For a Unified Stakeholder Management Science: How Computational Ontologies Can Mend a Broken Theory

Philosophy of Management:1-27 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This research explores how stakeholder scholarship can evolve into a puzzle-solving tool, akin to more advanced scientific fields. Only a unified stakeholder management science can address issues like firms that, despite the looming threat of climate disaster, prioritize profits over environmental concerns. Such unification, however, depends on a computational turn of mind outlined herein. Stakeholder scholarship has failed to progress toward this end, because stakeholder theory has fallen short of shedding light on the inner workings of the firm in search of the mechanisms that govern its relations with stakeholders, instead lingering over the outermost parts of the social phenomena where stakeholder macro dynamics are obvious. This lays open several hurdles that must be overcome for stakeholder scholarship to become a puzzle-solving tool at the service of the environment and society. Thus, a computational fix may be within reach in the next few decades if the following five steps, elaborated upon herein, guide the transition: 1) probe firm-level mechanisms, 2) focus on qualitative institutional data, 3) adopt computational language to reduce ambiguities, 4) develop algorithms for how activities discharge powers or capacities to fulfill functions, and 5) break with peer-review silos that have made stakeholder theory self-referential.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,314

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Harmful Stakeholder Strategies.Jeffrey S. Harrison & Andrew C. Wicks - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics 169 (3):405-419.
Stakeholder Friction.Kirsten Martin & Robert Phillips - 2022 - Journal of Business Ethics 177 (3):519-531.
A “Black Box” of Stakeholder Thinking.Kalle Pajunen - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):27-32.

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-02-19

Downloads
1 (#1,965,087)

6 months
1 (#1,595,537)

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking about mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
The Tragedy of the Commons.Garrett Hardin - 1968 - Science 162 (3859):1243-1248.
Explanation: a mechanist alternative.William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):421-441.
Rethinking mechanistic explanation.Stuart Glennan - 2002 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S342-353.
Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation.Stuart Glennan - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (S3):S342-S353.

View all 28 references / Add more references