10 INTRODUCTION
and services, although this is not to say that pursuing profit is inherently
unethical. Walsh distinguishes ‘lucrepathic action’ (profit-making is an all-
encompassing motive) from ‘accumulative action’ (profit-making is moder-
ated by moral constraints) and ‘stipendiary action’ (profit-making is not a
central goal). He reasons that the responsibility of employers is to desist from
acting lucrepathically, and following Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach,
advises that both employers and employees should regard work as more than
just a way of gaining an income. Work, as Sen and others have argued, ought
to function primarily as a meaningful context for the further development of
our capabilities.
The next six chapters in Part II (Analysing HRM) concentrate on the
contemporary organization but still situated within its broader environ-
ment, particularly ethical theories and perspectives on HRM such as stake-
holder theory, moral advocacy, moral decency, cultural leadership, appro-
priation, and contemporary collectivist and individualist moralities. All of
the chapters within this section concentrate on difficult questions of ethics
facing employers, managers, and people working specifically in the HR
function.
Chapter 7 by Michelle Greenwood and Helen De Cieri (Stakeholder theory
and the ethics of HRM) analyses the potential of stakeholder theory as an
approach to formulating and enacting ethical HRM. The authors note that
stakeholder theory focuses on the relationship between organizations and
constituent groups, which they suggest offers a fruitful and alternative way of
conceptualizing ethics in contrast to existing debates on rights and procedural
justice in employment relations. The stakeholder concept narrowly defined
refers to groups that the organization depends on, typically shareowners,
employees, customers, lenders, and society (Freeman 1984). A claimant defi-
nition of stakeholders however is preferred by the authors whereby: ‘A stake-
holder is an individual or group that has a moral claim, by virtue of a sacrifice
or contribution and therefore is owed a moral duty by the organization.’
Greenwood and De Cieri note that the ethical debates in HRM adopt either
a macro-level environmental analysis or a micro-level focus on individual
practices. At the macro end of the scale, the central subject for ethical scrutiny
is HRM as a system. This analysis corresponds to some extent with the SHRM
literature’s focus on multiple practices at the organizational level of analysis
(Wright and Boswell 2002). Macro-level research has the potential to reach
beyond the limitations of these methodologies by conceptualizing the totality
of HRM within the contexts of both corporate and societal levels of analy-
sis. Greenwood and De Cieri review the contribution of stakeholder theory
in managerial discourses and the moral duty of management to act in the
interests of stakeholders and engage them in decision-making. Stakeholder
engagement places specific moral demands on managers through understand-
ing employees as moral claimant stakeholders rather than simply ‘strategic