Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:04:20.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tide is Turning on the Separation Thesis?: A Response to Commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Joakim Sandberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In my article “Understanding the Separation Thesis” I noted that most scholars in the business ethics field seemed to have accepted R. Edward Freeman’s argument to the effect that what he calls “the separation thesis” should be rejected. I argue, however, that they seemed to understand this thesis (and its rejection) in quite different ways. This volume contains three responses to my article which, interestingly enough, can be taken to corroborate my original argument. I here make some brief comments on these responses.

Type
Dialogue: Commentators and Author
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 561 - 565
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

Dienhart, J. 2008. “The Separation Thesis: Perhaps Nine Lives are Enough,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 555–59.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1994. “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions,” Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 409–21.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.. 2000. “Business Ethics at the Millennium,” Business Ethics Quarterly 10(4): 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. D., and Freeman, R. E. 2008. “The Impossibility of the Separation Thesis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 541–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, J. 2008. “Understanding the Separation Thesis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2): 213–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wempe, B. 2008. “Understanding the Separation Thesis: Precision After the Decimal Point?” Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 549–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar