Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation

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

Abstract

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 article, 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.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    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 

  • Cooper G., Argyris C. (eds): 1998, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 674–676

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. and A. Heene: 2003, ‹Toward Stakeholder Responsibility and Stakeholder Motivation: Systemic and Holistic Perspectives on Corporate Responsibility’, in S. Sharma and M. Starik (eds.), Stakeholders, the Environment and Society: New Perspectives in Research on Corporate Responsibility (Northampton, Edward Elgar Publications), pp.117–139

  • 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 

  • Evan W., Freeman E. (1988). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism In Beauchamp T, Bowie N. (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 97–106

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. and J. McVea: 2001, ‹A Stakeholder Approach to Management: The State of the Art’, in M. Hitt, E. Freeman and J. Harrison (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing), pp. 189–207

  • Friedman A., Miles S. (2002). Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1): 14–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia D. (1999). Practicability, Paradigms, and Problems in Stakeholder Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 228–232

    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.agrh(2004)-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 

  • 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 

  • Hill, C. and T. Jones: 1992, `Stakeholder–Agency Theory', Journal of Management Studies 29(2), 133–154

  • Jansson E. (2005). The Stakeholder Model: The Influence of Ownership and Governance Structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: 1–13

    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 

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

    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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux Alexei M. (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 

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

    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

    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 

  • Neville, B., S. Bell and G. Whitwell: 2004, `Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Toward an Actionable Tool for the Management of Stakeholders', Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, SIM:D1–D6

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organization Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. (2003a). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. (2004) Ethics and A Manager’s Obligations Under Stakeholder Theory. Ivey Business Journal 68: 1–4

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg E. (1996). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance 5(1): 3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan D. (1998). Cognitive Tendencies in International Business Research: Implications of a “Narrow Vision”. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4): 837–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe RA, Putler DS (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 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. Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation. J Bus Ethics 80, 879–888 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation