You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Does the Stakeholder Theory Constitute a New Kind of Theory of Social Responsibility?
Thomas L. Carson
Business Ethics Quarterly
Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 171-176
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857371
Page Count: 6
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Shareholders, Social theories, Business structures, Corporate social responsibility, Social responsibility, Corporations, Business ethics, Business executives, Humans, Promises
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In a recent paper, Kenneth Goodpaster formulates three versions of the stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility. He rejects the first two versions and endorses the third. I argue that the theory that Goodpaster defends under the name "stakeholder theory" is a version (albeit a somewhat different version) of Milton Friedman's theory of corporate social responsibility. I also argue that the first two formulations of the stakeholder theory which Goodpaster discusses are at most only slight modifications of other theories. I conclude by formulating a fourth version of the stakeholder theory which I believe does constitute a substantial departure from earlier theories of social responsibility.
Business Ethics Quarterly © 1993 Cambridge University Press