Skip to main content
Log in

Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?

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

Abstract

In recent years, the stakeholder approach has been widely applied in the debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Although many authors of this approach have reviewed many elements of the model, they have unconditionally accepted several criteria assumed by Freeman (1984) to identify stakeholders. In general, stakeholder authors have assumed that (a) the company establishes dyadic relationships with other agents, and (b) decisions made by a company only have foreseen and direct effects on other agents. These criteria have enabled researchers to understand simple processes. However, they have also prevented researchers from explaining how action comes about, and how responsibility is shared, in many complex processes taking place in contemporary societies. Such complex processes involve many agents, and each decision can generate unexpected effects which accumulate or disseminate. Furthermore, the normative structure governing these processes can affect and/or be affected by the actions of agents. In this study, we propose new criteria to expand the stakeholder model and facilitate the study of CSR in such processes.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Cobelas, M., Cirujano, S., & Sánchez-Carrillo, S. (2001). Hydrological and botanical man-made changes in the Spanish wetland of Las Tablas de Daimiel. Biological Conservation, 97(1), 89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi, K. M., Osuji, O. K., & Nnodim, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of global brands: A boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, R. (2002). An examination of organizational ethics. Human Relations, 55(9), 1097–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. (2005). Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, F., & Smucker, J. (2007). The social responsibilities of international business firms in developing areas. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, W., & Thomas, H. (1993). The role of competitive groups in strategy formulation: A dynamic integration of two competing models. Journal of Management Studies, 30(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. (1991). New directions in corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 34(4), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, L. (2011). Losses from failure of stakeholder sensitive processes: Financial consequences for large us companies from breakdowns in product, environmental, and accounting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(2), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragg, W., & Greenbaum, A. (2002). Reasoning about responsibilities: Mining company managers on what stakeholders are owed. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(3), 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aquino, P. (2007). Empowerment and participation: How could the wide range of social effects of participatory approaches be better elicited and compared? The Icfai Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(6), 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lombaerde, P., & Iapadre, P. L. (2008). The world is not flat. World Economics, 9(4), 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2001). Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detomasi, D. A. (2007). The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the US: An institutional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S. P., & Wind, Y. (1987). The myth of globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(1), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, K., & 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 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, E. M. (1989). Business ethics, corporate good citizenship and the corporate social policy process: A view from the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(8), 583–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrella, M. (2000). Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Ottawa: IDRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Ottawa: IDRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1998). A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(4), 679–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2005). The development of stakeholder theory: An idiosyncratic approach. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 417–435). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, P. A. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Geraldi, J. G., Lee-Kelley, L., & Kutsch, E. (2010). The Titanic sunk, so what? Project manager response to unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1982). Profiles and critiques in social theory. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. J. (2002). Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: The case of C&A. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 282–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haykin, S. (2009). Neural networks and learning machines. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P., van den Bosch, F., & van Riel, C. (2002). Stakeholder integration: Building mutually enforcing relationships. Business & Society, 41(1), 36–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, G. (1997). The cognitive analysis of competitive structures: A review and critique. Human Relations, 50(6), 625–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holte-McKenzie, M., Forde, S., & Theobald, S. (2006). Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(4), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idemudia, U. (2009). Oil extraction and poverty reduction in the Niger delta: A critical examination of partnership initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafaari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, E. (2005). The stakeholder model: The influence of ownership and governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 1–13.

    Article  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 

  • Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 13–31.

    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 

  • Krueger, D. A. (2008). The ethics of global supply chains in China—convergences of east and west. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1–2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Linz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løwendahl, B., & Revang, Ø. (1998). Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. C., & Kennedy, P. F. (1993). Advertising and social comparison: Consequences for female preadolescents and adolescents. Psychology & Marketing, 10(6), 513–530.

    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 Journal, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, L. (2002). Participatory program planning: Including program participants and evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(1), 1–14.

    Article  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 

  • Osborne, J. D., Stubbart, C. I., & Ramaprasad, A. (2001). Strategic groups and competitive enactment: A study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özen, S., & Küskü, F. (2009). Corporate environmental citizenship variation in developing countries: An institutional framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. Y., Yun, G. W., McSweeney, J. H., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). Do third-person perceptions of media influence contribute to pluralistic ignorance on the norm of ideal female thinness? Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 569–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J., Shultz, F. C., & Hekman, G. R. (2006). Stakeholder theory and managerial decision-making: Constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2005). Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies, 27(2), 235–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudell, F. (2006). Shopping with a social conscience: Consumer attitudes toward sweatshop labor. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(4), 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, L. V., & Schneider, M. (2003). Institutional investor power and heterogeneity. Business & Society, 42(4), 398–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampler, J. L. (1998). Redefining industry structure for the information age. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Article  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(4), 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzkopf, D. L. (2006). Stakeholder perspectives and business risk perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, R. R., Dávalos, L. M., & Ferraz, G. (2001). Missing the forest for the profits: The role of multinational corporations in the international forest regime. The Journal of Environment Development, 10(4), 345–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2003). Network effects and competition: An empirical analysis of the home video game industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares, C. (2003). Corporate versus individual moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderholm, A. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D. (1996). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12(5), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Massachusetts: Addison-Astley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welcomer, S. A. (2002). Firm-stakeholder networks. Business & Society, 41(2), 251–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. H., & Dickson, M. A. (2002). Apparel manufacturer and retailer efforts to reduce child labor: An ethics of virtue perspective on codes of conduct. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(4), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Rimbau-Gilabert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lopez-De-Pedro, J.M., Rimbau-Gilabert, E. Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?. J Bus Ethics 107, 147–158 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1029-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1029-0

Keywords

Navigation