The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness
Abstract
Stakeholder theory has become a central issue in the literature on business ethics/business and society. There are, however, a number of problems with stakeholder theory as currently understood. Among these are: 1) the lack of a coherent justificatory framework, 2) the problem of adjudicating between stakeholders, and 3) the problem of stakeholder identification. In this essay, I propose that a possible source of obligations to stakeholders is the principle of fairness (or fair play) as discussed in the political philosophic literature of Rawls, Simmons, and Cullity among others. The principle of fairness states that, “Whenever persons or groups of persons voluntarily accept the benefits of a mutually beneficial scheme of co-operation requiring sacrifice or contribution on the parts of the participants and there exists the possibility of free-riding, there exist obligations of fairness on the part of these persons or groups to co-operate in proportion to the benefits accepted.” In this essay I discuss the gaps in the current stakeholder literature, elucidate and defend a principle of fairness that fills the gap, compare the fairness model to other similar models of business ethics, and draw some conclusions for the future of stakeholder theory.
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
Cited by
Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556659 · Cited by 5,130
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2010.495581 · Cited by 2,755
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259075 · Cited by 1,595
Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2180 · Cited by 546
The Relationship of Communication, Ethical Work Climate, and Trust to Commitment and Innovation
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1023/a:1006290432594 · Cited by 335
A Communitarian Note on Stakeholder Theory
Etzioni, A. (1998) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3857547 · Cited by 118
Stakeholder Theory: Seeing the Field Through the Forest
Berman, S. L., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650316680039 · Cited by 46
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, R. A.
- Venue
- Business Ethics Quarterly
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-66
- ISSN
- 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
- 2153-3326
- OpenAlex
- W2099885514
- Cited by
- 592
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.07
- 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.