Extended stakeholder theory

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

The objective of this paper is describe how the nature of corporations can and should be reformed to make them an explicit instrument for building an efficient, equitable and sustainable society that is locally controlled. The paper traces how the current concerns over the role of the modern corporation arose from their origin as an explicit instrument of political and economic colonisation. While rights of perpetual succession were consistent with the political origins of corporations, this allows investors to get overpaid with "surplus profits" that exacerbates global inequality in income and wealth. Another problem arises from democracy being undermined by family ownership and/or through what Peter Drucker describes as "pension fund socialism". Tax incentives are proposed to provide shareholders a bigger, quicker less risky short term profit in return for changing corporate constitutions to transfer their property rights to stakeholders over 20 years. The competing interests arising from stakeholder governance introduces self-governance, sustainable competitive advantages and enriches democracy. A Global Community Investment Code to promote the adoption of incentives to create stakeholder corporations is suggested in multi-national forums to counter concerns over globalisation.

Journal of Business Ethics, 2004

This article furthers the argument for a stakeholder theory that integrates into managerial decision-making the relationship between business organizations and the natural environment. The authors review the literature on stakeholder theory and the debate over whom or what should count as a stakeholder. The authors also critique and expand the stakeholder identification and salience model developed by Mitchell and Wood (1997) by reconceptualizing the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, as well as by developing a fourth stakeholder attribute: proximity. In this way, the authors provide a stronger basis for arguing for the salience of the natural environment as the primary and primordial stakeholder of the firm.

Journal of Management Studies, 2002

 Previous literature has led to a lack of appreciation of: the range of organization/stakeholder relations that can occur; the extent to which such relations change over time; as well as how and why such changes occur. In particular, extremely negative and highly conflicting relations between organizations and stakeholders have been ignored. Due to this lack of appreciation it is argued that current attempts at integrating the separate strands of stakeholder theory to achieve a convergent stakeholder theory are premature. A model is presented which combines stakeholder theory with a realist theory of social change and differentiation. This model is intended to highlight why it is important to distinguish different stakeholders. The model also enables an analysis of the organization/stakeholder relationship, which is not exclusively from the organization perspective and which is capable of illuminating why and how organization/stakeholder relations change over time. The history of Greenpeace is used as an example.

Routledge eBooks, 2023

Business and Society 360, 2017

Recognising the stakeholder concept as an essentially contested concept subject to multiple competing interpretations, this chapter presents a systematic meta-theory level conceptual analysis of stakeholder theory. A conceptual enquiry is required for optimal development of stakeholder theory: to reduce conceptual confusion and prevent stakeholder theory from developing into an accumulation of disparate ideas. Methodology A bounded systematic review was undertaken to extract the extant range of stakeholder definitions. Using a meta-level conceptual enquiry the definitions were deconstructed and analysed to establish how these relate to variants of stakeholder theory. Determinants of the stakeholder concept were reconstructed, sorted, filtered and ordered to produce a comprehensive, multidimensional classification of stakeholder theory which was then subjected to empirical testing. Findings 593 different stakeholder interpretations were identified, analysed, sorted and ordered into a classification model based on 4 hyponyms leading to 16 definitional categories. The classification was tested with positive results. Limitations The conceptual enquiry focuses exclusively on management literature: Alternative worldviews may propose alternative variables/classifications. Originality Stakeholder theory has been accused of being an umbrella concept rather than a distinct theory per se. The proposed classification, based on an unparalleled systematic review and meta-level analysis of stakeholder definitions, clearly indicates that stakeholder theory is a single theory. Through the analysis of multi-contextual contributions to Central to stakeholder theory is the concept of the stakeholder, but what is a stakeholder? This appears a simple question but is not one that has been answered with any degree of consensus. The lack of consensus arises from the very nature of stakeholder theory, as an amalgamation of eclectic narratives (Gilbert and Rasche, 2008) spanning strategic management, business ethics, marketing, human resource management, finance and corporate governance as well as far reaching adoption outside of business disciplines. Widely different conceptualisations of stakeholder theory and stakeholder definitions have emerged from these narratives as different definitions and approaches are generated to serve different purposes (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, and DeColle, 2010), each focusing on attributes that are relevant to context. As a consequence hundreds of stakeholder definitions exist (Miles, 2011). Such profusion is testimony to the appeal of stakeholder theory but it is also "one of its prominent theoretical liabilities" (Phillips, Freeman and Wicks, 2003:479) and an issue that opponents, such as Sternberg (1997) are quick to criticize. There have been numerous calls made by academics (e.g.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 2005

Journal of Business Ethics, 2008

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 paper, 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.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 2002

We argue that though stakeholder theory has much to recommend it, particularly as a heuristic for thinking about business firms properly 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 philosophical difficulty 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-making must Include an appreciation of these ethical values even though they cannot be captured in stakeholder theory.

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) theory consists not only of theories, but also a large number of approaches, which are often disputed, complex and uncertain. According to Garriga and Melé CSR theories and related approaches are classified in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, in which the corporation is seen as instrument for wealth generation and its social activities are only a method to achieve economic results; (2) political theories, which cover the power of corporations in society and the good use of this power in the political field; (3) integrative theories, in which the organization is focused on the fulfillment of social demands; and (4) ethical theories, based on ethical responsibilities of corporations to society [1]. Presently, CSR approach has emerged from focusing on the shareholders to stakeholders due to the acknowledgement of the crucial roles of stakeholders in every organization. Stakeholder management and CSR is always connected. Stakeholder theory involves critical stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, media, local communities, NGOs, could be the source of new ideas and opportunities [2]. This article's goal is to examine first the different views to the CSR concepts, to identify the core elements of CSR and also it will explore the development of the stakeholder approach in CSR.

Journal of Business Ethics, 1998

ABSTRACT. The theory of the social responsibility of the firm oscillates between two extremes: one that reduces the firm's responsibility to the obtainment of (the greatest possible) profit for its shareholders, and another that extends the firm's responsibility to ...

Management Decision, 2012

Business & Society, 2017

Does stakeholder theory constitute an established academic field? Our answer is both "yes" and "no." In the more than quarter-century since Freeman's seminal contribution in 1984, this domain has acquired some of the administrative, social, and disciplinary trappings of an established field. Stakeholder research has coalesced around a unique intellectual position: that corporations must be understood within the context of their stakeholder relationships and that this understanding must grow out of the interplay between normative and social scientific insights. Yet, much of this domain remains an unexplored territory. In this article, the authors assess the progress to date toward field status and outline future directions for stakeholder research.

Long Range Planning, 1998

Remuneration, employment security, conditions, training Dividends and share price appreciation Quality, service, safety, value for money Liquidity and solvency of company, value of security, cash generation Stable and enduring relationship Compliance with law, jobs, competitiveness, accurate data Safety of operations, contribution to the community Benign operations, substitution of nonrenewable resources Company reports, employment news, bargaining information Annual report and accounts, merger and takeover information Sales literature, advertising, servicing Cover ratios, collateral, cash forecasts Payment according to terms Reports to official bodies, press releases Safety reports, press reports Environmental reports, compliance reports

Management Decision, 2011

Purpose -The objective of this paper is to collate and debate the main issues driving the stakeholder theory academic debate. Design/methodology/approach -First, a discussion of the stakeholder concept is set out before moving on to the history and nature of stakeholder theory. The work proceeds with an attempt to bring together systematically the points of divergence among researchers interested in stakeholder theory, and, finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a proposed research agenda for the field. Findings -Based on the unification of the theoretically problematic issues, research agenda are put forward with the objective of clarifying doubts and resolving the controversies ongoing among academics. As regards the formulation of stakeholder theory, one question requiring resolution is that of the stakeholder concept itself. Additionally, further research should focus on the boundaries as to what constitutes a stakeholder group as well as defining the criteria for attributing individual membership of one or another group. In practical theoretical application, it is correspondingly necessary to target research on aspects such as conflicts of interest between stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives. Finally, there is a need for research that systematizes the knowledge produced with the objective of attaining the theoretical convergence necessary for the development of stakeholder theory. Originality/value -The main contribution of this paper derives from the systematization of the various shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of stakeholder theory and the identification of research agendas.

2020

Today's business operating environment is increasingly volatile and to compete successfully, organizations continually need to manage well their business. In general, good management implies careful management of the strategic and operational environments of the company, including relations with stakeholders. According to the literature, integrating stakeholder management into strategic management process leads to better performance for the company. <strong>Purpose</strong> : the aim of this paper is to examine the historical development of stakeholder theory and to trace it influence in the strategic management discipline, it aims also to expose the different approachs of stakeholder theory with a focus on its importance as a strategic managerial tool when it is put on practice by proposing a model based on strategic view. <strong>Design / Methodology / Approach -</strong> the paper opts for a thorough review of the existing literature, an analysis of th...