Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Stakeholder Model Refined

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

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen T. 1966. Performance of Information Channels in the Transfer of Technology. Industrial Management Review, 8(1): 87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J. 1980. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriof J., Waddock S., Husted B., Sutherland Rahman, S. 2002. Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Argandona A. 1998. The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10): 1093–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argenti J. 1997, Stakeholders: The Case Against. Long Range Planning, 30(3): 441–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argenti P. 1998. Corporate Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Attarça, M. and T. Jacquot: 2005, ‹La représentation de la Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises: une confrontation entre les approches théoriques et les visions managériales’, Paper presented at the XIViéme Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique, Angers

  • Attas D. 2004. A Moral Stakeholder Theory of the Firm. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3): 312–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham L., Nabatchi T., O’Leary R. 2005. The New Governance: Practices and Process for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review, 65(5): 547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair M. 1998. For Whom Should Corporations be Run?: An Economic Rationale for Stakeholder Management. Long Range Planning, 31(2): 195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright J. 1994. Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: Or, What’s so Special About Shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 393–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie N. 1999. Business Ethics – a Kantian Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell A. 1997. Stakeholders: The Case in Favour. Long Range Planning, 30(3): 446–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen A. 2004. Two Approaches to Stakeholder Identification. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3): 319–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A., Buchholtz A. 2006. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (6th ed.). Mason: Thompson Learning

    Google Scholar 

  • Child J., Marcoux A. 1999. Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2): 207–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. 1994. The Toronto Conference: Reflections on Stakeholder Theory. Business & Society, 33(1): 82–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (ed.): 1998. The Corporation and Its Stakeholders – the Classic and Contemporary Readings. University of Toronto Press

  • Coffee J. 2006. Gatekeepers: The Role of Professions in Corporate Governance. Oxford: University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier J., Roberts J. 2001. An Ethic for Corporate Governance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1): 67–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. and J. Porras: 1994, Built to Last (Harper-Business)

  • Cooper, G. and C. Argyris (eds.): 1998, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management (Blackwell)

  • Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics: A European Perspective (Oxford University Press)

  • Cyert R., March J. 1963. The Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N.: 2008, `To What Extent is Business & Society Literature Idealistic?', Business & Society (Forthcoming)

  • Dill W. 1958. Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958: 409–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, M.: 1932, ‹For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees?’, Harvard Law Review 45(7), 1145–1163 (in Clarkson (ed.), 1998)

  • Donaldson T. 2002. The Stakeholder Revolution and the Clarkson Principles. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 107–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., Dunfee, T. 1994. Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contract Theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 252–284

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egels, N.: 2005, Sorting Out the Mess, A Review of Definitions of Ethical Issues in Business. Center for Business in Society, GRI, Göteborg University

  • Evan W., Freeman E. 1988. A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism. In: Beauchamp T., Bowie N. (eds), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y.: 2008, ‹Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation’, Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5

  • Ferrell O., 2004. Business Ethics and Customer Stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2): 126–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. 1996, Reputation – Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E. 1994. The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E. 1999. Divergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 233–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E. 2000, Business Ethics at the Millenium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1): 169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E.: 2003, Lecture – Stakeholder Management Revisited: What’s the State of the Art? Leuven, 20 November

  • Freeman E. 2004. The Stakeholder Approach Revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3):220–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E., Evan W. 1990. Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4): 337–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E., McVea J. 2001, A Stakeholder Approach to Management: The State of the Art. In Hitt M., Freeman E., Harrison J. (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman E., Reed D. 1994. Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review, 25(3): 88–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman A., Miles S. 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman J. 1999. Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review 24(102):191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga E., Melé, D. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2):51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson K. 2000. The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3): 245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P. and S. Mercier: 2004, ‹Les théories des parties prenantes : une synthèse critique de la littérature’, Actes du Congrès de l’Association francophone des ressources humaines, Montréal. http://www.agrh2004-esg.uqam.ca/pdf/Tome1/Gond_Mercier.pdf

  • Goodpaster K. 1991. Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1): 53–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall J., Vredenburg H. 2005. Managing Stakeholder Ambiguity. MIT Sloan Management Review. 47(1): 11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen U., Bode M., Moosmayer D. 2004. Stakeholder Theory Between General and Contextual Approaches – a German View. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3): 312–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J., Freeman E. 1999. Stakeholders, Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 479–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J., Freeman E. 2004. Democracy in and Around Organizations: Is Organizational Democracy Worth the Effort? Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 49–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J., St. John C. 1996. Managing and Partnering with External Stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2): 46–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Heene A., Dentchev N. 2006. A Strategic Perspective on Stakeholder Management. Accountancy & Bedrijfskunde, 26(1): 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry J. 2001. Missing the Target: Normative Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance Debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1): 159–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill C., Jones T. 1992. Stakeholder – Agency Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 133–154

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M. 2002. Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. 1995. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T., Wicks A. 1999. Convergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–221

    Article  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 

  • Kelly, G., D. Kelly and A. Gamble (eds.): 1997, Stakeholder Capitalism (St. Martin’s Press, New York)

  • Key S. 1999. Toward a New Theory of the Firm: A Critique of Stakeholder “Theory”. Management Decision, 37(4): 317–328

    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 

  • Kotler P.: 1967, Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress G., Van Leeuwen T. 1996. Reading Images – the Grammar of Visual Design. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Langtry B. 1994. Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 431–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lépineux F. 2005, Stakeholder Theory, Society and Social Cohesion. Corporate Governance, 5(2): 99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux A. 2003. A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama M.: 1986, Toward Picture-Coded Information Systems. Futures, 18, 450–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe C. 1998, The Stakeholder Corporation. Business Ethics: A European Review 7(1), 30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A. 1991. Visual Data in Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2(2): 218–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H.: 1979, The Structure of Organizations, A Synthesis of the Research (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H.: 1983, Power in and Around Organizations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs)

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore G. 1999. Tinged Shareholder Theory: Or What’s so Special About Stakeholders? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2): 117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasi, J.: 1995, Understanding Stakeholder Thinking (Helsinki, LSR-Julkaisut Oy)

  • Orts E., Strudler A. 2002. The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 215–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi W.: 1981, Theory Z – How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge (Addison-Wesley, Reading)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascale R., Athos A. 1982, The Art of Japanese Management (Simon & Schuster, New York)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesqueux Y., Damak-Ayadi S. 2005. Stakeholder Theory in Perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2): 5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters T., Waterman R. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York, Harper & Rowe

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R.: 1997, Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. 1999. On Stakeholder Delimitation. Business & Society, 38(1): 32–34

    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., Freeman E., Wicks A. 2003. What Stakeholder Theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4): 479–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R., Reichart J. 2000. The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness-Based Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2): 185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter M. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The Free Press

    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 

  • Post, J., L. Preston and S. Sachs: 2002b, Redefining the Corporation – Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth (Stanford Business Books)

  • Preston L., Donaldson T. 1999. Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 619–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley T. 1997. Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 887–910

    Article  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 

  • Shankman N. 1999. Reframing the Debate Between Agency and Stakeholder Theories of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4-1): 319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence L., Coles A.-M., Harris L. 2001. The Forgotten Stakeholder? Ethics and Social Responsibility in Relation to Competitors. Business and Society Review, 106(4): 331–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg E., 1996. The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance, 1:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoney C., Winstanley D. 2001. Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6): 600–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Valor C. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business & Society Review, 110(2): 191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe L.: 2002, Corporate Governance in a Globalising World: Convergence or Divergence?: A European Perspective (Kluwer, Dordrecht)

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, S.: 2002, ‹Stakeholder Value Equilibrium and the Entrepreneurial Process’, Business Ethics Quarterly, The Ruffin series: Special Issue 3, 45–58

  • Waxenberger B., Spence L. 2003, Reinterpretation of a Metaphor: From Stakes to Claims. Strategic Change, 12: 239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver G., Treviño L. 1994. Normative and Empirical Business Ethics: Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2): 129–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A.: 1995, ‹Cracks in the Foundations of Stakeholder Theory’, Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational Theory, http://www.mgnt.waikato.ac.nz/research/ejrot:Vol1_1/weiss.pdf

  • Werhane, P. and E. Freeman (eds.): 1997, The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics (Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford), pp. 460–462

  • Wheeler D., Silampää M. 1997. The Stakeholder Corporation, a Blueprint for Maximizing Stakeholder Value. London: Pitman

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks A. 1996. Overcoming the Separation Thesis: The Need for a Reconsideration of Business and Society Research. Business & Society, 35(1): 89–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn M. 2001. Building Stakeholder Theory with a Decision Modelling Methodology. Business & Society, 40(2): 133–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe R. A., Putler D. S., 2002. How Tight are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups? Organizational Science, 13(1): 64–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worren N., Moore K., Elliott R. 2002. When Theories Become Tools: Toward a Framework for Pragmatic Validity. Human Relations, 55(10): 1227–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Department of Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat, 22, B 9000, Gent, Belgium

    Yves Fassin

  2. Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Reep 1, B 9000, Gent, 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. The Stakeholder Model Refined. J Bus Ethics 84, 113–135 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation