Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Management
  4. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

46863 results in Management

Page 1957 of 2344

  • BHR volume 67 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    Business History Review / Volume 67 / Issue 1 / Spring 1993
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    13 December 2011, pp. f1-f11
    Print publication:
    Spring 1993
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Rethinking the Responsibility of International Corporations: A Response to Donaldson

  • Daryl Koehn
  • Journal:
    Business Ethics Quarterly / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / April 1993
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 January 2015, pp. 177-184
    Print publication:
    April 1993

  • In "The language of International Corporate Ethics," Tom Donaldson largues that ethical languages focusing on avoidance of harm to human beings; on rights/duties: and on rules spelled out in a social contract are better for characterizing international corporate responsibility than languages promoting virtue; the mastering of the self; or the maximization of human welfare. While some of what Donaldson says about the strengths and weaknesses of individual theories is quite plausible and relatively noncontroversial, Donaldson does not, in my judgment, establish that the three theories he favors are indeed better equipped to cope with problems of corporate responsibility than the three he dismisses. I will focus upon four major problems with his analysis.

  • Does the Stakeholder Theory Constitute a New Kind of Theory of Social Responsibility?

  • Thomas L. Carson
  • Journal:
    Business Ethics Quarterly / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / April 1993
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 January 2015, pp. 171-176
    Print publication:
    April 1993

  • In a recent paper, Kenneth Goodpaster formulates three versions of the stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility. He rejects the first two versions and endorses the third. I argue that the theory that Goodpaster defends under the name “stakeholder theory” is a version (albeit a somewhat different version) of Milton Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. I also argue that the first two formulations of the stakeholder theory which Goodpaster discusses are at most only slight modifications of other theories. I conclude by formulating a fourth version of the stakeholder theory which I believe does constitute a substantial departure from earlier theories of social responsibility.

  • BHR volume 67 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Journal:
    Business History Review / Volume 67 / Issue 1 / Spring 1993
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    13 December 2011, pp. b1-b4
    Print publication:
    Spring 1993
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Managers in the Moral Dimension: What Etzioni Might Mean to Corporate Managers

  • Bill Shaw, Frances E. Zollers
  • Journal:
    Business Ethics Quarterly / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / April 1993
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 January 2015, pp. 153-168
    Print publication:
    April 1993

  • In The Moral Dimension, Amitai Etzioni critiques the neoclassical economic paradigm (NEP), a model built upon ethical egoism and which equates rationality (the logical/empirical domain) with the maximization of preferences by self-interested economic units. Etzioni finds the NEP’s exclusion of the moral/affective domain to be a glaring failure and, because of this omission, he claims that the economic model is not capable of achieving its design functions: prediction and explanation. Etzioni introduces a socio-economic model, the I & We paradigm, in which the moral/affective encapsulates the logical/empirical. Further elaboration and testing of this model remains to be undertaken. We find it to hold more promise than its neoclassical economic rival, and we explicate its value for the modern manager.

Page 1957 of 2344