Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model

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

Abstract

Stakeholder literature has acknowledged the need to complement the extant theory on stakeholder management by more dynamic perspectives. This article makes use of the recent terminology of stakewatcher and stakeseeker to illustrate the dynamic aspect of stakeholder theory transposed in the graphical representation of Freeman’s stakeholder model. Presenting a few selected case studies, it applies the scheme on the concept of value responsibility chain; it exemplifies the role of stakeseekers in various forms of activism, from shareholders, NGOs and government, in the stakeholder mobilisation process. This article clarifies how stakewatchers and stakeseekers can profoundly affect stakeholder salience, especially in crises. The transposition and integration of the dynamic aspect of stakeholder theory into the graphical representation strengthen the forceful pedagogical value of the Freeman’s stakeholder graphical model.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Le Figaro, 16 January 2008 or http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2008/01/16/01001-20080116ARTFIG00430-erika-total-est-coupable.php, retrieved on December, 30th 2008.

  2. Science, 1996; 271, 5246: 140; Science, 1999; 284, 5419, 1443.

  3. Financial Times, April 8th, 2008, March 25th, 2008; April 8th, 2008; Wall Street Journal, April 8th; Media Hong Kong, May 1st, 2008. L’Express, 7 Avril 2008, Le Monde, 7 Avril, 2008.

  4. I owe this phrasing and observation to an anonymous reviewer.

References

  • Alpaslan, C. M., Green, S., & Mitroff, I. (2009). Corporate governance in the context of crises: Towards a stakeholder theory of crisis management. Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management, 17(1), 38–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2006). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (6th ed.). Mason: Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffee, J. (2006). Gatekeepers: The professions and corporate governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, F., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business & Society, 47, 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: Theory and implications. International Business Review, 11, 665–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Elms, H., & Phillips, R. (2009). Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: Corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 879–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2010). Inconsistencies in activist’s behaviour and the ethics of NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 503–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., Harrison, J., & Wicks, A. (2007). Managing for stakeholders. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(102), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education., 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, B. (2008). Turning stakeseekers into stakeholders. A political coalition perspective on the politics of stakeholder influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.

    Article  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 

  • King, B. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T. A., & Rubinstein, S. A. (2000). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization Science, 11(4), 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberg, J.-A., Pajunen, K., Parvinen, P., & Savage, G. (2008). Stakeholder management and path independence in organizational transitions. Management Decision, 46(6), 846–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberg, J.-A., Savage, G., & Pajunen, K. (2003). Strategic stakeholder perspective to ESOP negotiations: The case of United Airlines. Management Decision, 41(4), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lépineux, F. (2005). Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (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 

  • Nasi, J. (1995). What is stakeholder thinking? In J. Nasi (Ed.), Understanding stakeholder thinking. Helsinki: LSR-Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interaction between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nundy, J. (1996). France: Cancer charity falls afoul of audit court. Science, 271(5246), 140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesqueux, Y., & Damak-Ayadi, S. (2005). Stakeholder theory in perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003a). Stakeholder theory and organization ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003b). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., & Caldwell, C. (2005). Value chain responsibility: A farewell to arm’s length. Business and Society Review, 110(4), 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G., Blair, J., Benson, M., & Hale, B. (1992). Urban-rural hospital affiliations: Assessing control, fit, and stakeholder issues strategically. Health Care Management Review, 17(1), 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G., Dunkin, J., & Ford, D. (2004). Responding to a crisis: Stakeholder analysis of community health organizations. Journal of Health and Human Service Administration, 26(3/4), 383–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G., Nix, T., Whitehead, J., & Blair, J. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepers, D. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45(3), 282–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ScienceScope (1999). Crozemarie guilty. Science, 286(5440), 655.

    Google Scholar 

  • ScienceScope (1999). Jacques in the box. Science, 284(5419), 1443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. (2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Business & Society, 40(2), 133–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, M. (2002). NGO strategies for promoting corporate social responsibility. Ethics & International Affairs, 16(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. (2008). Building chains and directing flows. Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business and Society, 47(1), 68–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vlerick Management School, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Fassin

Authors
  1. Yves Fassin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Fassin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fassin, Y. A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model. J Bus Ethics 96 (Suppl 1), 39–49 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0942-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0942-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation