IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v5y1995i02p187-212_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critique of Social Contracts for Business

Author

Listed:
  • Conry, Edward J.

Abstract

This article evaluates the social contract theorizing of Professors Thomas Donaldson, Thomas Dunfee and Michael Keeley. This theorizing is tested with G.E. Moore’s concept of moral authority, with moral psychology, and by managerial utility. Both strengths and weaknesses are found in the theories and the author concludes that while there is great potential, much work in theory development remains.

Suggested Citation

  • Conry, Edward J., 1995. "A Critique of Social Contracts for Business," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 187-212, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:5:y:1995:i:02:p:187-212_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00011672/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dirk Gilbert & Michael Behnam, 2009. "Advancing Integrative Social Contracts Theory: A Habermasian Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 215-234, October.
    2. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2004. "A Social Contract Account for CSR as Extended Model of Corporate Governance (Part I): Rational Bargaining and Justification," Department of Economics Working Papers 0410, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    3. Paul Neiman, 2013. "A Social Contract for International Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 75-90, April.
    4. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2006. "A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (I): Rational Bargaining and Justification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 259-281, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:5:y:1995:i:02:p:187-212_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.