Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T18:55:51.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Andrew C. Wicks ,
Daniel R. Gilbert Jr  and
R. Edward Freeman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Stakeholder theory has become one of the most important developments in the field of business ethics. While this concept has evolved and gained prominence as a method of integrating ethics into the basic purposes and strategic objectives of the firm, the authors argue that stakeholder theory has retained certain “masculinist” assumptions from the wider business literature that limit its usefulness. The resources of feminist thought, specifically the work of Carol Gilligan, provide a means of reinterpreting the stakeholder concept in a way that overcomes many of the existing limitations. This reading provides a different understanding of the identity and meaning of the firm, specifically in terms of its relationship to stakeholder groups and what it means for a firm to succeed. The alternatives proposed also converge with recent trends in the wider management literature and provide practical guidance for firms which face a myriad of challenges in the increasingly complex and global marketplace.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 475 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackoff, Russell (1974). Redesigning the Future. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Astley, W. G. & Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Collective Strategy: Social Ecology of Organizational Environments. Academy of Management Review, 8, 576–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an Appreciation of Collective Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 9, 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartunek, J. (1984). Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 :3:355–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boje, D. (1982). Towards a Theory and Praxis of Transorganizational Development: Stakeholder Networks and Their Habitats. Working paper 79–6, Behavioral and Organizational Science Study Center, Graduate School of Management, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. L. & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide to Handling Conflict and Reaching Agreements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pittman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. & Gilbert, Daniel R. (1989). Corporate Strategy and The Search for Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. & Gilbert, Daniel R. (1992). Business Ethics and Society: A Critical Agenda. Business & Society, 31, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Peter (1979). The Corporation as a Moral Person. American Philosophical Quarterly 3, 207–15.Google Scholar
Frieman, Marilyn (1989). The Impracticality of Impartiality. Journal of Philosophy LXXVI, 645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol (1982). In A Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Barbara (1985). Organizations as Constructions and Destructions of Meaning. Journal of Management, 11, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Barbara (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, H. (1985). Shifting Gears. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kochan, J., Katz, H. & McKersie, R. (1987). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (1990). Beyond Teamwork. Training, 27 (June 1990), 25–33.Google Scholar
Mason, R. O. & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and Techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
O’Toole, J. (1987). Vanguard Management: Redesigning the Corporate Future. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Schuster, M. (1985) Models of Cooperation and Change in Union Settings. Industrial Relations. 24: 3: 382–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smircich, L. (1983). Organizations as Shared Meaning. In Pondy, L. R.Frost, P.Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T. (eds.). Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. (1989). New Ways to Exercise Power. Fortune (November 6) 52–66.Google Scholar
Susskind, L. E. and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. (1976). Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Unger, R. (1987). Social Theory: Its Situation and Its Task. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bever, D. (1987). HBS Focuses Microscope on General Electric CEO. Harbor News, 51 (November 2), 1, 5.Google Scholar
Waddock, Sandra (1986). Public-Private Partnerships as Social Problem Solving: Product and Process. In Post, J. E. (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (Vol. 8, pp. 273–300). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Waddock, Sandra (1989). Understanding Social Partnerships: An Evolutionary Model of Partnership Organizations. Administration & Society, 21, 78–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, Sandra (1991). A Typology of Social Partnership Organizations. Administration & Society, 22, 480–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar