IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i1p109-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Theory, Fact/Value Dichotomy, and the Normative Core: How Wall Street Stops the Ethics Conversation

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Purnell
  • R. Freeman

Abstract

A review of the stakeholder literature reveals that the concept of “normative core” can be applied in three main ways: philosophical justification of stakeholder theory, theoretical governing principles of a firm, and managerial beliefs/values influencing the underlying narrative of business. When considering the case of Wall Street, we argue that the managerial application of normative core reveals the imbedded nature of the fact/value dichotomy. Problems arise when the work of the fact/value dichotomy contributes to a closed-core institution. We make the distinction between open- and closed-core institutions to show how in the case of the closed-core, ethical decision-making is viewed by the institution as a separate domain from the core business of the institution. The resulting blind spot stifles meaningful exchanges with stakeholders attempting to address the need for reform. We suggest in conclusion that ethical considerations are less about casting a value judgment and more about creating a process for meaningful conversation throughout an institution and its stakeholders. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Purnell & R. Freeman, 2012. "Stakeholder Theory, Fact/Value Dichotomy, and the Normative Core: How Wall Street Stops the Ethics Conversation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 109-116, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:109-116
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1383-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1383-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-012-1383-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    2. Sandberg, Joakim, 2008. "Understanding the Separation Thesis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 213-232, April.
    3. Reed, Darryl, 1999. "Stakeholder Management Theory: A Critical Theory Perspective," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 453-483, July.
    4. Donaldson, Thomas & Dunfee, Thomas W., 2002. "Ties that bind in business ethics: Social contracts and why they matter," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1853-1865, September.
    5. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 25-41, January.
    6. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    7. R. Edward Freeman & Jared Harris, 2009. "Creating Ties That Bind," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 685-692, October.
    8. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    2. Andrew Abela & Ryan Shea, 2015. "Avoiding the Separation Thesis While Maintaining a Positive/Normative Distinction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 31-41, September.
    3. Zhu, Qinghua & Liu, Junjun & Lai, Kee-hung, 2016. "Corporate social responsibility practices and performance improvement among Chinese national state-owned enterprises," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(P3), pages 417-426.
    4. Anna Lašáková & Anna Remišová & Ľubica Bajzíková, 2021. "Differences in Occurrence of Unethical Business Practices in a Post-Transitional Country in the CEE Region: The Case of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-33, March.
    5. Annor Silva Junior & Priscilla Oliveira Martins-Silva & Katia Cyrlene Araújo Vasconcelos & Vitor Correa Silva & José Michel Rocha Monteiro & Sarah Luiza Martins Silva Brito & Tássia Calile Souza Santo, 2021. "Sustainability for Brazilian management students: integrity and opportunism," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1292-1315, February.
    6. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    7. Steffen Roth, 2023. "Digital transformation of management and organization theories: A research programme," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 451-459, May.
    8. Susan Castro, 2014. "The Morality of Unequal Autonomy: Reviving Kant’s Concept of Status for Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 593-606, June.
    9. José Alberto Camargo & Paulo Sérgio Miranda Mendonça & Jorge Henrique Caldeira Oliveira & Charbel José Chiapetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes Sousa Jabbour, 2019. "Giving voice to the silent: a framework for understanding stakeholders’ participation in socially-oriented initiatives, community-based actions and humanitarian operations projects," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 143-158, December.
    10. Frank Jan Graaf, 2019. "Ethics and Behavioural Theory: How Do Professionals Assess Their Mental Models?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 933-947, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    2. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    3. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    4. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    5. Tommy Jensen & Johan Sandström, 2013. "In Defence of Stakeholder Pragmatism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 225-237, May.
    6. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    7. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    8. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    9. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    10. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    11. Boeddeling, Jann, 2011. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Fundamentalstellung für Kapitalismus und Wirtschaftssoziologie," Wittener Diskussionspapiere zu alten und neuen Fragen der Wirtschaftswissenschaft 17/2011, Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Management and Economics.
    12. Rodríguez Fernández, José Miguel, 2006. "La responsabilidad social de la empresa: ¿un medio o un fin?," Revista de Dirección y Administración de Empresas, Universidad del País Vasco - Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales de San Sebastián.
    13. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    14. Louis Ndjetcheu, 2012. "An African critical interpretation of the positive theory of accounting of Watts and Zimmerman (1978, 1980, 1986)," African Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 25-39.
    15. David Weitzner & Yuval Deutsch, 2023. "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 479-492, September.
    16. Layla Branicki & Senia Kalfa & Alison Pullen & Stephen Brammer, 2023. "Corporate Responses to Intimate Partner Violence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(4), pages 657-677, November.
    17. Richard A. Wolfe & Daniel S. Putler, 2002. "How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 64-80, February.
    18. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    19. Pedro FrancŽs-G—mez & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2012. "Behavioral Business Ethics as a Method for Normative Business Ethics," Econometica Working Papers wp42, Econometica.
    20. Marc Orlitzky, 2017. "How Cognitive Neuroscience Informs a Subjectivist-Evolutionary Explanation of Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 717-732, September.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:109-116. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.