Search results

Stakeholder capitalism has been proposed as an alternative way of thinking about business purpose and value creation. However, stakeholder capitalism can only work as an alternative model of business if all stakeholders and their interests are visible to and taken seriously by managers. The purpose of this paper is to untangle the challenges that invisible, marginalized and powerless stakeholders pose for theorizing about stakeholder capitalism.

This paper is conceptual. The authors first briefly outline the promise of stakeholder capitalism for addressing pressing questions about value creation and stakeholder welfare. The authors then conceptualize stakeholder invisibility as the outcome of a particular stakeholder being both powerless and marginal through the prism of moral intensity theory and one of its elements: proximity. This study discusses the ways in which managers can make invisible stakeholders more visible in their decision-making.

For managers truly to manage for stakeholders, as anticipated by stakeholder capitalism, all stakeholders and stakeholder interests must be visible to them. This study analyzes why sometimes they are not, how they can be made more visible and why stakeholder visibility matters for stakeholder capitalism. This study proffers three principles for business practice: ethical commitments to reduce stakeholder invisibility, analyses of business strategies to surface the contributions of marginalized and invisible stakeholders and taking rights seriously.

This study provides a new perspective on stakeholder capitalism by linking the challenge in operationalizing it to the problems of stakeholder invisibility and marginality.

This paper aims to develop a heuristic ethical stance as a provocation for responsible leadership scholarship and practice within entangled human–environment systems. Through consideration of the failures of ethics – in particular Uyghur mass atrocities and their residues in global supply chains – the stance offers a reflexive pathway between the inner value orientation of leaders and the scope of interconnected interests affected by leader action and inaction.

Through an autoethnographic narrative, the applied ethic brings together work by the contemporary Holocaust philosopher John Roth with a motto spread by Anglican educational philosopher and social entrepreneur Charlotte Mason (1842–1923). The failures of ethics centre material, sensorial, religious and relational tensions that are explored through three conversational vignettes relating to the current mass atrocities of Uyghur Turkic Muslims in the Xinjiang region of China.

The resulting ethical stance relates individual personhood to meso and macro levels through Mason’s motto –I am, I can, I ought, I will –and is developed to contain self-reflexivity and identity, conscience informed by testimony, consciousness of the power to protest and resist and intention to pivot. The failures of ethics highlight the apparent centrality of religious ethical traditions to considerations of responsible leadership.

The lack of serious and sustained attention to the ethics in responsible leadership, in particular ethical failures and religious ethics, limits its relevance within entangled systems The paper brings to responsible leadership novel philosophical perspectives to link reflexivity between individual and governance level responses and enliven the imagination of conscience through the ubiquity of complicity.