caa a22 4500 38807437X CHVBK 20180307125157.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199904 xx s 000 0 eng 10.2307/3857472 doi S1052150X00004371 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.2307/3857472 Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position [Elektronische Daten] We argue that the Rawlsian social contract argument advanced for stakeholder theory by R. Edward Freeman, writing alone and with William M. Evan, fails in three main ways. First, it is true to Rawls in neither form, nor purpose, nor the level of knowledge (or ignorance) required to motivate the veil of ignorance. Second, it fails to tailor the veil of ignorance to the fairness conditions that are required to solve the moral problem that Freeman and Evan set out to solve (whereas Rawls's own use of the device surely tailors the veil of ignorance to the problem of designing a just social order). Third, the argument, considered apart from its claimed Rawlsian pedigree, fails to bolster the stakeholder theory because it fails to demonstrate the rationality of adopting the institutional rules that Freeman and Evan favor. Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1999 Child James W. Marcoux Alexei M. Business Ethics Quarterly Cambridge University Press 9/2(1999-04), 207-223 1052-150X 9:2<207 1999 9 BEQ https://doi.org/10.2307/3857472 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.2307/3857472 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Child James W. NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Marcoux Alexei M. NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Business Ethics Quarterly Cambridge University Press 9/2(1999-04), 207-223 1052-150X 9:2<207 1999 9 BEQ CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge