Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 447
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Alarcón-del-Amo, María-del-Carmen Casablancas-Segura, Carme and Llonch, Joan 2016. Responsive and proactive stakeholder orientation in public universities: antecedents and consequences. Higher Education, Vol. 72, Issue. 2, p. 131.

    Allini, Alessandra 2016. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance.

    Beal, Brent D. and Neesham, Cristina 2016. Systemic corporate social responsibility: micro-to-macro transitions, collective outcomes and self-regulation. Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 209.

    Bellostas, Ana J. López-Arceiz, Francisco J. and Mateos, Lydia 2016. Social Value and Economic Value in Social Enterprises: Value Creation Model of Spanish Sheltered Workshops. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 27, Issue. 1, p. 367.

    Bissola, Rita and Imperatori, Barbara 2016. Governance and Performance in Public and Non-Profit Organizations.

    Burga, Ruben and Rezania, Davar 2016. Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 6, Issue. 1,

    Cairns, George Goodwin, Paul and Wright, George 2016. A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 249, Issue. 3, p. 1050.

    Cairns, George Wright, George and Fairbrother, Peter 2016. Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 103, p. 97.

    Chang, Pepe Lee 2016. The Abandoned Stakeholders: Pharmaceutical Companies and Research Participants. Journal of Business Ethics,

    Conrad, Christian A. 2016. Wirtschaftsethik.

    Dabic, Marina Colovic, Ana Lamotte, Olivier Painter-Morland, Mollie and Brozovic, Silvana 2016. Industry-specific CSR: analysis of 20 years of research. European Business Review, Vol. 28, Issue. 3, p. 250.

    Du, Xingqiang Pei, Hongmei Du, Yingjie and Zeng, Quan 2016. Media coverage, family ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: evidence from China. Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 22, Issue. 02, p. 224.

    Fiolleau, Krista and Kaplan, Steven E. 2016. Recognizing Ethical Issues: An Examination of Practicing Industry Accountants and Accounting Students. Journal of Business Ethics,

    Gambetta, Nicolás García-Benau, María Antonia and Zorio-Grima, Ana 2016. Corporate social responsibility and bank risk profile: evidence from Europe. Service Business,

    James, Sharon D. 2016. Strategic bankruptcy: A stakeholder management perspective. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, Issue. 2, p. 492.

    Jonsen, Richard Harvey 2016. Other-constituency theories and firm governance: is the benefit corporation sufficient?. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, p. 1.

    Kazadi, Kande Lievens, Annouk and Mahr, Dominik 2016. Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, Issue. 2, p. 525.

    Kim, Tae Wan and Donaldson, Thomas 2016. Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research. Journal of Business Ethics,

    Kim, Soojin and Kim, Jeong-Nam 2016. Bridge or buffer: two ideas of effective corporate governance and public engagement. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 118.

    Kim, Soojin Kim, Jeong-Nam and Tam, Laishan 2016. Think socially but act publicly: refocusing CSR as corporate public responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 91.


The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1


The purpose of this paper is to enter the conversation about stakeholder theory with the goal of clarifying certain foundational issues. I want to show, along with Boatright, that there is no stakeholder paradox, and that the principle on which such a paradox is built, the Separation Thesis, is nicely self-serving to business and ethics academics. If we give up such a thesis we find there is no stakeholder theory but that stakeholder theory becomes a genre that is quite rich. It becomes one of many ways to blend together the central concepts of business with those of ethics. Rather than take each concept of business singly or the whole of “business” together and hold it to the light of ethical standards, we can use the stakeholder concept to create more fine-grained analyses that combine business and ethics; or more simply, we can tell many more, and more interesting, stories about business.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business Ethics Quarterly
  • ISSN: 1052-150X
  • EISSN: 2153-3326
  • URL: /core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *