IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v66y2006i2p291-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

God as a Managerial Stakeholder?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Schwartz

Abstract

Can or should God be considered a managerial stakeholder? While at first glance such a proposition might seem beyond the norms of stakeholder management theory or traditional management practice, further investigation suggests that there might be both theoretical and practical support for such a notion. This paper will make the argument that God both is and should be considered a managerial stakeholder for those businesspeople and business firms that accept that God exists and can affect the world. In doing so, part one of the paper first discusses the growth of religion and spirituality within the business and academic communities. Part two raises several arguments based on stakeholder theory and business reality to support the notion of God as a managerial stakeholder. Part three addresses the arguments against God as a managerial stakeholder. Part four discusses the managerial implications of considering God as a managerial stakeholder. The paper concludes with its limitations. Copyright Springer 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Schwartz, 2006. "God as a Managerial Stakeholder?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 291-306, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:66:y:2006:i:2:p:291-306
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-005-5599-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-005-5599-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-005-5599-6?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Brett R. Smith & Amanda Lawson & Jessica Jones & Tim Holcomb & Aimee Minnich, 2022. "Trying to Serve Two Masters is Easy, Compared to Three: Identity Multiplicity Work by Christian Impact Investors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1053-1070, September.
    2. Angela Carradus & Ricardo Zozimo & Allan Discua Cruz, 2020. "Exploring a Faith-Led Open-Systems Perspective of Stewardship in Family Businesses," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 701-714, May.
    3. Robert Kolodinsky & Robert Giacalone & Carole Jurkiewicz, 2008. "Workplace Values and Outcomes: Exploring Personal, Organizational, and Interactive Workplace Spirituality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 465-480, August.
    4. Brett Smith & Amanda Lawson & Saulo Dubard Barbosa & Jessica Jones, 2023. "Navigating the highs and lows of entrepreneurial identity threats to persist : The countervailing force of a relational identity with God," Post-Print hal-04325701, HAL.
    5. Manoj Anand & Jagandeep Singh, 2021. "Business students’ perception of corporate social responsibility: an exploratory study," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(3), pages 261-284, September.
    6. Smith, Brett R. & Lawson, Amanda & Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Jones, Jessica, 2023. "Navigating the highs and lows of entrepreneurial identity threats to persist: The countervailing force of a relational identity with God," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(4).
    7. Parker, Lee D., 2014. "Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporary insights from British industrial pioneers," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 632-659.
    8. Terence Tse, 2011. "Shareholder and stakeholder theory: after the financial crisis," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 3(1), pages 51-63, April.

    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:66:y:2006:i:2:p:291-306. 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: 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.