Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 165–173 | Cite as

Mediation as an Ethical Adjunct of Stakeholder Theory

  • Marc Lampe

Abstract

A driving force behind the evolution of the stakeholder concept is the potential of negative outcomes for an organization as the result of conflict between that organization and its stakeholders. Where conflict does arise between an organization and stakeholder how might it be resolved in a manner compatible with stakeholder theory? Applying feminist ethical theory as a theoretical basis for stakeholder theory, mediation provides an appropriate process for resolving such disputes in comparison to traditional adversarial strategies. This paper discusses the attributes of mediation, and its potential benefits as a method to resolve disputes between businesses and their stakeholders.

alternative dispute resolution business business ethics business and society ethics mediation social responsibility stakeholders stakeholder theory strategic management 

References

  1. Brett, J. M. and S. B. Goldberg: 1983, ‘Grievance Mediation in the Coal Industry: A Field Experiment’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 37(1), 49-69.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Conti, A. J.: 1985, ‘Mediation of Work-Place Disputes: A Prescription for Organizational Health’, Employee Relations Law Journal 11, 291-310.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, A. M.: 1989, ‘The Logic Behind the Magic of Mediation’, Negotiation Journal 5, 17-24.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Folberg, J. and A. Taylor: 1984, Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts Without Litigation (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  7. Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston).Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, R. E. and D. R. Gilbert: 1988, Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Edgewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, R. E. and J. Liedtka: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Approach’, Business Horizons 34, 92-98.Google Scholar
  10. Gilligan, C.: 1993, In a Different Voice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  11. Grillo, T.: 1991, ‘The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women’, Yale Law Journal 100, 1545-1610.Google Scholar
  12. Harlan, C.: 1988, ‘Lawyers Find it Difficult to Break Up Partnerships’, Wall Street Journal (October 6), B1, B7.Google Scholar
  13. Henderson, D. A.: 1996, ‘Mediation Success: An Empirical Analysis’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 11(1), 105-147.Google Scholar
  14. Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‘Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization’, in D. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (Rand McNally, New York).Google Scholar
  15. Lampe, M.: 1991, ‘San Diego Mediation Center: A Valuable Resource for the Legal Community’, Dicta 38, 11-13.Google Scholar
  16. Lampe, M. and S. R. Ellis: 1995, ‘Resolving Small Business Disputes Through Mediation’, Journal of Small Business Strategy 6(2), 85-96.Google Scholar
  17. Matz, D. E.: 1987, ‘Why Disputes Don't Go to Mediation’, Mediation Quarterly 17, 3-9.Google Scholar
  18. McCoy, T. R.: 1992, ‘The Whys and Ways of Mediation’, Business Law Today 2, 22-26.Google Scholar
  19. McEwen, C. A. and R. J. Maiman: 1981, ‘Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment’, Maine Law Review 33, 237-268.Google Scholar
  20. Menkel-Meadow, C.: 1985, ‘Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women's Lawyering Process’, Berkeley Women's Law Journal 1(1), 39-63.Google Scholar
  21. Merton, R. K.: 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
  22. Pearson, J.: 1982, ‘An Evaluation of Alternatives to Court Adjudication’, Justice System Journal 7, 420-444.Google Scholar
  23. Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes: 1984, ‘Mediating and Litigating Custody Disputes: A Longitudinal Evaluation’, Family Law Quarterly 4, 497-524.Google Scholar
  24. Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes: 1985, ‘Divorce Mediation: Overview of Research Results’, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 19, 451-484.Google Scholar
  25. Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik: 1978, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
  26. Pollock, E. J.: 1993, ‘Mediation Firms Alter the Legal Landscape’, Wall Street Journal (March 22), B1-B2.Google Scholar
  27. Sigler, J. C.: 1987, ‘Mediation of Grievances: An Alternative to Arbitration’, Employee Relations Law Journal 13, 266-286.Google Scholar
  28. Solomon, L. D. and J. S. Solomon: 1987, ‘Using Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques to Settle Conflicts Among Shareholders of Closely Held Corporations’, Wake Forest Law Review 22, 105-126.Google Scholar
  29. Solove, R. L.: 1986, ‘Alternative Means to Resolve Corporate Disputes: A Survey’, Commercial Law Journal 91, 133-140.Google Scholar
  30. Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert and R. E. Freeman: 1994, ‘A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475-497.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Lampe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of San Diego, School of Business AdministrationSan DiegoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations