Search results

1

Philosophical difficulties of stakeholder theory

100%

Soin M.

Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym

|

2018

|

vol. 21

|

issue 7

75-84

EN

Philosophical difficulties of stakeholder theory-which plays an important role in CSR and business ethics-are mainly connected to the questions of its status and justification. What sense does stakeholder theory have: descriptive, instrumental or normative? And if normative, why then should executives worry about multiple stakeholder demands? It is well known that Freeman, one of the most important authors of stakeholder theory, deliberately disregarded these problems. In philosophical questions, he invoked Rorty’s pragmatism that in his opinion effectively undermined the “positivistic” dichotomy between facts and values, science and ethics, and enabled stakeholder theory to be understood as both descriptive and normative. The article presents some difficulties connected with this view, focusing on its dubious assumptions and unfavourable consequences. These assumptions contain a false dilemma, taken from Rorty, which states that knowledge follows either a rule of representation or a rule of solidarity. One of the unfavourable consequences is the conclusion that stakeholder theory may be true only if its followers are able to force the stakeholders to accept its truthfulness. The main thesis of the article says that, because of pragmatic justification, stakeholder theory became a sort of arbitrary narration, which is unable to deal with its (empirical) misuses. However, a more traditional view on facts and values enables us to appreciate the descriptive advantages of the theory and to identify difficulties connected with its normative layer. From this point of view, the attempt at a pragmatic interpretation of stakeholder theory was a misunderstanding that should be withdrawn from circulation.

2

Teoria interesariuszy a neopragmatyzm

72%

Soin M.

Prakseologia

|

2017

|

vol. 159

83-106

PL

Celem artykułu jest uporządkowanie zarzutów, jakie – zdaniem autora – należy postawić próbom powiązania teorii interesariuszy z neopragmatyzmem w wersji Rorty’ego. Przedmiotem krytyki jest zwłaszcza stanowisko R. Edwarda Freemana, jednego z głównych autorów i popularyzatorów teorii interesariuszy, który – skądinąd zgodnie z filozoficzną modą – w końcu lat dziewięćdziesiątych porzucił dość szeroko rozpowszechnioną kantowską wersję uzasadnienia teorii interesariuszy na rzecz jej wykładni neopragmatycznej. Dyskutowane zarzuty wynikają wprost ze specyfiki neopragmatycznego ujęcia kwestii prawdy, a także relacji między faktami i wartościami, w szczególności z odrzucenia korespondencyjnej koncepcji prawdy oraz zatarcia różnicy między opisem i normą. Przesadne uogólnienia i fałszywe alternatywy, na jakich opierają się tego rodzaju rozstrzygnięcia, podważają opisowy sens teorii interesariuszy. W rezultacie powiązania z neopragmatyzmem teoria interesariuszy traci jednak również swoje praktyczne zalety, stając się arbitralną narracją niezdolną do uporania się z problemami jej normatywnego zastosowania i dlatego z reguły maskującą rzeczywiste stosunki władzy.

EN

The goal of this article was to sort out the accusations that must be made against attempts to connect stakeholder theory with neopragmatism in Rorty’s version. The main subject of criticism is the stand of R. Edward Freeman, one of the main authors and popularizers of stakeholder theory who – in accordance with philosophical fashion – at the end of the 90s, rejected popular Kantian version of substantiation of stakeholder theory, choosing its neopragmatic interpretation. Discussed accusations result directly from specificity of neopragmatic perspective of the issue of truth, as well as of relations between facts and values, especially from rejection of correspondence concept of the truth and blurring the difference between description and norm. Exaggerated generalizations and false alternatives that such settlements are based on undermine descriptive meaning of stakeholder theory. As a result of connection with neopragmatism, stakeholder theory is also losing its practical values, becoming narration unable to deal with the problems of its normative application and hiding real relations of power.

3

Filozoficzne trudności teorii interesariuszy

72%

Soin M., Lodz University of Technology, msoin@poczta.onet.pl

Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym

|

2016

|

vol. 19

|

issue 3

EN

Philosophical difficulties of stakeholder theory – which plays an important role in CSR and business ethics – are connected first of all with questions of its status and justification. What sense does stakeholder theory have: descriptive, instrumental or normative? And if normative, why then should executives worry about multiple stakeholder demands? It is well known that Freeman, one of the most important authors of stakeholder theory, deliberately disregarded these problems. In philosophical questions he invoked Rorty’s pragmatism, which in his opinion effectively undermined the “positivistic” dichotomy between facts and values, science and ethics, and enabled stakeholder theory to be understood at the same time as both descriptive and normative. The article presents some difficulties connected with this view, focusing on its dubious assumptions and unfavourable consequences. To the assumptions belongs a false dilemma taken from Rorty, which states that knowledge follows either a rule of representation or a rule of solidarity. One of the unfavourable consequences is the conclusion that stakeholder theory may be true only if its followers are able to force the stakeholders to accept its truthfulness. The main thesis of the article says that, as a result of pragmatic justification, stakeholder theory became a sort of arbitrary narration, which is unable to deal with its (empirical) misuses. However, a return to a more traditional view on facts and values enables us to appreciate the descriptive advantages of the theory and to identify difficulties connected with its normative layer. From this point of view, the attempt at a pragmatic interpretation of stakeholder theory was a misunderstanding that should be withdrawn from circulation.

Refine search results

2 Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym

1 Prakseologia

1 2018

1 2017

1 2016

3 Soin M.

1 Lodz University of Technology

1 msoin@poczta.onet.pl

Philosophical difficulties of stakeholder theory

Teoria interesariuszy a neopragmatyzm

Filozoficzne trudności teorii interesariuszy