Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (2):207-224 (1999)
AbstractWe argue that the Rawlsian social contract argument advanced for stakeholder theory by R. Edward Freeman, writing alone and with William M. Evan, fails in three main ways. First, it is true to Rawls in neither form, nor purpose, nor the level of knowledge (or ignorance) required to motivate the veil of ignorance. Second, it fails to tailor the veil of ignorance to the fairness conditions that are required to solve the moral problem that Freeman and Evan set out to solve (whereas Rawls’s own use of the device surely tailors the veil of ignorance to the problem of designing a just social order). Third, the argument, considered apart from its claimed Rawlsian pedigree, fails to bolster the stakeholder theory because it fails to demonstrate the rationality of adopting the institutional rules that Freeman and Evan favor
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
There Is No Rawlsian Theory of Corporate Governance.Abraham Singer - 2015 - Business Ethics Quarterly 25 (1):65-92.
Stakeholder Theory: A Deliberative Perspective.Ulf Henning Richter & Kevin E. Dow - 2017 - Business Ethics: A European Review 26 (4):428-442.
Similar books and articles
The Veil of Ignorance and Health Resource Allocation.Carlos Soto - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):387-404.
Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business.Bruce Langtry - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):431-443.
Social Justice, Genomic Justice and the Veil of Ignorance: Harsanyi Meets Mendel.Samir Okasha - 2012 - Economics and Philosophy 28 (1):43-71.
Assessing Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory.James A. Stieb - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 87 (3):401 - 414.
Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense.R. Edward Freeman & Robert A. Phillips - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):331-350.
Public Relations and Rawls: An Ill-Fitting Veil to Wear.Chris Roberts - 2012 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 27 (3):163-176.
Rawlsian Decisionmaking and Genetic Engineering.Andrew Sneddon - 2006 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (1):35-41.
Interpreting Rawls: An Essay on Audard, Freeman, and Pogge. [REVIEW]Henry S. Richardson - 2011 - The Journal of Ethics 15 (3):227-251.
A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model.Yves Fassin - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):39-49.
Beyond Stockholders and Stakeholders: A Plea for Corporate Moral Autonomy. [REVIEW]James M. Humber - 2002 - Journal of Business Ethics 36 (3):207 - 221.