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.

Postmodernism, a poorly defined term, is nevertheless influencing art, architecture, literature and philosophy. And despite its definitional ambiguities, some philosophers see in postmodernism a reason for the rise and interest in business ethics. This view is chailenged on two grounds: (1) its philosophical source in Europe; and (2) its vocabulary. Martin Heidegger, one of the major forces in postmodernism’s rise, left a confusing legacy. In his early years, Heidegger advocated moral subjectivism; in his later years, he argued that moral standards could be found in the lives of human gods whose pronouncements would replace the precepts of a Western Civilization he found decadent.

Contemporary postmodernism seems to take inspiration from the views of both the younger and older Heidegger even though he, himself, saw contradictions between them. The confusion is compounded by incorporation of Neitzsche's God-is-dead thesis into Heideggerian thought, thereby, confronting philosophers with a dilemma: if God is out of the picture, and if objective rules derived from human nature do not exist, what human gods can lead us? Will they come from a political or cultural elite? How should we know them? Why should we trust them? Unless—and until—these questions are answered, it is unwise to build business ethics on a postmodern foundation.

Another—and seemingly insignificant—reason for rejecting postmodernism ethics is the esoteric vocabulary used by its expositors to advance it. More jargon will not help philosophers who try to respond to moral questions raised by business managers themselves.

Grounded upon the late 1970s phrase “institutionalizing ethics into business,” I present a multi-component model and research agenda to enhance our understanding of organizations' efforts to integrate ethics into the daily decision-making process of employees. Three research foci are emphasized: (1) the need to establish consistent categorical frameworks to describe business organizations' efforts in the field, (2) the study of the interrelationships between the various components presented in the model, and (3) the exploration of the linkage between organizational efforts to institutionalize ethics and ethical employee behavior. Research and organizational implications evolving from these research foci are discussed.

This commentary finds much to like about the work of Professor Thomas I. White, “Business, Ethics, and Carol Gilligan's ‘Two Voices.” (Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1992) At the same time it suggests further work is needed on the following points: (1) White must consider how males respond to dilemmas if he hopes to articulate a difference between male and female methods of responding; (2) White must support his conclusion that the “ethics of care” is the ethic most likely to produce the results that he assumes to be true, and further explain why he thinks that the studies he chooses support the “ethics of care,” and (3) White must explain why the “ethics of care” is not just as likely to produce a result opposite to that found by researchers.

In "The language of International Corporate Ethics," Tom Donaldson largues that ethical languages focusing on avoidance of harm to human beings; on rights/duties: and on rules spelled out in a social contract are better for characterizing international corporate responsibility than languages promoting virtue; the mastering of the self; or the maximization of human welfare. While some of what Donaldson says about the strengths and weaknesses of individual theories is quite plausible and relatively noncontroversial, Donaldson does not, in my judgment, establish that the three theories he favors are indeed better equipped to cope with problems of corporate responsibility than the three he dismisses. I will focus upon four major problems with his analysis.

Over the past decade, numerous studies have counselled managers to attend to the fourfold task of increasing quality, developing leadership, building teams, and shaping the organizational culture. Today, these recommendations and the once-exciting examples of the “vanguard” corporations (O’Toole, 1985) who first advanced the frontiers of practice appear to be the staples of conventional wisdom. We’ve heard the sermon, yet, it would be hard to contend that the challenges posed by the four-fold agenda have been universally mastered or implemented across the corporate landscape.