Freeman (1984) les définit comme “ tout groupe ou individu qui peut affecter ou qui peut être affecté par la E R Freeman et W M Evan (1990) ont, pour leur
Freeman (1984) les définit comme “ tout groupe ou individu qui peut affecter ou qui peut être affecté par la E R Freeman et W M Evan (1990) ont, pour leur
ethiquepesqueux
Pour Evan et Freeman (1983/1993, p 259), la notion de parties prenantes est ainsi une généralisation de celle d'actionnaires, qui a été indûment privilégiée
cazal dietrich
Evan and Freeman (1993) considered that acting in a moral responsible manner entailed two significant principles The first principle involved harming the
défendue par Freeman et quelques co-auteurs (Evan et Wicks en général) représentent le cœur théorique du modèle des parties prenantes (I) Dans un second
Les usages contemporains de la notion de partie prenante
Freeman and Evan favor. In "Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation" R. Edward Freeman and William M. Evan1 argue that stakeholders
and "management" (as a central node) whereas Freeman and Evan ulti- mately viewed the firm "as a series of multilateral contracts among [all] stakeholders" (
Abstract: We argue that the Rawlsian social contract argument advanced for stakeholder theory by R. Edward Freeman writing alone and with William M. Evan
ome years ago Ed Freeman and William Evan wrote an article offering a Kantian stakeholder theory of corporate responsibility. Ed was kind enough to allow.
Freeman and Evan (1990) have argued to the contrary
Evan W. and E. Freeman: 1988
**. The law of corporations gives a less clearcut answer to the question: In whose interest and for whose benefit should the modern corporation be governed?
In "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis" Kenneth Goodpaster suggests William M. Evan and R. Edward Freeman "A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern ...
Particularly not as Evan and Freeman. (1993) point out
.
Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position