Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 1/2018

24.10.2016 | Original Paper

How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory

verfasst von: Johannes Jahn, Rolf Brühl

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Friedman’s view on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often accused of being incoherent and of setting rather low ethical standards for managers. This paper outlines Friedman’s ethical expectations for corporate executives against the backdrop of the strong emphasis he puts on individual freedom. Doing so reveals that the ethical standards he imposes on managers can be strictly deduced from individual freedom and that these standards involve both deontological norms and the fulfillment of particular stakeholder expectations. These insights illustrate the necessity to reconsider how Friedman’s approach relates to other important normative theories of business ethics. Contrasting Friedman’s approach with stakeholder theory and integrative social contract theory—when considering the importance he assigns to individual freedom—shows how and why these approaches differ. Still, the comparison also highlights striking similarities. This paper contributes to a better understanding of Friedman’s position—which is still one of the most influential approaches in business ethics research—because it enables a differentiated look at its strengths and weaknesses.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
When Friedman describes the circumstances in which the government should be allowed to restrict freedom out of paternalistic reasons, he states: “We do not believe in freedom for madmen” (1962, p. 33). This quote illustrates his doubts regarding the decision-making ability of such people.
 
2
By regarding environmental pollution in terms of property rights, Friedman’s approach is more sensitive to this issue than other business ethics theories. Stakeholder theorists (e.g., Phillips et al., 2003) explicitly decline to apply stakeholder theory to non-humans such as the natural environment.
 
3
One might consider that napalm production can even be regarded as violating the deontological norm “Do not hurt others,” as this is what napalm is intended to do. However, one cannot conclude from Friedman’s work that he would condemn napalm per se.
 
4
We are aware that reasons other than being deceived by a company might cause stakeholders to voluntarily enter transactions that are not beneficial to them, e.g., bounded rationality (Simon, 1955). However, such reasons are outside the control of the corporate executive and are thus not a part of his or her ethical obligation as a manager.
 
5
Companies likewise affect legislation in democratic countries, e.g., through lobbying activities. However, their influence can considered to be lower compared to in non-democratic countries.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRef Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Aune, J. A. (2007). How to read Milton Friedman. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 207–218). New York: Oxford University Press. Aune, J. A. (2007). How to read Milton Friedman. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 207–218). New York: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Bagha, J., & Laczniak, E. R. (2015). Seeking the real Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. Philosophy of Management, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRef Bagha, J., & Laczniak, E. R. (2015). Seeking the real Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. Philosophy of Management, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 164–181.CrossRef Borghesi, R., Houston, J. F., & Naranjo, A. (2014). Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 164–181.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bosch-Badia, M. T., Montllor-Serrats, J., & Tarrazon, M. A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility from Friedman to Porter and Kramer. Theoretical Economics Letters, 3(03), 11–15.CrossRef Bosch-Badia, M. T., Montllor-Serrats, J., & Tarrazon, M. A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility from Friedman to Porter and Kramer. Theoretical Economics Letters, 3(03), 11–15.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.CrossRef Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Carson, T. (1993). Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(1), 3–32.CrossRef Carson, T. (1993). Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(1), 3–32.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.CrossRef Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cosans, C. (2009). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 391–399.CrossRef Cosans, C. (2009). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 391–399.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danley, J. R. (1991). Polestar refined: Business ethics and political economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 915–933.CrossRef Danley, J. R. (1991). Polestar refined: Business ethics and political economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 915–933.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.CrossRef Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T. (1989). The ethics of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donaldson, T. (1989). The ethics of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.CrossRef Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1995). Integrative social contracts theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics. Economics and philosophy, 11(1), 85–112.CrossRef Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1995). Integrative social contracts theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics. Economics and philosophy, 11(1), 85–112.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999a). Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999a). Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999b). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45–63.CrossRef Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999b). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45–63.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.CrossRef Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.CrossRef Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dunfee, T. W., & Donaldson, T. (1995). Contractarian business ethics: Current status and next steps. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(2), 173–186.CrossRef Dunfee, T. W., & Donaldson, T. (1995). Contractarian business ethics: Current status and next steps. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(2), 173–186.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferrero, I., Hoffman, M. W., & McNulty, R. E. (2014). Must Milton Friedman embrace stakeholder theory? Business and Society Review, 119(1), 37–59.CrossRef Ferrero, I., Hoffman, M. W., & McNulty, R. E. (2014). Must Milton Friedman embrace stakeholder theory? Business and Society Review, 119(1), 37–59.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fort, T. L. (2000). A review of Donaldson and Dunfee’s ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 383–387.CrossRef Fort, T. L. (2000). A review of Donaldson and Dunfee’s ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 383–387.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. E. (2008). Ending the so-called ‘Friedman-Freeman’ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 162–166. Freeman, R. E. (2008). Ending the so-called ‘Friedman-Freeman’ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 162–166.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1956). The basic principles of liberalism. Lecture. Crawfordsville, IN: Wabash College. Friedman, M. (1956). The basic principles of liberalism. Lecture. Crawfordsville, IN: Wabash College.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 122–124. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 122–124.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1972). Milton Friedman responds. Business and Society Review, 1, 5–16. Friedman, M. (1972). Milton Friedman responds. Business and Society Review, 1, 5–16.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1974a). Free markets for free man. Selected Papers, University of Chicago, 45. Friedman, M. (1974a). Free markets for free man. Selected Papers, University of Chicago, 45.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (1974b). An interview with Milton Friedman. Reason, 1974(December), 4–14. Friedman, M. (1974b). An interview with Milton Friedman. Reason, 1974(December), 4–14.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M. (2006). Free to choose: A conversation with Milton Friedman. Imprimis, 35(7), 1–7. Friedman, M. (2006). Free to choose: A conversation with Milton Friedman. Imprimis, 35(7), 1–7.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Zurück zum Zitat Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.CrossRef Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRef Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Grant, C. (1991). Friedman fallacies. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 907–914.CrossRef Grant, C. (1991). Friedman fallacies. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(12), 907–914.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
Zurück zum Zitat Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(01), 19–42.CrossRef Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(01), 19–42.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Heath, J. (2006). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(04), 533–557.CrossRef Heath, J. (2006). Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(04), 533–557.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hobbes, T. (1965/1651). Hobbes’ Leviathan. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hobbes, T. (1965/1651). Hobbes’ Leviathan. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zurück zum Zitat James, H. S., & Rassekh, F. (2000). Smith, Friedman, and self-interest in ethical society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 659–674.CrossRef James, H. S., & Rassekh, F. (2000). Smith, Friedman, and self-interest in ethical society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 659–674.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRef Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, W. (1989). Freedom and philanthropy: An interview with Milton Friedman. Business and Society Review, 71, 11–18. Johnson, W. (1989). Freedom and philanthropy: An interview with Milton Friedman. Business and Society Review, 71, 11–18.
Zurück zum Zitat Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.CrossRef Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). The link between self- and societal interests in theory and practice. European Management Review, 9(1), 19–30.CrossRef Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). The link between self- and societal interests in theory and practice. European Management Review, 9(1), 19–30.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Locke, J. (1980/1690). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Locke, J. (1980/1690). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRef Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3–15.CrossRef Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3–15.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.CrossRef Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mulligan, T. (1986). A critique of Milton Friedman’s essay ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(4), 265–269.CrossRef Mulligan, T. (1986). A critique of Milton Friedman’s essay ‘the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(4), 265–269.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Orlitzky, M. (2015). The politics of corporate social responsibility or: Why Milton Friedman has been right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1(1), 5–29.CrossRef Orlitzky, M. (2015). The politics of corporate social responsibility or: Why Milton Friedman has been right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1(1), 5–29.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRef Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rowan, J. R. (2001). How binding the ties? Business ethics as Integrative Social Contracts. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics Thomas Donaldson and Thomas W. Dunfee Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 379–390.CrossRef Rowan, J. R. (2001). How binding the ties? Business ethics as Integrative Social Contracts. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics Thomas Donaldson and Thomas W. Dunfee Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), 379–390.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Russo, J. E., Metcalf, B. L., & Stephens, D. (1981). Identifying misleading advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 119–131.CrossRef Russo, J. E., Metcalf, B. L., & Stephens, D. (1981). Identifying misleading advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 119–131.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schwartz, M. S., & Saiia, D. (2012). Should firms go “beyond profits”? Milton Friedman versus broad CSR. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 1–31.CrossRef Schwartz, M. S., & Saiia, D. (2012). Should firms go “beyond profits”? Milton Friedman versus broad CSR. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 1–31.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Silver, D. (2005). Corporate codes of conduct and the value of autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 3–8.CrossRef Silver, D. (2005). Corporate codes of conduct and the value of autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 3–8.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRef Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Smith, A. (1981/1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics. Smith, A. (1981/1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.CrossRef Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Van Buren, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRef Van Buren, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.CrossRef Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
How Friedman’s View on Individual Freedom Relates to Stakeholder Theory and Social Contract Theory
verfasst von
Johannes Jahn
Rolf Brühl
Publikationsdatum
24.10.2016
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3353-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Journal of Business Ethics 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe