The Imperfect Nature of Corporate Responsibilities to Stakeholders

Lea, David

doi:10.5840/beq200414212

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Donaldson and Dunfee (1999, p. 685) call out the importance of ''hypernorms'' universally due, in practice employee/followers are not equally treated as stakeholders (Lea, 2004). Evan and Freeman (1993) noted that in the balancing of claims of multiple stakeholders, management decisions must be made that required a compromise in valuing the stakes and outcomes.…”

Section: Stakeholder Theorymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…(4) How am I valued? Treating stakeholders as normatively valued ends rather than as instrumental means presumes that an organization perceives its governance role from a principle-based or virtue ethics perspective (Lea, 2004). Schumann (2001) reported that moral relativism -an uncertain standard of what is right or wrong -existed in many business organizations, and with that uncertainty employees became uncomfortable about how they are valued compared to firm profitability.…”

Section: Follower Assumptions About Ethical Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from the Follower’s Perspective

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational governance has historically focused around the perspective of principals and managers and has traditionally pursued the goal of maximizing owner wealth. This paper suggests that organizational governance can profitably be viewed from the ethical perspective of organizational followers – employees of the organization to whom important ethical duties are also owed. We present two perspectives of organizational governance: Principal Theory that suggests that organizational owners and managers can often be ethically opportunistic and take advantage of employees who serve them and Principle Theory that focuses on guiding principles that are sometimes taken too far in organizations. In introducing these two new organizational governance perspectives, we offer insights into the value of rethinking ethical duties owed to organizational followers. Copyright Springer 2006ethical governance, principal theory, principle theory,

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Theorymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Follower Assumptions About Ethical Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from the Follower’s Perspective

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers of both branches have raised a number of issues, such as which normative basis should be adopted for this approach? (Beekun and Badawi 2005;Burton and Dunn 1996;Etzioni 1998;Lea 2004;Wijnberg 2000), which agents are, or should be, given preferential treatment by the company? (Clarkson 1995;Cragg and Greenbaum 2002;Driscoll and Starik 2004;Mitchell et al 1997;Phillips et al 2003), how should the company balance the interests of its stakeholders?…”

Section: Who Were Stakeholders Initially?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?

Lopez-De-Pedro¹,

Gilabert

2011

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the stakeholder approach has been widely applied in the debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Although many authors of this approach have reviewed many elements of the model, they have unconditionally accepted several criteria assumed by Freeman (1984) to identify stakeholders. In general, stakeholder authors have assumed that (a) the company establishes dyadic relationships with other agents, and (b) decisions made by a company only have foreseen and direct effects on other agents. These criteria have enabled researchers to understand simple processes. However, they have also prevented researchers from explaining how action comes about, and how responsibility is shared, in many complex processes taking place in contemporary societies. Such complex processes involve many agents, and each decision can generate unexpected effects which accumulate or disseminate. Furthermore, the normative structure governing these processes can affect and/or be affected by the actions of agents. In this study, we propose new criteria to expand the stakeholder model and facilitate the study of CSR in such processes.

show abstract

“…According to Benders and Van Veen (2001), the increasing popularity of both CSR and CG generates some ambiguity in defining the confines of each. Other important contributions to the literature (Aguilera et al, 2006;Lea, 2004) also underscore the existence of complementarities between CG and CSR. In an attempt to conceptualize the relationship between CG, CSR and business ethics, Fassin and Van Rossem (2009) explore the distinctiveness and clarity in the perceptions that opinion leaders have concerning CG, CSR and business ethics, and the relationships that exist between them.…”

Section: The Cg-csr Nexus: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The corporate governance and social responsibility nexus in the Lebanese banking industry

Gali

Hajjar

Jamali

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the contrasting views of banks and banking authorities in Lebanon regarding the corporate governance (CG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) nexus. Design/methodology/approach Using survey responses collected from the managers of five Lebanese banks and banking authorities, the authors conduct a qualitative comparative study of the opinions on CG, CSR and CG–CSR nexus. Findings The findings of this paper reveal that while a CG culture is well-instituted by the authorities and that some forms of CSR are already practiced by banks, disagreements exist between the Lebanese banks and banking authorities in defining the CG–CSR nexus. While CG is viewed as an all-encompassing concept by the banking authorities, most banks ascribe to the paradigm that CG is component of CSR. Research limitations/implications The sample of this paper consists of large banks that have clear CG and CSR agendas. The results, therefore, cannot be generalized for the wider population of Lebanese companies that are characterized by family ownership and non-separation of ownership and control. Practical implications This paper informs both managers and policymakers on the differing views of the CSR–CG nexus while also contributing to informing the policy dialogue. Theoretically, this paper sheds light on the CG–CSR nexus in a developing country context. Originality/value There is a paucity of research on the CG–CSR nexus in the context of developing countries and for the banking sector in specific. This paper aims to address the gap in the literature by providing an in-depth qualitative examination of the CG, CSR and the CG–CSR nexus in the context of the Lebanese banking sector.

show abstract

The Imperfect Nature of Corporate Responsibilities to Stakeholders

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from the Follower’s Perspective

Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from the Follower’s Perspective

Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?

The corporate governance and social responsibility nexus in the Lebanese banking industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About