STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A LIBERTARIAN DEFENSE
R. Edward Freeman and Robert A. Phillips
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to suggest that at least one strain of what has come to be called "stakeholder theory" has roots that are deeply libertarian We begin by explicating both "stakeholder theory" and "libertarian arguments " We show how there are libertarian arguments for both instrumental and normative stakeholder theory, and we construct a version of capitalism, called "stakeholder capitalism," that builds on these libertarian ideas We argue throughout that strong notions of "freedom" and "voluntary action" are the best possible underpinnings for stakeholder theory, and in doing so, seek to return "stakeholder theory" to its managerial and libertarian roots found in Freeman (1984).
/. Introduction ^"^uine (1960) once wrote that "sentences do not confront the tribunal of V^expe 'experience alone." And, he might have added, "nor do arguments and theories?' Sentences, as well as arguments and theories, always import their background conditions and related theories with them. Context plays a crucial role in social phenomena, and sometimes we need to resist the efforts of greedy reductionists (Dennett. 1995)' to set context aside and focus on the precision of hypotheses, the collection of data, and the rituals of method. Sometimes it is important to point out a feature of the everyday landscape which is often taken for granted, because in doing so, we can come to see new relationships and new features that previously were hidden (Wisdom, 1970),^ Such is the role of what has come to be called "stakeholder theory," and its relationship to our understanding of business activity. The interpretation of business activity can be approached in several ways. One way is to take for granted the usefulness (others might say "truth" or "moral legitimacy" here) of a way of understanding value creation and trade (or business activity), whereby individuals are presumed to be nakedly greedy, responsible to others for the effects of their action only in so far as they are caught doing harm, and the legitimacy of a state that pervasively regulates all aspects of value-creation and trade, from rules governing the height of ladders to thousands of pages of the tax code. Let us call this way of understanding value © 2002 Business Ethics Quarterly Vblume 12. Issue 3. ISSN I052-150X pp 331-349
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
creation and trade, or business activity, "the Standard Story" or "Shareholder Capitalism," or "Cowhoy Capitalism," and let us make the requisite academic changes and disclaimers to include sophisticated agency relationships, transaction costs, and other assorted modifications of the standard story so as not to be accused of the Straw Man Fallacy. Within business ethics it is fairly well accepted that the standard story is the main way that we understand business and capitalism. A great deal of interesting work has emerged that tries to point out various places where the standard story fails a variety of ethical tests.^ These ethical tests are, for the most part, developed outside of the standard story, and indeed, outside of much consideration for value creation and trade, or business activity, at all. Yet another group of scholars has developed a critique of the standard story that goes like this. The standard story is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. We need to add the idea that the collections of individuals that we call "corporations" need to understand the social effects of their actions. And, we need to link the social effects of corporate action to the economic effects. The background conditions and theories of the standard story simply need to be broadened to include a set of ideas about "social" and its link to "economic.""* Yet another way to understand business activity would be to change the background conditions of the standard story itself. Such a method might ask how value...
References: Alkhafaji, A. F. 1989. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance: Managing in a Dynamic Environment (New York: Quorum Books). Barnard, Chester I. 1938. The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Barnett, Anthony. 1997. "Towards a Stakeholder Democracy." in Stakeholder Capitalism, ed. Gavin Kelly, Dominic Kelly, and Andrew Gamble (London: MacMillan Press): 82-98. Barton, S. L., S. C. Hill, and S Sundaram. 1989. "An Empirical Test of Stakeholder Theory Predictions of Capital Structure." Financial Management 18(1): 36-44. Boatright, John R. 1994. "What 's So Special About Shareholders," Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 393-408. Berman, Shawn L., Andrew C. Wicks, Suresh Kotha, and Thomas M. Jones. 1999. "Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance." Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 488-506. Burton, B. K., and C. P. Dunn. 1996. "Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory." Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2): 133-148. Carroll, A. B., and Ann K. Buchholtz. 2000. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Managetnetit, 4* ed. (Cincinnati: South-Western). Clarkson, M, B. E. 1994. "A Risk Based Mode! of Stakeholder Theory" (Toronto: University of Toronto Working Paper). 1995. "A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance." Academy of Management Review 20(1): 92-117. Deutsch, M. 1975. "Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used As the Basis for Distributive Justice?" Journal of Social Issues 31(3). 137-149. Dennett, Daniel. 1995. Darwin 's Dangerous Idea (New York ' Simon and Schuster). Donaldson, T., and T. W, Dunfee. 1999. Ties That Bind, (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Donaldson, Thomas, and L. E. Preston. 1995. 'The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation Concepts. Evidence, and Implications." Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65-91, Evan, William M., and R. Edward Freeman. 1993. "A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism." In Ethical Theory and Business, 4th edition, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie, (Englewood Cliffs. N.J : Prentice-Hall).
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
FoUett, Mary Parker. 1994. Maty Parker Follett—Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s. Ed. Pauline Graham. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press). Freeman, R. Edward. 2000. "Business Ethics at the Millenium." Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1): 169-180. 1999. "Divergent Stakeholder Theory." Academy of Management Review 24(2): 233-236. 1996. "Stakeholder Capitalism," Einancial Times, July 26. 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions." Business Ethics Quarterly A (4): 409-422. ______ 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.). Freeman, R. Edward, and William Evan. 1990. "Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation." The Journal of Behavioral Economics 19 (4): 337-359. Freeman, R. Edward, and Daniel R. Gilbert, Jr. 1988. Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall). Frooman, J. 1999. "Stakeholder Influence Strategies." Academy of Management Review 24(2): 191-205. Goodpaster, K. E. 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis." Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 53-73. Hampton, Jean. 1997. Political Philosophy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press). Hill, C. W. L., and T. M. Jones. 1992. "Stakeholder-agency Theory." Journal of Management Studies 29: 131-154. Hutton., Will. 1995. The State We 're In (London: Jonathan Cape). Jones, Thomas M. 1995. "Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics." Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 404-437. Kelly, Gavin, Dominic Kelly, and Andrew Gamble, eds. 1997. Stakeholder Capitalism (London: MacMillan Press). Lampe, Marc. 2001. "Mediation as an Ethical Adjunct of Stakeholder Theory" Journal of Business Ethics 31: 165-173. Locke, John. 1690/1952. The Second Treatise of Government (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company). Lomasky, Loren. 1987. Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Marcoux, Alexei M. 2000. "Balancing Act." In Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics, 4* edition, edited by J. R. DesJardins and J. J. McCall. Wadsworth: 92-100. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts." Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853—886. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books). Orts, Eric. 1997. "A North American Legal Perspective on Stakeholder Management Theory." Perspectives on Company Law 2: 165-179. . 1992. "Beyond Shareholders: Interpreting Corporate Constituency Statutes." George Washington Law Review 61: 14—135.a. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: Harper and Row).
STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A LIBERTARIAN DEFENSE
Phillips, Robert A. 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness." Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1): 51-66. Phillips, R. A., and J. M. Margolis. 1999. "Toward an Ethics of Organizations. '" Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 619-638. Phillips, R. A., and J. Reichart. 2000. "The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness Based Approach." Journal of Business Ethics (23)2. Plender, John. 1997. A Stake in the Future: The Stakeholding Solution, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Quine. W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Rowley, Timothy. 1997. "Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences" Academy of Management Review 22(4): 887-910. Rustm. xM:ike. 1997. "Stakeholding and the Public Sector" In Stakeholder Capitalism, ed. Gavin Kelly, Dominic Kelly, and Andrew Gamble (London: MacMillan Press): 72-81. Ryan. Alan. 1995. "Liberalism." ' In A Companion to Political Philosophy, ed. Robert Goodm and Philip Pettit (Oxford- BlackwelFs Publishing): 291-311. Starik, Mark. 1995. "Should Trees Have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-Human Nature." ' Journal of Business Ethics 14: 207-217. Sternberg, Elaine. 2000. Just Business (New York: Oxford University Press). Van Buren, Harry J. III. 2001. "If Fairness is the Problem, Is Consent the Solution? Integrating ISCT and Stakeholder Theory." Business Ethics Quarterly 11(3). Venkataraman, S. 2002. "Stakeholder Value Equilibration and the Entrepreneurial Process." Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series No. ,3. Wang, J., and H. D. Dewhirst 1992, "Boards of Directors and Stakeholder Orientation." Journal of Business Ethics 11: 115-123. Wicks, Andrew C , Daniel R. Gilbert, Jr., and R. Edward Freeman. 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept." ' Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 475-498. Williamson, O. E., and J. Bercovitz. 1996. "The Modern Corporation as an Efficiency Instrument: The Comparative Contracting Perspective." In The American Corporation Today, ed, C. Kaysen (New York: Oxford University Press): 327-359. Wisdom, John. 1970. Parado.x and Discovery: (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Please join StudyMode to read the full document