Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we propose an adaption to stakeholder theory whereby stakeholders are conceptualized on the basis of their social identity. We begin by offering a critical review of both traditional and more recent developments in stakeholder theory, focusing in particular on the way in which stakeholder categories are identified. By identifying critical weaknesses in the existing approach, as well as important points of strength, we outline an alternative approach that refines our understanding of stakeholders in important ways. To do so, we draw on notions of social identity as the fundamental basis for group cohesion, mobilization, and action. A new form of cross-mapping as a basis for stakeholder identification is advanced and key research questions are set out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LGBT:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered

NGOs:

Non-governmental organizations

References

  • Agle, B., & Agle, L. (2007). The stated objectives of the Fortune 500: Examining the philosophical approaches that drive America’s largest firms. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh.

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bart, C. K. (1997). Sex, lies, and mission statements. Business Horizons, 40(6), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartkus, B. R., & Glassman, M. (2007). Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, A. W. (2004). Two approaches to stakeholder identification. Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business and society. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M., et al. (1994). The Toronto conference: reflections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), 82–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Kazmi, B. A. (2010). Business and children: Mapping impacts, managing responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens: Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee, T. W. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Managing corporate social responsibility in a multiple actor context. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunham, L., Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (2006). Enhancing stakeholder practice: A particularized exporation of community. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfax, L. M. (2006). The rhetoric of corporate law: The impact of stakeholder rhetoric on corporate norms. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(3), 675–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2003). Support for rapid growth firms: A comparison of the views of founders, government policymakers, and private sector resource providers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4), 346–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business and Society, 33(2), 150–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Business Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S., & Waddock, S. (1994). Institutional investors and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1035–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Vrendenberg, H. (2005). Managing stakeholder ambiguity. Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelman, J. M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E. (1996). Organizational ethics and the good life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 9, 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Terry, J. D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. E., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder “theory”. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuthesser, L., & Kohli, C. (1997). Corporate identity: The role of mission statements. Business Horizons, 40(3), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J. M. (2005). Towards the relational corporation: From managing stakeholder relationship to building stakeholder relationships (waiting for Copernicus). Corporate Governance, 5(2), 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 605–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(Spring), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. E. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: A market-based and resource-based framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1027–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. I., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: From the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’ to three perspectives on business-society relations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 4, 556–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. A. (1987). Negotiating roles. In F. J. Crosby (Ed.), Spouse, parent, worker: On gender and multiple roles (pp. 11–22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1987). Introducing the problem: Individual and group. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and systems thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 463–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13(1), 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom

Authors
  1. Andrew Crane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trish Ruebottom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Crane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crane, A., Ruebottom, T. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. J Bus Ethics 102 (Suppl 1), 77–87 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1191-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1191-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation