Skip to main content
main-content

Tipp

Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Normativität und Instrumentalität in Stakeholder-Beziehungen

verfasst von: Christoph Schank

Erschienen in: Handbuch Wirtschaftsphilosophie III

Verlag: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

share
TEILEN

Zusammenfassung

Begriff und Ansatz des Stakeholders sind über die letzten drei Dekaden hinweg zu einem festen Bestandteil von Managementforschung und -praxis geworden. Obwohl die wegweisenden Arbeiten von R. Edward Freeman längst den Status von Klassikern innehaben, wäre die Rede von einem einheitlichen Stakeholder-Ansatz verfehlt. Der Beitrag nähert sich diesem Ansatz aus der Perspektive seiner maßgeblichen Vertreter, unterstreicht jedoch die höchst unterschiedlichen Lesarten, die das Konzept bis heute auszeichnet.
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Antonacopoulou, Elena P., und Jérome Meric. 2005. A critique of stake-holder theory: Management science or a sophisticated ideology of control? Corporate Governance 5(2): 22–33. CrossRef Antonacopoulou, Elena P., und Jérome Meric. 2005. A critique of stake-holder theory: Management science or a sophisticated ideology of control? Corporate Governance 5(2): 22–33. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Applbaum, Arthur I. 1996. Rules of the game, permissible harms, and fair play. In Wise choices: Decisions, games, and negotiations, Hrsg. Richard J. Zeckhauser, Ralph L. Keeney und James Sebenius, 301–325. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Applbaum, Arthur I. 1996. Rules of the game, permissible harms, and fair play. In Wise choices: Decisions, games, and negotiations, Hrsg. Richard J. Zeckhauser, Ralph L. Keeney und James Sebenius, 301–325. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Argandona, Antonio. 1998. The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics 17:1093–1102. CrossRef Argandona, Antonio. 1998. The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics 17:1093–1102. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Asiyai, Romina I. 2015. Improving quality higher education in Nigeria: The roles of stakeholders. International Journal of Higher Education 4(1): 61–70. Asiyai, Romina I. 2015. Improving quality higher education in Nigeria: The roles of stakeholders. International Journal of Higher Education 4(1): 61–70.
Zurück zum Zitat Beekun, Rafik I., und Jamal A. Badawi. 2005. Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 60:131–145. CrossRef Beekun, Rafik I., und Jamal A. Badawi. 2005. Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 60:131–145. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bettinazzi, Emanuele L. M., und Maurizio Zollo. 2017. Stakeholder orientation and acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal 38:2465–2485. CrossRef Bettinazzi, Emanuele L. M., und Maurizio Zollo. 2017. Stakeholder orientation and acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal 38:2465–2485. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bowie, Norman E. 1999. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Bowie, Norman E. 1999. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Zurück zum Zitat Bowie, Norman E. 2012. Book review: Stakeholder theory: The state of the art by R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan L. Parmar, and Simone de Colle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Business Ethics Quarterly 22(1): 179–198. Bowie, Norman E. 2012. Book review: Stakeholder theory: The state of the art by R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan L. Parmar, and Simone de Colle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Business Ethics Quarterly 22(1): 179–198.
Zurück zum Zitat Brink, Alexander. 2009. Normatives Stakeholder Management. Eine governancetheoretische Rekonstruktion. In CSR als Netzwerkgovernance – Theoretische Herausforderung und praktische Antworten, Hrsg. Josef Wieland, 215–255. Marburg: Metropolis. Brink, Alexander. 2009. Normatives Stakeholder Management. Eine governancetheoretische Rekonstruktion. In CSR als Netzwerkgovernance – Theoretische Herausforderung und praktische Antworten, Hrsg. Josef Wieland, 215–255. Marburg: Metropolis.
Zurück zum Zitat Brummer, James J. 1991. Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An interdisciplinary analysis. New York: Greenwood Press. Brummer, James J. 1991. Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An interdisciplinary analysis. New York: Greenwood Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Buchholz, Rogene A., und Sandra B. Rosenthal. 2004. Stakeholder theory and public policy: How governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics 51:143–153. CrossRef Buchholz, Rogene A., und Sandra B. Rosenthal. 2004. Stakeholder theory and public policy: How governments matter. Journal of Business Ethics 51:143–153. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Burton, Brian K., und Craig P. Dunn. 1996. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2): 133–147. CrossRef Burton, Brian K., und Craig P. Dunn. 1996. Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2): 133–147. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Clarkson, Max B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework of analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 92–117. CrossRef Clarkson, Max B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework of analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 92–117. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cludts, Stephan. 1999. The stakeholders as investors: A response to Etzioni. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 673–676. CrossRef Cludts, Stephan. 1999. The stakeholders as investors: A response to Etzioni. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 673–676. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, Thomas, und Thomas W. Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review 18(2): 252–284. CrossRef Donaldson, Thomas, und Thomas W. Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review 18(2): 252–284. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson, Thomas, und Lee E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91. CrossRef Donaldson, Thomas, und Lee E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Etzioni, Amitai. 1998. A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4): 679–691. CrossRef Etzioni, Amitai. 1998. A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4): 679–691. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Evan, William, und R. Edward Freeman. 1993. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Ethical theory & business, Hrsg. Tom Beauchamp und Norman E. Bowie, 97–106. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Evan, William, und R. Edward Freeman. 1993. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Ethical theory & business, Hrsg. Tom Beauchamp und Norman E. Bowie, 97–106. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Zurück zum Zitat Fleming, John E. 1987. Authorities in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 6(3): 213–217. CrossRef Fleming, John E. 1987. Authorities in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 6(3): 213–217. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 409–422. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 409–422. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward. 1999. Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review 24(2): 233–236. Freeman, R. Edward. 1999. Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review 24(2): 233–236.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward. 2004. The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 5(3): 228–254. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward. 2004. The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 5(3): 228–254. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward. 2008. Ending the so-called ‚Friedman-Freeman‘ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2): 153–190. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward. 2008. Ending the so-called ‚Friedman-Freeman‘ debate. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2): 153–190. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und Sergiy Dmytriyev. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 2:7–15. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, und Sergiy Dmytriyev. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 2:7–15. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und William E. Evan. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19:337–359. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, und William E. Evan. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19:337–359. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und John McVea. 2001. Stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Business School Working Paper, No. 01-02. Freeman, R. Edward, und John McVea. 2001. Stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Business School Working Paper, No. 01-02.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und Robert A. Philipps. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 331–349. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, und Robert A. Philipps. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 331–349. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und Robert A. Phillips. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 331–349. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, und Robert A. Phillips. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 331–349. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, und David L. Reed. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review 25(3): 88–106. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, und David L. Reed. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review 25(3): 88–106. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman, R. Edward, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan L. Parmar, und Simone de Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Freeman, R. Edward, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan L. Parmar, und Simone de Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13.September. Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13.September.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson, Kevin. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26:245–257. CrossRef Gibson, Kevin. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26:245–257. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Harris, Jared D., und R. Edward Freeman. 2008. The impossibility of the separation thesis: A response to Joakim Sandberg. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 541–548. Harris, Jared D., und R. Edward Freeman. 2008. The impossibility of the separation thesis: A response to Joakim Sandberg. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 541–548.
Zurück zum Zitat Harrison, Jeffrey S., Jay B. Barney, R. Edward Freeman, und Robert A. Philipps. 2019. The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Harrison, Jeffrey S., Jay B. Barney, R. Edward Freeman, und Robert A. Philipps. 2019. The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hartman, Edwin. 1996. Organizational ethics & the good life. New York: Oxford University Press. Hartman, Edwin. 1996. Organizational ethics & the good life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Hendry, John. 2001. Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(3): 223–232. CrossRef Hendry, John. 2001. Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(3): 223–232. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hosmer, La Rue T., und Christian Kiewitz. 2005. Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1): 67–91. CrossRef Hosmer, La Rue T., und Christian Kiewitz. 2005. Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1): 67–91. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jensen, Michael C. 2010. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 22(1): 32–48. CrossRef Jensen, Michael C. 2010. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 22(1): 32–48. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jensen, Michael C., und William H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305–360. CrossRef Jensen, Michael C., und William H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305–360. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jones, Tomas M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review 20:92–117. CrossRef Jones, Tomas M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review 20:92–117. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jones, Thomas M., und Andrew C. Wicks. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206–221. CrossRef Jones, Thomas M., und Andrew C. Wicks. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206–221. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lampe, Marc. 2001. Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 31:165–173. CrossRef Lampe, Marc. 2001. Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 31:165–173. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Laplume, André O., Karan Sonpar, und Reginald A. Litz. 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management 34(6): 1152–1189. CrossRef Laplume, André O., Karan Sonpar, und Reginald A. Litz. 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management 34(6): 1152–1189. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lea, David. 2004. The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(2): 201–217. CrossRef Lea, David. 2004. The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(2): 201–217. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Li, Jing, Jun Xia, und Edward J. Zajac. 2018. On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: Theory and evidence from Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal 39:193–216. CrossRef Li, Jing, Jun Xia, und Edward J. Zajac. 2018. On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: Theory and evidence from Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal 39:193–216. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Maak, Thomas, und Peter Ulrich. 2007. Integre Unternehmensführung. Ethisches Orientierungswissen für die Wirtschaftspraxis. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Maak, Thomas, und Peter Ulrich. 2007. Integre Unternehmensführung. Ethisches Orientierungswissen für die Wirtschaftspraxis. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Zurück zum Zitat Mansell, Samuel F. 2013. Capitalism, corporations and the social contract. A critique of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Mansell, Samuel F. 2013. Capitalism, corporations and the social contract. A critique of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Marcoux, Alexei M. 2000. Balancing act. In Contemporary issues in business ethics, Hrsg. Joseph R. DesJardins und John J. McCall, 92–100. Belmont: Wadsworth. Marcoux, Alexei M. 2000. Balancing act. In Contemporary issues in business ethics, Hrsg. Joseph R. DesJardins und John J. McCall, 92–100. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Zurück zum Zitat Margolis, Joshua D., und James P. Walsh. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiative by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48:268–305. Margolis, Joshua D., und James P. Walsh. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiative by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48:268–305.
Zurück zum Zitat Mendelow, Aubrey L. 1981. Environmental scanning – The impact of the stakeholder concept. ICIS 1981 Proceedings 20:407–418. Mendelow, Aubrey L. 1981. Environmental scanning – The impact of the stakeholder concept. ICIS 1981 Proceedings 20:407–418.
Zurück zum Zitat Mitchell, Ronald K., R. Agle Bradley, und Donna J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886. CrossRef Mitchell, Ronald K., R. Agle Bradley, und Donna J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–886. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mitroff, Ian I., und Richard O. Manson. 1980. A logic of strategic management. Human Systems Management 1(1): 115–126. CrossRef Mitroff, Ian I., und Richard O. Manson. 1980. A logic of strategic management. Human Systems Management 1(1): 115–126. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Palmer, Daniel E. 1999. Upping the stakes: A response to John Hasnas on the normative viability of the stockholder and stakeholder theories. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 699–706. CrossRef Palmer, Daniel E. 1999. Upping the stakes: A response to John Hasnas on the normative viability of the stockholder and stakeholder theories. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 699–706. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Parmer, Bidhan L., R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Simone de Colle, und Lauren Purnell. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 403–445. CrossRef Parmer, Bidhan L., R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Simone de Colle, und Lauren Purnell. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 403–445. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Philipps, Robert A. 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1): 51–66. Philipps, Robert A. 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1): 51–66.
Zurück zum Zitat Philipps, Robert A., R. Edward Freeman, und Andrew C. Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4): 479–502. CrossRef Philipps, Robert A., R. Edward Freeman, und Andrew C. Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4): 479–502. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Phillips, Robert A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1): 51–66. CrossRef Phillips, Robert A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1): 51–66. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Phillips, Robert A., und Joshua M. Margolis. 1999. Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 619–638. CrossRef Phillips, Robert A., und Joshua M. Margolis. 1999. Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 619–638. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Post, James E., Lee E. Preston, und Sybille Sachs 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management & organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Post, James E., Lee E. Preston, und Sybille Sachs 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management & organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Rappaport, Alfred. 1981. Selecting strategies that create shareholder value. Harvard Business Review 59(3): 139–149. Rappaport, Alfred. 1981. Selecting strategies that create shareholder value. Harvard Business Review 59(3): 139–149.
Zurück zum Zitat Rappaport, Alfred. 1986. Creating shareholder value: The new standard for business performance. New York: The Free Press. Rappaport, Alfred. 1986. Creating shareholder value: The new standard for business performance. New York: The Free Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Reed, Darryl. 1999. Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(3): 453–483. CrossRef Reed, Darryl. 1999. Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(3): 453–483. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Roberts, Robin W., und Lois Mahoney. 2004. Stakeholder concept of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(3): 399–431. CrossRef Roberts, Robin W., und Lois Mahoney. 2004. Stakeholder concept of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(3): 399–431. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Scherer, Andreas G., und Moritz Patzer. 2011. Where is the theory in stakeholder theory? – A meta-analysis of the pluralism in stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder theory. Impact and prospects, Hrsg. Robert A. Phillips, 140–162. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Scherer, Andreas G., und Moritz Patzer. 2011. Where is the theory in stakeholder theory? – A meta-analysis of the pluralism in stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder theory. Impact and prospects, Hrsg. Robert A. Phillips, 140–162. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Zurück zum Zitat Shankman, Neil A. 1999. Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics 19(4): 319–334. CrossRef Shankman, Neil A. 1999. Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics 19(4): 319–334. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sternberg, Elaine. 1997. The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review 5(1): 3–10. CrossRef Sternberg, Elaine. 1997. The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review 5(1): 3–10. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Störig, Hans J. 1992. Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer. Störig, Hans J. 1992. Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Zurück zum Zitat Trevino, Linda K., und Gary R. Weaver. 1999. The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists – Not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 222–227. Trevino, Linda K., und Gary R. Weaver. 1999. The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists – Not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 222–227.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulrich, Peter. 1998. Wofür sind Unternehmen verantwortlich? Teil II: Stakeholder-Dialog und republikanische Mitverantwortung. Forum Wirtschaftsethik 6(1): 3–9. Ulrich, Peter. 1998. Wofür sind Unternehmen verantwortlich? Teil II: Stakeholder-Dialog und republikanische Mitverantwortung. Forum Wirtschaftsethik 6(1): 3–9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulrich, Peter. 1999. Was ist „gute“ Unternehmensführung? Reflexionen zu den normativen Grundlagen ethikbewussten Managements. In Entwicklungsperspektiven einer integrierten Managementlehre, Hrsg. Peter Gomez, Günter Müller-Stewens und Johannes Rüegg-Stürm, 225–253. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien: Haupt. Ulrich, Peter. 1999. Was ist „gute“ Unternehmensführung? Reflexionen zu den normativen Grundlagen ethikbewussten Managements. In Entwicklungsperspektiven einer integrierten Managementlehre, Hrsg. Peter Gomez, Günter Müller-Stewens und Johannes Rüegg-Stürm, 225–253. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien: Haupt.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulrich, Peter. 2016. Integrative Wirtschaftsethik: Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie. Bern: Haupt. Ulrich, Peter. 2016. Integrative Wirtschaftsethik: Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie. Bern: Haupt.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulrich, Peter, und Edgar Fluri. 1975. Management. Eine konzentrierte Einführung. Bern: Haupt. Ulrich, Peter, und Edgar Fluri. 1975. Management. Eine konzentrierte Einführung. Bern: Haupt.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Buren, Harry 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, Harry 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 Wicks, Andrew C. 1996. Reflections on the practical relevance of feminist thought to business. Business Ethics Quarterly 6(4): 523–531. CrossRef Wicks, Andrew C. 1996. Reflections on the practical relevance of feminist thought to business. Business Ethics Quarterly 6(4): 523–531. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wicks, Andrew C., und R. Edward Freeman. 1998. Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9(2): 123–140. Wicks, Andrew C., und R. Edward Freeman. 1998. Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9(2): 123–140.
Zurück zum Zitat Wicks, Andrew C., Daniel R. Gilbert, und R. Edward Freeman. 1994. A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 475–497. CrossRef Wicks, Andrew C., Daniel R. Gilbert, und R. Edward Freeman. 1994. A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 475–497. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wijnberg, Nachoem M. 2000. Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics 25:329–342. CrossRef Wijnberg, Nachoem M. 2000. Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics 25:329–342. CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Zakhem, Abe, und Daniel E. Palmer. 2017. Normative stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder management, Hrsg. David M. Wasieleski und James Weber, 49–73. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. CrossRef Zakhem, Abe, und Daniel E. Palmer. 2017. Normative stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder management, Hrsg. David M. Wasieleski und James Weber, 49–73. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Normativität und Instrumentalität in Stakeholder-Beziehungen
verfasst von
Christoph Schank
Copyright-Jahr
2021
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22107-2_29

Stellenausschreibungen

Anzeige

Premium Partner