Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:56:55.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the Separation Thesis: Precision after the Decimal Point?: A Response to Joakim Sandberg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Ben Wempe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sandberg documents with admirable precision nine rather diverging renderings of Freeman’s call for the rejection of the separation thesis (ST). A more careful consideration of the propriety of importing phrases such as “the rejection of ST” from more established academic disciplines so as to serve in the field of normative business ethics would seem to make that precision premature and maybe even superfluous. This may well be generalized to an observation concerning current working methods in normative business ethics.

Type
Dialogue: Commentators and Author
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 549 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boatright, J. R. 1994. “What’s So Special about Shareholders?” Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 393–408.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., and Dunfee, T. W. 1994. “Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory,” Academy of Management Review 19: 252–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., and Dunfee, T. W.. 1999. Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston; Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman).Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.. 1994. “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions,” Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409–21.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.. 1999. “Divergent Stakeholder Theory,” Academy of Management Review 24: 233–36.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., and Evan, W. N. 1990. “Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation,” The Journal of Behavioral Economics 19: 337–59.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E. 1991. “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E., and Holloran, T. E.. 1994. “In Defense of a Paradox,” Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 423–30.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M., and Wicks, A. C.. 1999. “Convergent Stakeholder Theory,” Academy of Management Review 24: 206–21.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. 1964/1975. The Act of Creation (London: Pan Books).Google Scholar
Koestler, A.. 1967/1975. The Ghost in the Machine (London: Pan Books).Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Rawls, J.. 1993. Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Sandberg, J. 2008. “Understanding the Separation Thesis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18: 213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar