Although the use of stakeholder analysis to investigate corporate responsibilities has burgeoned over the past two decades, there has been relatively little workon howcorporate responsibilities may change for firms with operations in developing countries. This article argues, from a critical theory perspective, that two sets of factors tend to come together to increase the responsibilities of corporations active in developing countries to a full range of stakeholder groups: (a) the different (economic, political, and sociocultural) circumstances under which corporations have to operate in developing countries and (b) several key normative principles, which typically do not come into play in the context of developed countries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvesson, M.
, & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (1992). Critical management studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, S.
,& Cavanagh, J. (2000). Field guide to the neweconomy. New York: New Press.
4.
Argandoña, A.
(1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9-10), 1093-1102.
5.
Bagchi, A.
(1982). The political economy of underdevelopment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Blair, M.
(1998). Whose interests should corporations serve? In M.B.E. Clarkson (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings(pp. 47-69).Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
7.
Boatright, J. R.
(1998). The search for the normative core: Normative stakeholder theory and the agency theory of the firm. Proceedings of the IABS annual conference. Kona, HI: International Association for Business and Society.
8.
Bowie, N.
(1998). A Kantian theory of capitalism [special issue]. Business Ethics Quarterly, (1), 37-60.
9.
Burton, B. K.
, & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as a moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 133-147.
10.
Cameron, M. A.
, & Tomlin, B. (2000). The making of NAFTA: How the deal was done. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
Caprio, G.
, Atiyas, I., & Hanson, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). Financial reform: Theory and experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Claessens, S.
, Djankov, S., & Lang, L.H.P. (1999). Who controls East Asian corporations?Washington, DC: World Bank, Financial Economics Unit.
13.
Clarkson, M.B.E.
(1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory. In Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre for Corporate Social Performance.
14.
Clarkson, M.B.E.
(Ed.). (1998). The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15.
Cludts, S.
(2000, July 19-23). A review of the normative cores of stakeholder theory: Towards a community of stakeholders? Paper presented at the Second World Congress of Business, Economics, and Ethics, São Paulo, Brazil.
16.
Cornell, B.
, & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16, 5-14.
17.
Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency
. (1997). Social accountability 8000. New York: Author.
18.
Cox, R.
(1987). Production, power, and world order. New York: Columbia University Press.
19.
David, W. L.
(1997). The conversation of economic development: Historical voices, interpretations and reality. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
20.
Deetz, S.
(1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
DeGeorge, R. T.
(1993). Competing with integrity in international business. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Donaldson, T.
(1989). The ethics of international business. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Donaldson, T.
,& Dunfee, T. W. (1999a). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45-63.
24.
Donaldson, T.
,& Dunfee, T. W. (1999b). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
Donaldson, T.
,& Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
26.
Dreze, J.
, & Sen, A. (1995). Economic development and social opportunity. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
27.
Enderle, G.
(Ed.). (1999). International business ethics: Challenges and approaches. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
28.
Etzioni, A.
(1998). A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(4), 679-691.
29.
Evan, W. M.
, & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business(3rd ed., pp. 101-105). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
Faúndez, J.
(1994). Affirmative action: International perspectives. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
31.
Freeman, R. E.
(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
32.
Freeman, R. E.
(1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-421.
33.
Freeman, R. E.
(1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233-236.
34.
Freeman, R. E.
(2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169-180.
35.
Friedman, M.
(1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Magazine, pp. 32-33, 122-122, 126-126.
36.
Goodpaster, K. E.
(1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73.
37.
Goyal, S. K.
(1979). Monopoly capital and public policy. New Delhi, India: Allied.
38.
Haber, S. H.
(1989). Industry and underdevelopment: The industrialization of Mexico, 1890-1940. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
39.
Haber, S.
(Ed.). (1997). How Latin America fell behind: Essays on the economic histories of Brazil and Mexico, 1800-1914.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
Habermas, J.
(1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon.
41.
Habermas, J.
(1987). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Hill.
42.
Habermas, J.
(1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
43.
Habermas, J.
(1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
Habermas, J.
(1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Habermas, J.
(1999, May-June). The European nation-state and the pressures of globalization. New Left Review, pp. 46-59.
46.
Haq, M.
(1999). Reflections on human development. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
47.
Hendry, J.
(2001). Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 159-176.
48.
Hill, C.W.L.
, & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154.
49.
Hoffman, W. M.
, & Kamm, J. B. (Eds.). (1994). Emerging global business ethics. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
50.
International Labour Organization
. (1999). Yearbook of labour statistics 1999(58th issue). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
51.
Jackson, M.
, & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35, 473-486.
52.
Jalan, B.
(1991). India’s economic crisis: The way ahead. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
Jawahar, I. M.
, & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414.
54.
Jones, T. M.
(1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.
55.
Jones, T. M.
, & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221.
56.
Khanna, S.
(1999). Financial reforms and industrial sector in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(45), 6-6.
57.
Kumar, N.
(2000). Mergers and acquisitions by MNEs: Patterns and implications. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(32), 2851-2858.
58.
Martinussen, J.
(1997). Society, state and market. London: Zed Books.
59.
Mehafdi, M.
(2000). The ethics of international transfer pricing. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 365-381.
60.
Mingers, J.
(1992). SSM and information systems: An overview. Systemist, 14, 82-88.
61.
Mitchell, R. K.
, Agle, B. R.,& Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
62.
Mokhiber, R.
, & Weissman, R. (1999). Corporate predators: The hunt for mega-profits and the attack on democracy. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
63.
Mukherjee Reed, A.
(2001). Perspectives on the Indian corporate economy: Exploring the paradox of profits. London: Palgrave.
64.
Nelson, J.
(1992). Poverty, equity and the politics of adjustment. In S. Haggard & R. Kaufman (Eds.), The politics of economic adjustment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
Nozick, R.
(1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
66.
Parenti, M.
(1995). Democracy for the few(6th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s.
67.
Reed, D.
(1999a). Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3), 453-483.
68.
Reed, D.
(1999b). Three realms of corporate responsibility: Distinguishing legitimacy, morality and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(3), 23-35.
69.
Reed, D.
(2001). Will freeing up corporate activity lead to development? (and why should corporations care?). General Business Review, 3(1), 8-20.
70.
Reed, D.
(2002). Management education in an age of globalization: Some insights from critical theory. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Rethinking management education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
71.
Rosenthal, S. B.
, & Buchholz, R. A. (2000). The empiric-normative split in business ethics: A pragmatic alternative. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(2), 399-408.
72.
Ross, W. D.
(1963). The right and the good. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. (Original work published 1930)
73.
Rostow, W. W.
(1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
Rueschemeyer, D.
, Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
75.
Schlossberger, E.
(1994). A new model of business: Dual-investor theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 459-474.
76.
Sethi, S. P.
(1994). Multinational corporations and the impact of public advocacy on corporate strategy: Nestle and the infant formula controversy. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
77.
Simon, J. G.
, Powers, C. W., & Gunnemann, J. P. (1972). The ethical investor: Universities and corporate responsibilities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
78.
Singh, A. K.
(2000). Global economic trends and social development (UNRISD Occasional Papers no. 9). Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD.
79.
Stallings, B.
(1992). International influence on economic policy: Debt stabilization and structural reform. In S. Haggarrd& R. Kaufman (Eds.), The politics of economic adjustment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
80.
Stallings, B.
(Ed.). (1995). Global change, regional response: The new international context of development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
81.
Stallings, B.
, & Peres, W. (2000). Growth, employment, and equity: The impact of the economic reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
82.
Stoney, C.
, & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603-626.
83.
Strange, S.
(1994). Rethinking structural change in the international political economy: States, firms and diplomacy. In R. Stubbs & G.R.D. Underhill (Eds.), Political economy and the changing global order. Toronto, Canada: McClelland & Steward.
84.
Tavis, L.
(1994). Bifurcated development and multinational corporate responsibility. In W. M. Hoffman & J. B. Kamm (Eds.), Emerging global business ethics. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
85.
Tavis, L.
(1997). Power and responsibility: Multinational managers and developing country concerns. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
86.
Teubner, G.
(Ed.). (1997). Global law without a state. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
87.
Thompson, J. K.
, Wartick, S. L., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Integrating corporate social performance and stakeholder management: Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207-230.
Treviño, L. K.
, & Weaver, G. R. (1994). Business ETHICS/BUSINESS ethics: One field or two?Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 113-128.
90.
Treviño, L. K.
, & Weaver, G. R. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: converging theorists—Not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 222-227.
91.
United Nations Development Programme
. (1990). Human development report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
92.
United Nations Development Programme
. (2000). Human development report 2000. New York: Oxford University Press.
93.
Varma, J. R.
(1997). Corporate governance in India: Disciplining the dominant shareholder. Management Review, 9(4), 5-18.
94.
Wartick, S. L.
,& Wood, D. J. (1998). International business ethics and society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
95.
Weaver, G. R.
, & Treviño, L. K. (1994). Normative and empirical business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 129-144.
96.
Wheeler, D.
, & Sillanpaa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201-210.
97.
Wicks, A. C.
, Gilbert, D. R., Jr., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 475-497.
