Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory

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

Abstract

The primary appeal of stakeholder theory in business ethics derives from its promise to help solve two large and often morally difficult problems: (1) how to manage people fairly and efficiently and (2) how to determine the extent of a firm’s moral responsibilities beyond its obligations to enhance its profits and economic value. This article investigates a variety of conceptual quandaries that stakeholder theory faces in addressing these two general problems. It argues that these quandaries pose intractable obstacles for stakeholder theory which prevent it from delivering on its large promises. Acknowledging that various versions of stakeholder theory have made a contribution in elucidating the complex nature of firms and business decision making, the article argues that it is time to move on. More precise explications of the nature of modern firms focusing on the application of basic moral principles to different business contexts and situations are likely to prove more accurate and useful.

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

References

  • Alstott, A. and B. A. Ackerman: 1999, The Stakeholder Society (Yale University Press, New Haven).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. and L.A. Stout: 1999, ‘A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law’, Virginia Law Review 85 (2), 247-328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzezinski, Z.: 2007, ‘Terrorized by “War on Terror”: How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America’, Washington Post, Mar 25, p. B1.

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994, A Risk-Based Model of Stakeholder Theory. Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory, University of Toronto, Toronto.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defense Industry Initiative of Business Ethics and Conduct: 2004, ‘Statement of Purpose and Organization’, http://www.dii.org/Statement.htm. Adopted and approved, Jan. 2004.

  • Donaldson, T. and Thomas W. Dunfee: 1999, Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., Thomas W. Dunfee and 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 

  • Dunfee, T.W.: 2006, ‘Do Firms with Unique Competencies for Rescuing Victims of Human Catastrophes Have Special Obligations? Corporate Responsibility and the AIDS Catastrophe in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (2), 185-210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee, T.W. and T. L. Fort: 2003, ‘Corporate Hypergoals, Sustainable Peace, and the Adapted Firm’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 35, 549-615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eklund, M.: 2005, ‘What Vagueness Consists In’, Philosophical Studies 125 (1), 27-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E., J. S. Harrison, and A. C. Wicks: 2007, Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success (Yale University Press, New Haven).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13, 32–33, 122–126.

  • Friedman, A. and S. Miles: 2006, Stakeholders: Theory and Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S. and C. H. St. John: 1993, ‘Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders’, Academy of Management Executive 10 (2), 46-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, K.: 2002, ‘Vagueness and Existence,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102, 125-140.

  • Hsieh, N.: 2004, ‘The Obligations of Transnational Corporations: Rawlsian Justice and the Duty of Assistance’, Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (4), 643-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.: 2008, ‘Incommensurable Values’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall Edition, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/value-incommensurable/.

  • Jones, T.M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20 (2), 404-37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchadourian, R.: 2008, ‘The Stolen Forests’, New Yorker, Oct. 6, 64.

  • Kochan, T. A. and S. A. Rubinstein: 2000, ‘Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership’, Organization Science 11 (4), pp. 367-86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, A. W.: 1962, ‘Peirce and Painting’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23 (1), 23-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke E. A.: 1978, ‘The Ubiquity of the Technique of Goal Setting in Theories of and Approaches to Employee Motivation’, Academy of Management Review 3 (3), 594-601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke E. A. and G. P. Latham: 2002, ‘Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey’, American Psychologist 57 (9), 705-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke E. A., et al.: 1981, “Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980,” Psychological Bulletin 90, 25-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macey, J. R. and G. P. Miller: 1993, ‘Corporate Stakeholders: A Contractual Perspective’, University of Toronto Law Journal 43 (3), pp.401-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux, A.: 2008, ‘Business Ethics’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall Edition, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ethics-business/.

  • Merricks, T.: 2001, ‘Varieties of Vagueness’, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 62 (1) 145-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 853-86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. E.: 1903, Principia Ethica, revised edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

  • Ordonez, L. D., M. E. Schweitzer, A. D. Galinsky and M. H. Bazerman: 2009, ‘Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting’, Academy of Management Perspectives 23(1).

  • Orts, E.W.: 1993, ‘The Complexity and Legitimacy of Corporate Law’, Washington and Lee Law Review 50, 1565-1623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E.W.: 1998, ‘Shirking and Sharking: A Legal Theory of the Firm’, Yale Law and Policy Review 16 (2), 265-329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E.W.: 2002, ‘War and the Business Corporation’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 35, 549-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E.W. and A. Strudler: 2002, ‘The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2), 215-33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., R.E. Freeman and A.C. Wicks: 2003, ‘What Stakeholder Theory Is Not’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4), 479-502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. H.: 1986, ‘The Supreme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause’, Michigan Law Review 84 (6), 1091-1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. H.: 1987, ‘Siamese Essays: (I) CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America and Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine; (II) Extraterritorial State Legislation’, Michigan Law Review 85 (8), 1865-1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. H.: 2001, ‘Judicial Review of Member-State Regulation of Trade within a Federal or Quasi-Federal System: Protectionism and Balancing, “Da Capo”, Michigan Law Review 99 (8), 1853-1902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M.: 2002, ‘A Stakeholder Model of Organizational Leadership’, Organization Science 13 (2), 209-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.: 2006, Vagueness in Context (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. J. J.: 2009, Vagueness and Degrees of Truth (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C.: 1993, ‘Business Ethics’, in P. Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics (Blackwell, Oxford/Malden, MA), pp. 354–365.

  • Sorenson, R.: 2002, Vagueness and Contradiction (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M.: 1994, ‘Reflections on Stakeholder Theory’, Business and Society 33, 82-131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. and G. P. Rands: 1995, ‘Weaving an Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations,’ Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 908-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E.: 1997, ‘The Defects of Stakeholder Theory’, Corporate Governance 5 (1), pp. 3-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E.: 2000, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, M.: 1990, Plural and Conflicting Values (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoney, Christopher and Diana Winstanley: 2001, ‘Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain’, Journal of Management Studies 38 (5), 603-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strudler, A.: 1998, ‘Incommensurable Goods, Rightful Lies, and the Wrongness of Fraud’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (5), 1529-1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J.: 2001, ‘Corporate Governance’, Econometrica 69 (1), 1-35..

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, M. V.: 1996, ‘Ideal World’, Management Today, Sept., 34–38.

  • Williamson, T.: 1994, Vagueness (Routledge, London and New York).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6340, U.S.A.

    Eric W. Orts & Alan Strudler

Authors
  1. Eric W. Orts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Strudler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric W. Orts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orts, E.W., Strudler, A. Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory. J Bus Ethics 88 (Suppl 4), 605–615 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0310-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0310-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation