While R Edward Freeman’s stakeholder theory has become one of the most generative contemporary management theories and has shaped the public relations lexicon, its influence on public relations theory and practice has been muted. In this essay, I use the work of the American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty to resituate Freeman’s theory and offer a vision of public relations practice that is grounded in what can be called humane conversation. After describing both the promise and limitations of stakeholder theory, I provide an overview of Rorty’s philosophical project and describe potential points of contact with Freeman’s theory. Then, I suggest how this encounter can frame a new understanding of public relations grounded in Rorty’s notions of contingency, irony, and solidarity, in which scholars, professionals, and students learn to see themselves as humane intellectuals in the fullest sense of the term.
ArgandonaA (1998) Stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics17: 1093–1102.
2.
ArnettRCArnesonP (1999) Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age: Community, Hope and Interpersonal Relationships. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
3.
ChristensenLTCheneyG (2011) Interrogating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In: Ihlen Ø, BartlettJLMayS (eds) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.491–504.
4.
De BussyNM (2010) Dialogue as a basis for stakeholder engagement. In: HeathRL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.127–144.
5.
DerryR (2011) Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics111: 253–264.
6.
EdwardsL (2012) Defining the ‘object’ of public relations research: A new starting point. Public Relations Inquiry1: 7–30.
7.
ElmsHBrammerSHarrisJD. (2010) New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly20: 401–425.
8.
FreemanRE (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
FreemanRE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly4: 409–421.
10.
FreemanRE (1997) A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In: BeauchampTLBowieNE (eds) Ethical Theory and Business (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.66–76.
11.
FreemanRE (2000) Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly10: 169–180.
12.
FreemanRE (2004) The relevance of Richard Rorty to management research. Academy of Management Review29: 127–144.
13.
FreemanREHarrisJD (2009) Creating ties that bind. Journal of Business Ethics88: 685–692.
14.
FreemanREPhillipsRA (2002) Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly12: 331–349.
15.
FriedmanM (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
GrunigJE (2001) Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In: HeathRL (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.11–30.
17.
GrunigJERepperFC (1992) Strategic management, publics and issues. In: GrunigJE (ed.) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.117–157.
18.
HarrisJDFreemanRE (2008) The impossibility of the separation thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly18: 541–548.
19.
HeathRL (2013) The journey to understand and champion OPR takes many roads, some not yet well traveled. Public Relations Review39: 426–431.
20.
HeathRLPalencharMJ (2009) Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
JamesW (2000) Pragmatism and Other Essays. New York: Penguin.
22.
KentMLTaylorM (2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review28: 21–37.
23.
KimJ-NNiLShaB-L (2008) Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85: 751–768.
24.
LangtryB (1994) Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the business. Business Ethics Quarterly4: 431–443.
25.
LaplumeAOSonparKLitzRA (2008) Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management34: 1152–1191.
26.
MitchellRKAgleBRWoodDJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review22: 853–896.
27.
OrtsEWStrudlerA (2009) Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics88: 605–615.
28.
PhillipsR (2003) Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly13: 25–41.
29.
PhillipsRFreemanREWicksAC (2003) What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly13: 479–502.
30.
PieczkaM (2011) Public relations as dialogic expertise?Journal of Communication Management15: 108–124.
31.
RauppJ (2011) The concept of stakeholders and its relevance for corporate social responsibility communication. In: Ihlen Ø, BartlettJLMayS (eds) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.276–294.
32.
RortyR (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
RortyR (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
RortyR (1991) Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RortyR (1998) Truth and Progress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
RortyR (1999a) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
RortyR (1999b) Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin.
38.
RortyR (2007) Philosophy as Cultural Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SmithBG (2012) Public relations identity and the stakeholder–organization relationship: A revised theoretical position for public relations scholarship. Public Relations Review38: 838–845.
40.
SmuddePMCourtrightJL (2011) A holistic approach to stakeholder management: A rhetorical foundation. Public Relations Review37: 137–144.
41.
SternbergE (1997) The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance5: 3–10.
42.
StiebJA (2009) Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics87: 401–414.
43.
TothE (2009) The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical and excellence approaches. In: HeathRLTothEWaymerD (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Perspectives on Public Relations II. New York: Routledge, pp.48–60.
