Upping the Stakes: A Response to John Hasnas on the Normative Viability of the Stockholder and Stakeholder Theories

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
The Core ◽  
Stockholder Theory ◽  
Normative Considerations

Abstract:This essay responds to Hasnas’s recent article “The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed” in Business Ethics Quarterly. Hasnas claims that the stockholder theory is more plausible than commonly supposed and that the stakeholder theory is prone to significant difficulties. I argue that Hasnas’s reasons for favoring the stockholder over the stakeholder theory are not as strong as he suggests. Following Hasnas, I examine both theories in light of two sets of normative considerations: utilitarian and deontological. First, I show that utilitarian considerations clearly favor the stakeholder theory. I then argue that though Hasnas rightly accents the basic deontological constraint at the core of the stockholder theory, he is wrong to think that acknowledging such a constraint necessarily counts against the stakeholder theory. Here, I develop Ross’s notion of prima facie obligations to show how a viable stakeholder theory might be developed within a deontological framework.

A Framework for Discussing Normative Theories of Business Ethics

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Douglas Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Business People ◽  
Conceptual Clarification ◽  
Stockholder Theory

Abstract:This paper carries forward the conceptual clarification of normative theories of business ethics ably begun by Hasnas in the January 1998 issue of BEQ. This paper proposes a normatively neutral framework for discussing and assessing such normative theories. Every normative theory needs to address these seven issues: it needs to specify a moral principle that identifies (1) recommended values and (2) the grounds for accepting those values. It also must specify (3) a decision principle that business people who accept the theory can use. It must determine (4) who the normative theory applies to and (5) whose interests need to be considered. It must also outline (6) in what contexts it applies, and (7) what legal and regulatory structures it assumes. Once clarified, this paper applies the framework to the normative versions of stockholder theory, stakeholder theory, and ISCT. It is concluded that ISCT is the most promising normative theory currently under discussion, but that there are some major issues that ISCT has not dealt with yet.

The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hasnas
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Contract Theory ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Stockholder Theory

Abstract:The three leading normative theories of business ethics are the stockholder theory, the stakeholder theory, and the social contract theory. Currently, the stockholder theory is somewhat out of favor with many members of the business ethics community. The stakeholder theory, in contrast, is widely accepted, and the social contract theory appears to be gaining increasing adherents. In this article, I undertake a critical review of the supporting arguments for each of the theories, and argue that the stockholder theory is neither as outdated nor as flawed as it is sometimes made to seem and that there are significant problems with the grounding of both the stakeholder and social contract theory. I conclude by suggesting that a truly adequate normative theory of business ethics must ultimately be grounded in individual consent.

scholarly journals Incumbent Stakeholder Management Performance and New Entry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Laplume ◽  
Kent Walker ◽  
Zhou Zhang ◽  
Xin Yu
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Stakeholder Management ◽  
Stakeholder Group ◽  
Curvilinear Relationship ◽  
Management Performance ◽  
Entrepreneurial Entry ◽  
Very High ◽  
New Entry

Abstract Instrumental stakeholder theory seeks to explain how managing stakeholders effectively can yield competitive advantage for incumbent firms. We extend instrumental stakeholder theory to explain and predict future competition operationalized as new entrepreneurial entries. Our study is among the first to empirically examine the relationships between aggregate stakeholder management performance and the entrepreneurial entries of individuals. Using a combined U.S. dataset from 2003 to 2013 from the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) Index, Compustat, and Kauffman’s Entrepreneurship Survey, we find support for three hypotheses. First, higher levels of stakeholder management performance are related to lower rates of entrepreneurial entry. Second, a curvilinear relationship exists between stakeholder management performance and entrepreneurial entry, where both low and very high stakeholder management performance increase entrepreneurial entry. Third, the greater the variance in stakeholder management performance across stakeholders, the more entrepreneurial entry. Our findings suggest that managing for stakeholders can help to avoid future competition. We add an entrepreneurship lens to the business ethics of stakeholder theory showing how incumbent stakeholder management performance shapes opportunities for entrepreneurs, a largely neglected stakeholder group.

When is “Everyone's Doing It” A Moral Justification?

1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M. Green
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Undesirable Behavior

The claim that “Everyone's doing it” is frequently offered as a reason for engaging in behavior that is widespread but less-than-ideal. This is particularly true in business, where competitors’ conduct often forces hard choices on managers. When is the claim “Everyone's doing it” a morally valid reason for following others’ lead? This discussion proposes and develops five prima facie conditions to identify when the existence of prevalent but otherwise undesirable behavior provides a moral justification for our engaging in such behavior ourselves. The balance of the discussion focuses on testing these conditions by applying them to a series of representative cases in business ethics.

Intrafamilial Organ Donation Is Often an Altruistic Act

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Spital
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Organ Donation ◽  
Genetic Relationship ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Logical Conclusion ◽  
Prima Facie Duty

In their recent article, Glannon and Ross remind us that family members have obligations to help each other that strangers do not have. They argue, I believe correctly, that what creates moral obligations within families is not genetic relationship but rather a sharing of intimacy. For no one are these obligations stronger than they are for parents of young children. This observation leads the authors to the logical conclusion that organ donation by a parent to her child is not optional but rather a prima facie duty. However, Glannon and Ross go a step further by suggesting that because parent-to-child organ donation is a duty, it cannot be altruistic. They assert that “altruistic acts are optional, nonobligatory…supererogatory…. Given that altruism consists in purely optional actions presupposing no duty to aid others, any parental act that counts as meeting a child's needs cannot be altruistic.” Here I think the authors go too far.

scholarly journals Responsible talent management: towards guiding principles

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-236
Author(s):  
Stephen Swailes
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Talent Management ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Core ◽  
Management Project ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThis article addresses three concerns about the operationalization and possible effects of exclusive talent management; the core assumptions that underpin and shape talent practices, the problem of fair talent identification and potentially adverse employee reactions.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that integrates empirical research on talent and talent management with ideas from business ethics.FindingsOrganizations should not simply assume that they meet the underlying assumptions of talent management. Where the assumptions can reasonably be shown to be valid, then a framework based on a set of principles is suggested to guide organizational approaches towards responsible talent management.Practical implicationsThe article provides talent practitioners with a set of principles, or at least some substantive suggestions, to be considered in the design of socially responsible talent management programmes and in programme evaluation.Social implicationsThe article provides guidance for organizations wishing to improve the care of their workforce in relation to strategies of employee differentiation based on performance and potential.Originality/valueDespite the burgeoning literature on talent management, the topic has not received much attention from an ethical and socially responsible viewpoint. This article adds to that literature and suggests further research particularly concerning the existence of real talent differences on which the entire talent management project is based.

scholarly journals Effects of social, environmental, and institutional factors on sustainability report assurance: evidence from European countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1059-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Simoni ◽  
Laura Bini ◽  
Marco Bellucci
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Signaling Theory ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Legitimacy Theory ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Social Environmental ◽  
Sustainability Report

Purpose The purpose of this study is to extend existing knowledge on the determinants of sustainability report (SR) assurance practices. Four different theories – stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory – are used to formulate several hypotheses regarding the main factors that can influence a company’s decision to assure its SRs. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 417 listed organizations based in different European countries over five years, the effects of stakeholder commitment, country orientation toward sustainability, firm environmental performance and business ethics controversies on the decision to assure SRs are assessed. Findings The results show that a company’s decision to assure its SRs is motivated by the need to maintain good relations with its stakeholders (which is in line with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory), as well as by the willingness to signal their sustainability performance (which is in line with signaling theory) and to gain legitimacy. On the contrary, business ethics controversies do not seem to be relevant to a company’s assurance practices. Originality/value This paper provides new insights into the influence that social, environmental and institutional factors have on assurance strategies. New factors that previous research does not investigate – environmental performance, business ethics controversies and corporate governance – are tested. Factors that are already investigated in the literature are considered from an original perspective of introducing alternative measures (e.g. for the scope of national sustainability policies).

Response to “Reassessing the Reliability of Advance Directives” by Thomas May (CQ Vol. 6, No. 5)

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Advance Directives ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Patient’S Autonomy

In a recent article Thomas May has argued that the use of advance directives (ADs) to respect a no longer competent patient's autonomy is a failed strategy. Respect for patient autonomy is clearly one of the guiding moral principles of modern medicine, and its importance is reflected in medical emphasis on informed consent. Prima facie, at least, ADs seem likewise to respect patient autonomy by allowing patients to make decisions about treatment in advance of situations in which the patient may no longer be able to specify the form of treatment desired. So a claim that ADs do not extend patient autonomy to these situations of diminished competence represents a serious criticism of our understanding not only of advance directives, but of autonomy as well.

Business Ethics, Stakeholder Theory, and the Ethics of Healthcare Organizations

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICIA H. WERHANE
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Professional Ethics ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Codes Of Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Professional Codes ◽  
Professional Codes Of Ethics

Until recently (before managed care), business issues in healthcare organizations (HCOs) were relatively insulated from clinical issues, for several reasons. The hospital at earlier stages of its development operated on a combination of charitable and equitable premises, allowing for providing care to be separated from financial support. Physicians, who were primarily responsible for clinical care, constituted an independent power nexus within the hospital and were governed by their own professional codes of ethics. In exchange for a great deal of control over their conditions of practice, they took almost complete responsibility for patient care. Thus clinical and professional ethics could to some extent be compartmentalized from the business issues—a much easier feat when, as in much of the last few decades, virtually all care was reimbursed from some source or other. In addition, many HCOs were not categorized or treated as businesses, although of course they were presumed to be governed by the same expectation for good management as any other organization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document