stakeholder theory in perspective

Those who use stakeholder theory as a reference are both underlining the correlation between facts and a certain conceptualisation thereof (Section 1) and trying to make the necessary shift from a “panoptic” analysis akin to a panoramic vision of texts and positions (Section 2) to an “in-depth” one geared towards an understanding of their foundations (Section 3). As a “theory of organisations”, stakeholder theory helps to nourish a relational model of organisations by revisiting questions about “who” is actually working with (and in) the firm. Stakeholder theory is part of a comprehensive project that views the organisation-group relationship as both a foundation and a norm.BUSINESS ETHICS, STAKEHOLDER THEORY

Stakeholder Theory

Though there is clearly a “family resemblance” to the work that is typically done under its bailiwick, stakeholder theory continues to resist precise circumscription. Like the organizations it attempts to understand, the boundaries of the theory remain contentious. While various attempts have been made to clearly define the parameters of stakeholder theory (i.e., Clarkson Center for Business Ethics, 1999; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, et al., 2010; Jones & Wicks, 1999; Phillips, 2003; Phillips, Freeman & Wicks, 2003), none of these efforts has gained universal acceptance. The following, which combines ideas from a variety of well-known sources (Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, 2010; Freeman, 2017), conveys the ideas that tie together stakeholder thinking: Business is a set of value-creating relationships among groups that have a legitimate interest in the activities and outcomes of the firm and upon whom the firm depends to achieve its objectives. It is about how customers, suppliers, employees, financiers (stockholders, bondholders, banks, etc.), communities, and management work cooperatively to create value. Understanding a business means understanding how these relationships work. The manager’s job is to shape and direct these relationships. With these ideas in common, stakeholder theory has struck a chord with scholars across a myriad of academic disciplines (La Plume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008). Particularly in the current age of organizational complexity characterized by subcontracting, outsourcing, joint ventures, “doing business as” (DBA), the “gig economy”, etc., etc., clear thinking about the organization of stakeholders and their cooperative role in value creation is needed more now than ever. By way of setting the stage for the work to come (both within this volume and beyond), below we will examine what we see as the important lingering questions for stakeholder theory

Stakeholder jurisprudence: the new way in human rights

Making use of United Nations (U.N.) materials and documents, Anja Matwijkiw and Bronik Matwijkiw argue that the organization – in 2004 – converted to a stakeholder jurisprudence for human rights. However, references to “stakeholders” may both be made in the context of narrow stakeholder theory and broad stakeholder theory. Since the U.N. does not specify its commitment by naming the theory it credits for its conversion, the authors of the article embark on a comparative analysis, so as to be able to try the two frameworks for fit. The hypothesis is that it is the philosophy and methodology of broad stakeholder theory that best matches the norms and strategies of the U.N. While this is the case, certain challenges nevertheless present themselves. As a consequence of these, the U.N. has to – as a minimum – take things under renewed consideration

The Corporate Social Responsibility Debate

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the arguments concerning corporate social responsibility (CSR). The two sides of the debate are stakeholder theory and shareholder theory. Proponents of stakeholder theory support providing for the discretionary expectations of society. On the other hand, advocates of shareholder theory maintain that businesses should simply obey the law and maximize shareholder wealth. Although CSR is enthusiastically espoused by many social progressives, it is not a panacea for society’s ills. The conclusion of this study is that corporations should focus on legally maximizing shareholder wealth based on ethical principles. CSR should only be pursued if doing so accomplishes this function

Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A knightian insight

The normative foundations of the investor centered model of corporate governance, represented in mainstream economics by the nexus-of-contracts view of the firm, have come under attack, mainly by proponents of normative stakeholder theory. We argue that the nexus-of-contracts view is static and limited due to its assumption of price-output certainty. We attempt a synthesis of the nexus-of-contracts and the Knightian views, which provides novel insights into the normative adequacy of the investor-centered firm. Implications for scholarship and management practice follow from our discussion.Theory of the firm; corporate governance; entrepreneurship; business ethics; stakeholder theory;

Ontological Stakeholder View: An Innovative Proposition

This article describes a theoretical way of understanding business enterprise, for what it is used the stakeholder theory as a theory of the firm. Thus, the purpose of this article is to show an innovative perspective called ontological perspective of stakeholders that relies on a phenomenological model where the subjective perspective of agents is the key, from a purely monetarist model to an economic, social and emotional value creation model, and from a deductive model of stakeholder interests to an inductive model. The main contributions are: add a new perspective to the different classifications made of stakeholder theory, avoid monetarist reductionism under the concept of value in a way that the manager takes into account all interconnected interests of stakeholders, and finally prioritize interests map instead of roles map without accepting the assumption that the role involves joint and no conflicting interests