The popularity of the stakeholder model has been achieved thanks to its powerful visual scheme and its very simplicity. Stakeholder management has become an important tool to transfer ethics to management practice and strategy. Nevertheless, legitimate criticism continues to insist on clarification and emphasises on the perfectible nature of the model. Here, rather than building on the discussion from a philosophical or theoretical point of view, a different and innovative approach has been chosen: the analysis will return to the origin (...) of stakeholder theory and will keep the graphical framework firmly in perspective. It will confront the stakeholder model’s graphical representation to the discussion on stakeholder definition, stakeholder identification and categorisation, to re-centre the debate to the strategic origin of the stakeholder model. The ambiguity and the vagueness of the stakeholder concept are discussed from managerial and legal approaches. The impacts of two major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are examined: the boundaries and the level of the firm’s environment, and the ambivalent position of pressure groups and regulators. Working pragmatically, with a focus on the managerial and organisational perspective, an attempt is made to clarify the categorisations and classifications by introducing new terminology with a distinction between stakeholders, stakewatchers and stakekeepers. The analysis will finally lead to a proposed upgraded and refined version of the stakeholder model, with incremental ameliorations close to Freeman’s original model and a return of focus to its essence, the managerial implications in a strategic approach. (shrink)

We argue that though stakeholder theory has much to recommend it, particularly as a heuristic for thinking about business firmsproperly as involving the economic interests of other groups beyond those of the shareholders or other equity owners, the theory is limited by its focus on the interests of human participants in business enterprise. Stakeholder theory runs into intractable philosophicaldifficulty in providing credible ethical principles for business managers in dealing with some topics, such as the natural environment,that do not directly involve (...) human beings within a business firm or who engage in transactions with a firm. Corporate decision-makingmust include an appreciation of these ethical values even though they cannot be captured in stakeholder theory. (shrink)

Abstract:The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of (...) misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations – critical and friendly – of the theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing theory as a starting place for future research. (shrink)

Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 5th edition employs a stakeholder management framework, emphasizing business' social and ethical responsibilities to both external and internal stakeholder groups. A twin theme of business ethics to illustrate how ethical or moral considerations are included the public issues facing organizations and the decision making process of managers. The text is written from a managerial perspective that along with the twin themes of stakeholders and ethics, shows how to identify stakeholders, incorporate their concerns into (...) the organization's strategy and operations, and also integrate ethical wisdom into their decision making process. In addition, 35 case histories are included to help connect theory and practice through timely and interesting examples. (shrink)

Following on from work on stakeholder identification, this paper constructs a typology of stakeholder theories based on the extent to which serving the interests of non-shareholders relative to those of shareholders is accepted as a responsibility of companies. A typology based on the division of stakeholder theories into normative, descriptive, and instrumental is rejected on the grounds that the latter two designations refer to second order theories rather than divisions within stakeholder theory and the first is a designation which, for (...) the purposes of business ethics, applies to all stakeholder theories. The crucial distinction between stockholder and stakeholder theory is argued to be their respective rejection and acceptance of role-specific responsibilities toward non-shareholders that are `ultimate objective fulfilling''. From this starting point, a typology is constructed using a division of stakeholder theories into those which do and do not give priority to the interests of shareholders over those of non-shareholders, do and do not posit perfect duties towards non-shareholders as well as shareholders, do and do not accept accountability to non-shareholders as well as shareholders. (shrink)

While stakeholder theory has traditionally considered organization’s interactions with stakeholders in terms of independent, dyadic relationships, recent scholarship has pointed to the fact that organizations exist within a complex network of intertwining relationships [e.g., Rowley, T. J.: 1997, The Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887–910]. However, further theoretical and empirical development of the interactions between stakeholders has been lacking. In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding and measuring the effects upon the organization of competing, complementary and cooperative stakeholder (...) interactions, which we refer to as stakeholder multiplicity. We draw upon three forms of fit (i.e. fit as matching, fit as moderation, and fit as gestalts; Venkatraman, N.: 1989) to develop a framework for understanding stakeholder multiplicity based upon the direction, strength, and synergies of the interacting claims. Additionally, we draw upon the theory of stakeholder identification and salience of Mitchell et al. (1997), which we argue provides a more relevant and significantly more illustrative explanation of the nature and effects of stakeholder interactions upon the organization than the network approach of Rowley (1997). Furthermore, we ground our framework through reference to three stakeholder groups (i.e. governments, customers, and employees) and the stakeholder issue of concern for the natural environment. We propose a hierarchy of the multiplicity strength of influence of these three stakeholder groups. Potential measurement and implications are discussed. (shrink)

This article provides a social movement theory—based explanation for the emergence and influence of corporate stakeholders. The author argues that stakeholder influence originates in the collective action of potential stakeholders. Collective action binds individual stakeholders together, assists in the formation of a common identity and interests, and provides the means for stakeholder strategic action. The author suggests three main factors that explain the emergence of stakeholder collective action and its consequent influence: mobilizing structures, corporate opportunities, and framing processes. By focusing (...) more on the collective action necessary for stakeholder influence, we also gain a better understanding of how negotiation processes might unfold between stakeholders and corporate decision makers. (shrink)

Abstract:This paper is a preliminary attempt to better understand the concept of legitimacy in stakeholder theory. The normative component of stakeholder theory plays a central role in the concept of legitimacy. Though the elaboration of legitimacy contained herein applies generally to all “normative cores” this paper relies on Phillips’s principle of stakeholder fairness and therefore begins with a brief description of this work. This is followed by a discussion of the importance of legitimacy to stakeholder theory as well as the (...) general ambiguity of the term. A distinction is then drawn between normative and derivative legitimacy. Reference to this distinction helps distinguish between a relationship with the organization based on direct moral obligation and one based on the power to help or harm the organization. It is concluded that stakeholders who retain the ability to affect the organization arelegitimate(derivatively), but that this legitimacy is derived from the moral obligation owed other (normative) stakeholders and that the two sorts of legitimacy are importantly different from one another. An example of the normative/derivative distinction at work in managerial decision making is elaborated upon and managerial and research implications are then suggested. (shrink)

Definitions of what it is to be a stakeholder are divided into "claimant" definitions requiring some sort of claim on the services of a business, "influencer" definitions requiring only a capacity to influence the workings of the business, and "combinatory" definitions allowing for either or both of these requirements. It is argued that for the purposes of business ethics, stakeholding has to be about improving the moral conduct of businesses by directing them at serving more than just the interests of (...) owners. On that basis, influencer definitions are eliminated on the grounds that they only concern morally neutral strategic considerations and combinatory definitions on the grounds that the combining of ethical and strategic considerations they promise can be less confusingly achieved through an exclusively claimant definition. It is concluded that for the purposes of business ethics, stakeholders are claimants towards whom businesses owe perfect or imperfect moral duties beyond those generally owed to people at large. (shrink)

If stakeholder theory is to become a full theory of business—society relationships, it will have to develop a better understanding of processes by which stakeholders may gain and hold influence over firms. A better understanding of the political processes involved is required. This paper—as well as the papers in this special issue—takes a political `view' to addressing the issue, and thereby extends the currently dominant demographic and structural approaches. It suggests that the influence of stakeholders over firms is the temporary (...) outcome of processes of action, reaction, and interaction among various parties. Consequently, the further advancement of stakeholder theory would benefit from the adoption of process-research methods and thinking. (shrink)

This article focuses stakeholder theory on that critical juncture where stakeholder relationships and corporate policy decisions converge. A case study methodology is described that permits detailed analyses of multiple stakeholders’ objectives; it is suitable for studies of major corporate strategic decisions that are complex, controversial, involve multiple stakeholders, and require strategic trade-offs. The methodology is applied here to the dramatic decision by a Pacific Northwest forest company to phase out traditional clear-cut harvesting methods of old-growth forests. The study’s findings point (...) to new research questions and have theoretical implications for a finer grained conceptualization of stakeholder groups, stakeholder objectives, and stakeholder issues. (shrink)

The success of the stakeholder theory in management literature as well as in current business practices is largely due to the inherent simplicity of the stakeholder model-and to the clarity of Freeman's powerful synthesised visual conceptualisation. However, over the years, critics have attacked the vagueness and ambiguity of stakeholder theory. In this article, rather than building on the discussion from a theoretical point of view, a radically different and innovative approach is chosen: the graphical framework is used as the central (...) perspective. The major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are systematically confronted with the graphical scheme to illustrate their visual impact. The graphical illustrations of the imperfections help explain the sometimes-oversimplified generalisation inherent to every graphical model. They also make some interrelationships easier to understand. The analysis demonstrates that, with the tacit but implicit acceptance of simplification of the discussed explanatory elements, Freeman's framework remains a rather good approximation of reality. Only a few minor changes to the stakeholder model are consequently proposed. (shrink)

Winston evaluates strategies that have been used by international human rights nongovernmental organizations in attempts to influence the behavior of multinational corporations.

Non-governmental organizations and pressure groups have taken up the mission of counterbalancing the huge power of the multinational corporations. Curiously, while most NGOs have a sincere ethical background and a genuine ethical motivation, the way some activist groups and NGOs themselves act does not always live up to the principles they advocate. Research using a multiple case study methodology is used to provide an illustration of various questionable practices followed by pressure groups revealing a range of tactics. The concerns, the (...) objectives and the legitimacy of NGOs and activist groups will be discussed, along with their strategies and tactics. A framework will be developed as a basis for analysing the ethical aspects of the various NGO actions. The analysis of the cases will reveal some worrisome inconsistencies between the demands and the practices of NGOs and activist groups. Should not the means employed by activists and NGOs be consistent with their own espoused or implied values? As power gives responsibility, NGOs should be seen as having corporate stakeholder responsibility. (shrink)

If stakeholder theory is to become a full theory of business—society relationships, it will have to develop a better understanding of processes by which stakeholders may gain and hold influence over firms. A better understanding of the political processes involved is required. This paper—as well as the papers in this special issue—takes a political `view' to addressing the issue, and thereby extends the currently dominant demographic and structural approaches. It suggests that the influence of stakeholders over firms is the temporary (...) outcome of processes of action, reaction, and interaction among various parties. Consequently, the further advancement of stakeholder theory would benefit from the adoption of process-research methods and thinking. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe private provision of security services has attracted a great deal of recent attention, both professional and popular. Much of that attention suggests the questioned moral legitimacy of the private vs. public provision of security. Linking the literature on moral legitimacy and responsibility from new institutional and stakeholder theories, we examine the relationship between moral legitimacy and responsible behavior by both private security companies and their stakeholders. We ask what the moral-legitimacy-enhancing responsibilities of both might be, and contribute to both (...) literatures and their managerial implications by detailing the content of those responsibilities, emphasizing the reciprocal nature of moral obligations. We suggest that the moral legitimacy of the industry depends upon responsible behavior by both PSCsandtheir stakeholders. (shrink)

Many firms, especially transnational corporations, find it increasingly difficult to predict and handle conflicts with external interest groups. In addition to a set of established stakeholders, they face a complex arena of newly emerging “stakeseekers” who also claim to have a stake in the corporation's decision making. Corporations seek to establish relationships with such groups to anticipate and prevent conflicts that could otherwise wreak havoc on their reputation. Through stakeholder engagement, stakeseekers may be turned into stakeholders. It has been argued (...) that in the process, critics are simply co-opted. However, corporate objectives are not necessarily monolithic. Conceived as a political coalition of various interests, the structure of the corporation often reflects societal divisions. Parts of the corporation can thus serve as sounding boards for external claims. Referring to the case of Royal Dutch/Shell in particular, this article shows how a political coalition perspective on the corporation may help to understand and analyze the politics of stakeholder influence. (shrink)

Multinational corporations (MNCs) are the frequent target of nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) in their advocacy efforts. In this article, the author examines NGO advocacy as it occurs in the NGO network and, using insights from the political science literature in conjunction with the resourcebased view of the firm, posits that NGO intranetwork conflict will result in a skewing of corporate social responsibility practices by the multinational corporation toward the MNC's developed country stakeholders. This skewing is a product of the asymmetric accountability (...) of NGOs (upwardly accountable to donors, downwardly accountable to recipients). Developing country government and MNC strategies in the face of such skewing are discussed. (shrink)

This article aims to deepen the understanding of the processes and specific actions aimed at influencing and shaping business practices through dynamic stakeholder relationships. An inductive, longitudinal study of all players involved in a stakeholder conflict identified four clusters of influence tactics that were used by both secondary stakeholders and their target firms: issue raising, issue suppressing, positioning, and solution seeking. The stakeholders studied built elaborate influence chains and worked to direct influence flows. The study contributes to stakeholder theory by (...) offering a refined understanding of both bilateral and mutual-influence tactics, expanding the theory's focus beyond bilateral relationships, and highlighting the use of dependence relationships among multiple embedded organizations to build influence over a specific target, and more generally, an organizational field. These findings are discussed in light of work on social movement organizations and institutional theory. (shrink)