Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status

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

Abstract

Despite its increasing popularity across management disciplines, stakeholder theory holds an important shortcoming in terms of its guidance for understanding the heterogeneity of stakeholder interests, claims, and behavior toward firms. Specifically, scholars note the inadequacy of generic categories of stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, shareholders, and suppliers) in providing a realistic portrait of the groups and individuals that interact with the firm, opening the theory to much criticism for a ‘simplistic’ and ‘meaningless’ stakeholder concept. In face of this challenge, recent research is pointing to social identity as a mechanism to refine our understanding of stakeholders as names-and-faces, however we argue that despite the advancements offered by the social identity approach, it too presents limitations in its ability to guide managers in prioritizing stakeholder claims. Building on these nascent efforts to offer much needed nuance to a theory of stakeholder identification and prioritization, this paper draws from new advances in the management literature and offers status as an attribute that helps explain and predict how managers accord attention to their various constituents. We set forth five propositions connecting stakeholder status to the attention stakeholders receive from managers. We argue that status is a superior attribute of stakeholder identification and prioritization because it (1) accounts for groups and individuals’ uniqueness within broad categories of stakeholders in a dynamic way, (2) reconciles the dual nature of stakeholders as holding simultaneously a social and an economic identity in their claim toward the firm, and (3) provides a plausible explanation of, and intuitive guidance to, how managers accord attention to their firm’s stakeholders. Implications and future directions for research complete this article.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx and http://www.2020wob.com/. Information accessed October 12, 2015.

  2. https://www.benefitfocus.com/. Information accessed October 12, 2015.

  3. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/08/tiger-woods-losing-another-corporate-sponsor-tag-heuer-spilt-part-ways-amicable/1#.VhviE_lVhHw. Information accessed October 12, 2015.

  4. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-09-02/news/27643757_1_volkswagen-passenger-cars-car-market-beetle. Information accessed October 12, 2015.

  5. https://ycharts.com/companies/VLKPY/assets. Information accessed October 13, 2015.

  6. http://learnbonds.com/123414/amazon-com-inc-amzn-endorses-shopify-as-webstores-die/. Information accessed October 12, 2015.

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), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S., & Eckel, C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing, 13(4), 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Holt, D., & Hahn, T. (2009). What the papers say: Trends in sustainability. JCC, 33, 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 563–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., & Pfarrer, M. (2015). A burden of responsibility: The role of social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellucci, F., & Ertug, G. (2010). What’s in it for them? Advantages of higher-status partners in exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertug, G., & Castellucci, F. (2013). Getting what you need: How reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsund Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A. (1999). Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 228–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goranova, M., & Ryan, L. V. (2014). Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1230–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. The American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 1143–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable debate. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Onculer, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2006). Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., Kim, B. K., & Kim, H. (2011). The importance of status in markets: A market identity perspective. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations. New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Roy, A. (2008). Staging exchange partner choices: When do status and reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2011). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    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), 853–886.

    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 

  • Pearce, J. L. (Ed.). (2011). Status in management and organizations. New York: Cambridge.

  • Perrault, E., & Clark, C. (2015). Environmental shareholder activism: Considering status and reputation in firm responsiveness. Organization & Environment. doi:10.1177/1086026615571939.

  • Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1131–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfarrer, M. D., Smith, K. G., Bartol, K. M., Khanin, D. M., & Zhang, X. (2005). Coming forward: The effects of social and regulatory forces on the voluntary restatement of earnings subsequent to wrongdoing. Organization Science, 19(3), 386–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. The American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M., & Castellucci, F. (1999). Choosing ties from the inside of a prism: Egocentric uncertainty and status in venture capital markets. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M., & Phillips, D. J. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2005). Classics of organization theory (6th ed.). Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4, Special Millennium Issue of the State of Sociological Social Psychology), 284–297.

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thye, S. R. (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 407–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, T. L., Navis, C., & Fisher, G. (2013). Explaining differences in firms’ responses to activism. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13(1), 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. (1983). Organizations as Institutions. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Charleston, 66 George St, B-328, Charleston, SC, 29420, USA

    Elise Perrault

Authors
  1. Elise Perrault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Perrault.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perrault, E. A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status. J Bus Ethics 146, 25–38 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2929-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2929-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation