The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and Strategic Management
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to identify, review and assess two prominent recent trends in the literature on stakeholder engagement. Scholars in the first camp are referred to as Habermasians, owing to their reference and adherence to the work of the German philosopher most famous for elaborating on the concept of moral discourse. To these scholars, moral engagement is marked by specific conditions of communication which ensure that this communication is uncorrupted by power differences and strategic motivations. Others – those called here Ethical Strategists – argue that the engagement of stakeholders must be integral to a firm's strategy if it is to achieve real success. This camp is characterized by scholars contending that the distinction between strategy and morality is not only unfortunate, but logically unnecessary. They hold that good strategy properly understood must encompass what are typically recognized as moral concerns, because the very purpose of the firm and the capitalist system within which it operates is, when viewed rightly, the creation of value for all stakeholders. While recognizing the important contributions made by the Habermasians to the conversation about stakeholder engagement, it is concluded that, owing to the confluence of conceptual and practical concerns, the Ethical Strategists' position is the more attractive.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Aristotle, 1986, Nicomachean Ethics
- 10.1007/s10551-008-9674-7 · DOI
- 10.1108/14720700510630059 · DOI
- 10.2307/259078 · DOI · Paper page
- Freeman R.E., 2007, Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success
- 10.1287/orsc.1040.0066 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/259077 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y · DOI · Paper page
- Johnson‐Cramer M.S., 2003, Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking, 145
- 10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5 · DOI · Paper page
- MacIntyre A., 1984, After Virtue
- 10.1177/1056492604270799 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-006-9085-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/3857232 · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips R., 2003, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics
- 10.5840/beq200313434 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-005-5355-y · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/3857512 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-006-9316-x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5465/amr.2007.26585837 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00373.x · DOI
- Solomon R.C., 1993, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business
- 10.1177/000765039603500108 · DOI
- 10.2307/3857345 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-007-9405-5 · DOI
Cited by
Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679200201 · Cited by 2,089
Voegtlin, C., & Greenwood, M. (2016) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.12.003 · Cited by 385
Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box
Lehtinen, J., & Aaltonen, K. (2020) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.12.001 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- Noland, J., & Phillips, R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Management Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01-15
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-49
- ISSN
- 1460-8545 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2370
- OpenAlex
- W2098525819
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.