Defining a post-conventional corporate moral responsibility

Journal of Business Ethics 39 (1-2):101 - 108 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The stakeholder approach offers the opportunity to consider corporate responsibility in a wider sense than that afforded by the stockholder or shareholder approaches. Having said that, this article aims to show that this theory does not offer a normative corporate responsibility concept that can be our response to two basic questions. On the one hand, for what is the company morally responsible and, on the other hand, why is the corporation morally responsible in terms of conventional and post-conventional perspectives? The reason why the stakeholder approach does not offer such a definition, as we shall see, is because the normative stakeholder approaches tend to confuse the social validity with the moral validity or legitimacy. It leads us to a conventional definition of corporate moral responsibility (CMR) that is not relevant to the pluralistic and global framework of our societies and economies. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this intuition.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
49 (#316,480)

6 months
7 (#425,192)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Politics of Stakeholder Theory.R. Edward Freeman - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):409-421.
Integrative Social Contracts Theory.Thomas Donaldson - 1995 - Economics and Philosophy 11 (1):85-112.
Stakeholder Management Theory: A Critical Theory Perspective.Darryl Reed - 1999 - Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (3):453-483.
Who are the Stakeholders?Alexei M. Marcoux - 1998 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 17 (3):79-108.

Add more references