9(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  10. Drory, A. and T. Romm: 1990, ‘The Definition of Organizational Politics: A Review’, Human Relations 43(11), 1133–1154.Google Scholar
  11. Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1988, ‘A Stakeholder Theory for the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, Englewood's Cliffs), pp. 75–93.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman/Ballinger, Boston).Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics 4(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
  14. French, P. A.: 1984, Collective and Corporate Responsibility (Columbia University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  15. Goodpaster, K.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis’, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 53–73.Google Scholar
  16. Hardie, W. F. R.: 1977, ‘Aristotle's Doctrine that Virtue is a Mean’, in J. Barnes, M. Schofield and R Sorabji (eds.), Articles on Aristotle: 2. Ethics and Politics (Duckworth, London).Google Scholar
  17. Hardy, C. and S. R. Clegg: 1996, ‘Some Dare Call It Power’, in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (Thousands Oaks, London, Sage Publications, New Delhi), pp. 622–641.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, C. W. L. and T. M. Jones: 1992, ‘Stakeholder-Agency Theory’, Journal of Management Studies 29(2), 131–154.Google Scholar
  19. Langtry, B.: 1994, ‘Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 431–443.Google Scholar
  20. Leflaive, X: 1996, ‘Organizations as Structures of Domination’, Organization Studies 17(1), 23–47.Google Scholar
  21. Meikle, S.: 1994, Aristotle's Economic Thought(Clarendon Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  22. Michels, R.: 1962, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligargical Tendencies of Modern Parties (Collier Books, New York).Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‘Towards 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
  24. Nussbaum, M.: 1990, Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford).Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, M.: 1993, ‘Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach’, in M. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life (Clarendon Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  26. Pagano, U. and R. Rowthorn (eds.): 1996, Democracy and Efficiency in the Economic Enterprise (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
  27. Parker, M.: 1997, ‘Organizations and Citizenship’, Organization 4(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  28. Pettigrew, A. M.: 1973, The Politics of Decision Making (Tavistock, London).Google Scholar
  29. Pfeffer, J.: 1981, Power in Organizations (Pitman, Marsfield).Google Scholar
  30. Pfeffer, J.: 1992, ‘Understanding Power in Organizations’, California Management Review (Winter), 29–50.Google Scholar
  31. Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik: 1978, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
  32. Pichault, F.: 1995, ‘The Management of Politics in Technically Related Organizational Change’, Organization Studies 16(3), 449–476.Google Scholar
  33. Quin, D. P. and T. M. Jones: 1995, ‘An Agent Morality View of Business Policy’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 22–42.Google Scholar
  34. Romilly, J, de: 1992, The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens (Clarendon Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  35. Solomon, R. C.: 1993, Ethics and Excellence: Co-operation and Integrity in Business (Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford).Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, L.: 1968, Liberalism, Ancient and Modern (Basic Books, New York & London).Google Scholar
  37. Strauss, A.: 1978, Negociations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes and Social Order (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
  38. Stokes, M. C.: 1986, Platos Socratic Conversations: Drama and Dialectic in Three Dialogues (The Athlone Press, London).Google Scholar
  39. Wartick, S. L. and P. L. Cochran: 1985, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10(4), 758–769.Google Scholar
  40. Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691–718.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nachoem M. Wijnberg
    • 1
  1. 1.AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations