Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool

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

Abstract

This article revisits and further develops Mitchell et al.’s (Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886, 1997) theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Stakeholder salience holds considerable unrealized potential for understanding how organizations may best manage multiple stakeholder relationships. While the salience framework has been cited numerous times, attempts to develop it further have been relatively limited. We begin by reviewing the key contributions of other researchers. We then identify and seek to resolve three residual weaknesses in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) framework, thereby strengthening its foundations for further development. We argue, first, that urgency is not relevant for identifying stakeholders; second, that it is primarily the moral legitimacy of the stakeholder’s claim that applies to stakeholder salience; and last, that the salience of stakeholders will vary as the degrees of the attributes vary. These insights inform revised definitions of stakeholder salience and legitimacy, and necessitate a new theoretical underpinning for the role of legitimacy. Finally, we present an extensive agenda for future research with the objective of refueling research in stakeholder salience.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A.: 1999. ‘Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. & Fiol, C. M.: 1994. ‘Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation’. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almazan, A., Suarez, J., & Titman, S.: 2009. ‘Firms’ stakeholders and the costs of transparency’. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(3), 871-900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E. & Gibbs, B. W.: 1990. ‘The double-edge of organizational legitimation’. Organization Science, 1, 177-94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannerjee, S. B.: 2001. ‘Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations’. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 489-513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. & Clelland, I.: 2004. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J.: 1991. ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99 - 120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, Z.: 1993. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie (eds.): 1997, Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

  • Berman, S., Wicks, A., Kotha, S., & Jones, T.: 1999. ‘Does stakeholder orientation matter? An empirical examination of the relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance’. Academy of Management Journal. 42(5), 488-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. E.: 1994. ‘A Kantian Theory of Capitalism’, in Ruffin Lecture (Olsson Center for Applied Ethics, Charlottesville, VA).

  • Buysse, K. & Verbeke, A. 2003: ‘Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective’. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453-470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1979. ‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance’. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. R. & Hannan, M. T.: 1989. ‘Density delay in the evolution of organizational population’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 411-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casciaro, T. & Piskorski, M. J.: 2005. ‘Power imbalance, mutual dependence and constraint adoption: A closer look at resource dependence theory’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995. ‘A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance’. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. & Matten, D.: 2007. Business ethics: A European perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. & Carter, S. M.: 2005. ‘An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation’. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. & Heugens, P.P.M.A.R.: 2008. ‘Linking social issues to organizational impact: The role of infomediaries and the infomediary process’. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 541-553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. and M. Suchman: 2008, ‘Legitimacy in Organizational Institutionalism’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. (Sage Publications, Far East Square, Singapore), pp. 49–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M.: 2009. ‘Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility’. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W.: 1983. ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T.: 1994. ‘Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory’. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252-284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T.: 1999. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    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 

  • Driscoll, C. & Starik, M.: 2004. ‘The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment’. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee, T. W.: 2008. ‘Stakeholder theory: Managing corporate social responsibility in a multiple actor context’. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. S. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, 346-362, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C. & Lenox, M. J.: 2006. ‘Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action’. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A.: 1964. Modern organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M. & Freeman, R. E.: 1993. ‘A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism’. In Beauchamp, T. L. & Bowie, N. E. (Eds.): Ethical Theory and Business, 75-93. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E.: 1984. Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N.: 1997. ‘Social skills and institutional theory’. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 397-405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J. & Raven, B.: 1959. ‘The bases of social power’. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, 150-167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J.: 1999. ‘Stakeholder influence strategies’. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadenne, D., Kennedy, J., & McKeiver, C.: 2009. ‘An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs’. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 45-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A.: 1999. ‘Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing’. Academy of Management Review, 24, 228-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, A.: 2000. ‘Making sense of postmodern business ethics’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 645-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B. and Schaefer, A.: 2001. ‘Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: A study of U.K. electricity and water utilities’. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 243-260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. 1999: ‘The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J.: 1999. ‘Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry’. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351-71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.: 2007. ‘Maximization, incomparability, and managerial choice’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 497-513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hybels, R. C.: 1995. ‘On legitimacy, legitimation, and organizations: A critical review and integrative theoretical model’. Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management 38, 241–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Jensen, M. C.: 2008. ‘Non-rational behavior, value conflicts, stakeholder theory, and form behavior’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 167-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M.: 1991. ‘Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model’. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A.: 2007. ‘Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture’. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137-155.

    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 

  • Knox, S. & Gruar, C.: 2007. ‘The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization’. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2), 115-135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L.: 1969. ‘Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization’. In Golin, D. A. (ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research, 347-480. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. T., Weber, J., & Post, J. E.: 2005. Business and Society: Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P.: 2000. ‘A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business’. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185-204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotila, P.: 2010. ‘Corporate responsiveness to social pressure: An interaction-based model’. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 395-409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magness, V.: 2008. ‘Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood theory of stakeholder salience’. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 177-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B.: 2005. ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada’. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 657-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux A. M. (2000) ‘Balancing act’. In: DeJardins J. R., McCall J. J. (Eds) Contemporary issues in business ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, pp. 92-100.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D.: 2001. ‘Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective’. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menguç B., Auh S., & Ozanne L.: 2010. ‘The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance’. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 279-298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B.: 1977. ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-63.

    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), 853-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski, E. & Earley, P. C.: 2000. ‘A selective review of time assumptions in strategy research’. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 796-812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasi, J., Nasi, S., Phillips, N., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C.: 1997. ‘The evolution of corporate social responsiveness’. Business and Society, 36(3), 296-321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A. & Menguç, B.: 2006. ‘Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders’. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377-391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Higgins, E. R. E.: 2010. ‘Corporations, civil society, and stakeholders: An organizational conceptualization’. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 157-176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C.: 1991. ‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’. The Academy of Management Review, 161(1), 145-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes. S. L.: 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajunen, K.: 2006. ‘Stakeholder influences in organizational survival’. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1261-1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G & Scherer, A. G.: 2006. ‘Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework’. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71-88.

    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(1), 1-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1960. Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M.: 1993. ‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based view’. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S.: 2008. ‘After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization’. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 730-749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R.: 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R.: 2003. Stakeholder theory and organization ethics. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N. and N. Malhotra: 2008, ‘Taking social construction seriously: Extending the discursive approach in institutional theory’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby, R. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. (Sage Publications, Far East Square, Singapore), pp. 702–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R.: 1979. Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J.: 2008. ‘Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management’. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233-250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, S. B. & Buchholz, R. A.: 2000. Rethinking business ethics: A pragmatic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J.: 1997, `Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences', The Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887–910

  • Rowley, T. J. & Moldoveanu, M.: 2003. ‘When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization’. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M. & Scott, W. R.: 1998. ‘A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 877-904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D.: 1991. ‘Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders’. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R.: 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P.: 1979. ‘A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns’, The Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C.: 1995. ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K. & Inkpen, A. C.: 2004a. ‘The corporate objective revisited’. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K. & Inkpen, A. C.: 2004b. ‘Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”: A reply’. Organization Science, 15(3), 370-371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Bos, R.: 1997. ‘Business ethics and Bauman ethics’. Organization Studies, 18, 997-1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Bos, R. & Willmott, H.: 2001. ‘Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reason and emotion in working life’. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 769-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usborne, D.: 2009. ‘Shell Settles Nigerian human rights abuses lawsuit for $15.5 m Shell settles Nigerian human rights abuses lawsuit for $15.5 m’, The Independent online, June 9.

  • van Oosterhout, J, Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Kapstein, M.: 2006. ‘The internal morality of contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics’. Academy of Management Review, 31, 521-539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B.: 1997. ‘The corporate social performance-financial performance link’. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, J.: 1994. Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M.: 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B.: 1984. ‘A resource based view of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171 - 180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, Jr., D. R., & Freeman, R. E.: 1994. ‘A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475-498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. I. & Keller L. R.: 2001. ‘A modelling methodology for multiobjective multistakeholder decisions: Implications for research’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10, 166-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S.: 2004. ‘The path to corporate responsibility’. Harvard Business Review, 82, 125-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A. & Zeitz, G. J.: 2002. ‘Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy’. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

    Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell & Gregory J. Whitwell

Authors
  1. Benjamin A. Neville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon J. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregory J. Whitwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin A. Neville.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. & Whitwell, G.J. Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool. J Bus Ethics 102, 357–378 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation