 To its critics, stakeholder theory has seemed both incompletely articulated and weakly defended. With respect to articulation, one question that has been pressed is: Who are the stakeholders (Orts &amp; Strudler 2002, 2009)? The groups most commonly identified are shareholders, employees, the community, suppliers, and customers. But other groups have stakes in the firm, including creditors, the government, and competitors. It makes a great deal of difference where the line is drawn, but stakeholder theorists have not provided a clear rationale for drawing it in one place rather than another. Another question is: What does it mean to “balance” the interests of all stakeholders, other than not always giving precedence to shareholders’ interests (Orts &amp; Strudler 2009)? With respect to defense, critics have wondered what the rationale is for managing firms in the interests of all stakeholders. In one place, Freeman (1984) offers an instrumental argument, claiming that balancing stakeholders’ interests is better for the firm strategically than maximizing shareholder wealth (see also Blair &amp; Stout 1999; Freeman, Harrison, &amp; Zyglidopoulos 2018). (Defenders of shareholder primacy say the same thing about their view.) In another, he gives an argument that appeals to Rawls’s justice as fairness (Evan &amp; Freeman 1988; cf. Child &amp; Marcoux 1999).