IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v186y2023i3d10.1007_s10551-022-05248-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory

Author

Listed:
  • David Weitzner

    (York University)

  • Yuval Deutsch

    (York University)

Abstract

Instrumental Stakeholder Theory has begun to suffer from what might be termed “mission drift.” Despite its initial success in creating a foothold for ethics in managerial decision-making, the efficiency arguments which now dominate this research stream have become counterproductive to the original goal of connecting ethics and capitalism. We argue in this paper that the way forward is by re-centering contingency, conversation, and inefficiency in stakeholder theory. To start this process, there needs to be a reckoning of some unintended impacts of the success of the instrumental stream of stakeholder research. For a contrasting approach, we draw on Richard Rorty’s pragmatism and its foundation of ethical “irony,” a state of continuous doubts about the utility of one’s moral vocabulary. We offer a Rortian approach to stakeholder theory, unearthing the possibility for new corporate target functions in the goals of harm reduction, solidarity, and social mobility, the foundational building blocks of an ironist ethical perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:186:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-022-05248-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05248-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-022-05248-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-022-05248-1?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. Larue Tone Hosmer, 1994. "Strategic planning as if ethics mattered," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 17-34, June.
    2. Reed, Darryl, 1999. "Stakeholder Management Theory: A Critical Theory Perspective," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 453-483, July.
    3. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    4. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    5. Michelle Greenwood & Harry Buren III, 2010. "Trust and Stakeholder Theory: Trustworthiness in the Organisation–Stakeholder Relationship," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 425-438, September.
    6. Harrison, Jeffrey S. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2013. "How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 313-322.
    7. Benjamin Neville & Simon Bell & Gregory Whitwell, 2011. "Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 357-378, September.
    8. Mohammed Benlemlih & Mohammad Bitar, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency," Post-Print halshs-01321227, HAL.
    9. Burton, Brian K. & Dunn, Craig P., 1996. "Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory 1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 133-147, April.
    10. Margaret A. Peteraf & Jay B. Barney, 2003. "Unraveling the resource-based tangle," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 309-323.
    11. Pouryousefi, Sareh & Freeman, R. Edward, 2021. "The Promise of Pragmatism: Richard Rorty and Business Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 572-599, October.
    12. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    13. Eni Gambeta & Balaji R. Koka & Robert E. Hoskisson, 2019. "Being too good for your own good: A stakeholder perspective on the differential effect of firm‐employee relationships on innovation search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 108-126, January.
    14. Rorty, Richard, 2006. "Is Philosophy Relevant to Applied Ethics?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 369-380, July.
    15. Mohammed Benlemlih & Mohammad Bitar, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 647-671, March.
    16. Amy J. Hillman & Gerald D. Keim, 2001. "Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, February.
    17. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips, 2010. "Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Roberto Garcia-Castro & Claude Francoeur, 2016. "When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 406-424, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. André Laplume & Kent Walker & Zhou Zhang & Xin Yu, 2021. "Incumbent Stakeholder Management Performance and New Entry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 629-644, December.
    2. Chowdhury, Rajib & Doukas, John A. & Park, Jong Chool, 2021. "Stakeholder orientation and the value of cash holdings: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    4. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2023. "Stakeholder theory: Toward a classical institutional economics perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88.
    5. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    6. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    7. Vladislav Valentinov, 2023. "Stakeholder Theory: Toward a Classical Institutional Economics Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88, November.
    8. Sefa Hayibor & Colleen Collins, 2016. "Motivators of Mobilization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 351-374, December.
    9. Kull, Alexander J. & Mena, Jeannette A. & Korschun, Daniel, 2016. "A resource-based view of stakeholder marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5553-5560.
    10. Daniel L Gamache & François Neville & Jonathan Bundy & Cole E Short, 2020. "Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1305-1335, July.
    11. 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.
    12. José-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2019. "How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Andrew C. Wicks, 2021. "Harmful Stakeholder Strategies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 405-419, March.
    14. Valentinov, Vladislav & Chia, Robert, 2022. "Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 762-776.
    15. Kirsten Martin & Robert Phillips, 2022. "Stakeholder Friction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 519-531, May.
    16. Martin R. W. Hiebl & David I. Pielsticker, 2023. "Automation, organizational ambidexterity and the stability of employee relations: new tensions arising between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation management and stakeholder management," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1978-2006, December.
    17. Pascual Berrone & Jordi Surroca & Josep Tribó, 2007. "Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 35-53, November.
    18. Anagnostopoulou, Seraina C. & Tsekrekos, Andrianos E. & Voulgaris, Georgios, 2021. "Accounting conservatism and corporate social responsibility," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:186:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-022-05248-1. 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.