stakeholder theory in perspective

Stakeholder theory diverts attention from creating business success to concentrating on who share its fruits. But what right have stakeholders to make the claims they do? Perhaps a new model is needed. T F J Ambler is Grand Metropolitan Senior

In the development sector, we understand stakeholder, as an individual/ group/ agency who has the power to directly affect the organisation’s future. Those who are devoid of any power are not considered stakeholders. But W. Edward Freeman in his classic text Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984), differed to mention that “stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. A lot more can be said of and about stakeholders, but for the sake of brevity and keeping in view the objective of the write-up, the authors choose their experiences from academia and the field to deliberate on the aspect of stakeholder analysis.

Economic Studies journal, 2021

The article seeks to answer the question: on what foundations is the theory of stakeholders built. The contributions and achievements of economic, political and legal theories and concepts used in this theory, such as strategic management, systems analysis, motivational theories, industrial relations, etc. are revealed. The active implication of stakeholder theory in various recent policy initiatives might shed light on a new road for the development of corporations and society. JEL: G3; M2

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.

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.

Review of Business Management, 2015

Society and Business Review, 2006

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.

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.