Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T17:28:06.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stakeholder Capability Enhancement as a Path to Promote Human Dignity and Cooperative Advantage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

Michelle K. Westermann-Behaylo ,
Harry J. Van Buren III  and
Shawn L. Berman
Michelle K. Westermann-Behaylo
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Harry J. Van Buren III
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Shawn L. Berman
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Promoting dignity is at the heart of the human capability approach to development. We introduce the concept of stakeholder capability enhancement, beginning with a discussion of the capability approach to development proposed by Sen (1985) and further advanced by Nussbaum (1990) to incorporate notions of dignity. Thereafter follows a review of the literature on value creation stakeholder management and convergent stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Palmer, & DeColle, 2010; Harrison & Wicks, 2013; Jones & Wicks, 1999), as the foundation for our concept of stakeholder capability enhancement. The remainder of this article develops a model that integrates stakeholder management with the human capability approach to detail the cooperative advantage that accrues to business and its stakeholders, as well as the gains in social wellbeing and dignity, when stakeholder capability enhancement becomes a common enterprise strategy. The model also explores the risks and boundary conditions firms face when seeking to profit from stakeholder capability tradeoffs. In explaining the model, we explore normative responsibilities and consequences with regard to human capabilities and dignity. We conclude with implications for future research.

Keywords

human dignityhuman capability approachcooperative advantagestakeholder managementstakeholder reciprocity
Type
Special Section
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 529 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bartelheimer, P., Leßmann, O & Matiaske, W. 2012. The Capability Approach: A New Perspective for Labor Market and Welfare Policies. Management Revue, 23(2): 91–97.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. 1986. The generalized and the concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy and feminist theory in feminism as critique. Praxis International, 5(4): 402–424.Google Scholar
Bertland, A. 2008. Virtue ethics in business and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1): 25–32.Google Scholar
Bonvini, J. M., Dif-Pradalier, M., & Moachon, E. 2013. A capability approach to restructuring processes: Lessons from a Swiss and a French case study. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. 2009. Stakeholders, reciprocity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 447–456.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A., & Stuart, H. 1996. Value-based business strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 5(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. N., & Cochran, P. 1991. The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications tor Business and society theory and research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. Sundance, UT. Google Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. 2014. Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. 2016. Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2): 229–251.Google Scholar
Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. 2012. Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4): 467–480.Google Scholar
Cebreros, K., & Ganes-Chase, J. 2008. Sustainability in the coffee industry: Getting to the next level. Presentation at the 97th Annual Convention of the NCAUSA, March.Google Scholar
Clark, D. A. 2002. Visions of development: A study of human values. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Daily Monitor . 2014. Treat employees as valuable assets. November 25.Google Scholar
De George, R. T. 1994. International business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
De Munck, J., & Ferreras, I. 2013. Restructuring processes and capability for voice: Case study of Volkswagen, Brussels. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): 397–412.Google Scholar
D’Orazio, D. 2016. Apple Music reportedly approaches half as many paid subscribers as Spotify. The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10745630/apple-music-total-paid-subscribers-vs-spotify, accessed January 27, 2016.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. 2002a. Psychological foundations of incentives (Joseph Schumpeter Lecture). European Economic Review, 46(4): 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. 2002b. Reciprocal fairness, cooperation and limits to competition. In Fullbrook, E. (Ed.), Intersubjectivity in economics: Agents and structures: 28–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. 2002. Why social preferences matter – The impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Economic Journal, 112(478): C1–C33.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. 2002. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. 1998. Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of homo reciprocans. European Economic Review, 42(3): 845–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortune . 2010. Wegmans Food Market. February 8: 6.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 2011. Some thoughts on the development of stakeholder theory. In Phillips, R. A. (Ed.), Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects: 212–233. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3): pp. 88–106.Google Scholar
Gagnon, S., & Cornelius, N. 2000. Re-examining workplace equality: The capabilities approach. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(4): 68–87.Google Scholar
Gandolfi, F. 2014. Why do firms downsize? Journal of Management Research, 14(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
Gasper, D. 1997. Sen’s capability approach and Nussbaum’s capabilities ethic. Journal of International Development, 9(2): 281–302.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giovanola, B. 2009. Re-thinking the anthropological and ethical foundation of economics and business: Human richness and capabilities enhancement. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3): 431–444.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M., & Anderson, E. 2009. I used to be an employee but now I am a ‘stakeholder’: Implications of labeling employees as stakeholders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2): 186–200.Google Scholar
Hahn, T. 2015. Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business and Society, 54(1): 9–51.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 369–406.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. 1996. Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 10(2): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2013. Stakeholder theory, value and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1): 97–124.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. 2013. Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2): 207–238.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. 1981. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Ellington, J. W. (Tran.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Lambert, M., & Vero, J. 2013. The capability to aspire for continuing training in France. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liket, K., & Simaens, A. 2015. Battling the devolution in the research on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2): 285–308.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J III. 2009. Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder activists and corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1): 353–365.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. 2002. Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 155–187.Google Scholar
López-Andreu, M., & Miquel Verd, J. 2013. Employer strategies, capabilities and career development: two case studies of Spanish service firms. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): pp. 345–361.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. 2010. Bourgeois dignity: Why economics can’t explain the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nsehe, M. 2012. Africa’s Most Successful Women: Divine Ndhlukula. Forbes. January 20. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2012/01/20/africas-most-successful-women-divine-ndhlukula/#3d131d803066. Accessed online on July 5, 2015.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1990. Aristotelian social democracy. In Douglas, B., Mara, G., & Richardson, H. (Eds.), Liberalism and the good: 203–252. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1995. Human capabilities, female human beings. In Nussbaum, M. C. & Glover, J. (Eds.), Women, culture and development: 61–104. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2002. Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2): 123–135.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlement: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3): 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2004. Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and global justice. Oxford Development Studies, 32(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2008. Human dignity and political entitlements. In Human dignity and bioethics: Essays commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics: 351–380. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating capabilities. The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C. 2014. Report: Walmart workers cost taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance. Forbes , April 15. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/. Accessed August 15, 2014.Google Scholar
Offerman, T. 2002. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. European Economic Review, 46(8): 1423–1437.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24: 403–442.Google Scholar
Palantir. 2015. Palantir philanthropy engineering 2015 annual impact report . https://www.palantir.com/philanthropy-engineering/annual-report/2015/, accessed January 27, 2016.Google Scholar
Palazzo, G., & Richter, U. 2005. CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4): 387–401.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. 2003. Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4): 309–323.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. A. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Pirson, M., & Dierksmeier, C. 2014. Reconnecting management theory and social welfare: A humanistic perspective—Dignity as the missing link . Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper 2410374.Google Scholar
Reast, J., Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. 2013. Legitimacy-seeking organizational strategies in controversial industries: A case study analysis and a bi-dimensional model. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1): 139–153.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2003. Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), 61–92.Google Scholar
Ruggie, J. G. 2013. Just business: Multinational corporations and human rights. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1096–1120.Google Scholar
Sen, A, 1985. Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1990. Development as capability expansion. In Griffin, K. & Knight, J. (Eds.), Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s: 41–58. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1993. Capability and well-being. In Nussbaum, M. C. & Sen, A. K. (Eds.), The quality of life: 30–53. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shivarajan, S., & Srinivasan, A. 2013. The poor as suppliers of intellectual property: A social network approach to sustainable poverty alleviation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3): 381–406.Google Scholar
Smith, M. L., Spence, R., & Rashid, A. T. 2011. Mobile phones and expanding human capabilities. Information Technologies & International Development, 7(3): 77–88.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. 2013. Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3): 407–442.Google Scholar
Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. 2015. Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1): 65–85.Google Scholar
Subramamian, D., Verd, J. M., Vero, J., & Zimmerman, B. 2013. Bringing Sen’s capability approach to work and human resource practices. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): 292–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramanian, D., & Zimmerman, B. 2013. Training and capabilities in French firms: How work and organisational governance matter. International Journal of Manpower, 34(4): 326–344.Google Scholar
Sundaram, A., & Inkpen, A. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3): 350–363.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.Google Scholar
Van Buren, H. J. 2001. If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3): 481–499.Google Scholar
Velasquez, M., & Brady, F. 1997. Natural law and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(2): 83–107.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. 1997. Asymmetrical reciprocity: On moral respect, wonder, and enlarged thought. In Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy: 38–59. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar