Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

What Stakeholder Theory is Not

Abstract
Abstract:

The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations – critical and friendly – of the theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing theory as a starting place for future research.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. S. Adams 1963. “Toward an Understanding of Inequity.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, pp. 422436.

Shawn L. Berman , Andrew C. Wicks , Suresh Kotha and Thomas M. Jones . 1999. “Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship Between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 488506.

Jason A. Colquitt , Donald E. Conlon , Michael J. Wesson , Christopher O. L.H. Porter , and K Yee Ng . 2001. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 425445.

Rene Descartes . 1641/1985. The Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes, ed. Cottingham John , Stoothof Robert , and Murdoch Dugald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

M. Deutsch 1975. “Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used As the Basis for Distributive Justice?” Journal of Social Issues 31(3): 137149.

Thomas Donaldson , and L.E. Preston . 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 20(1): 6591.

R. Edward Freeman . 1994. “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions.” Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4): 409422.

R. Edward Freeman , and Robert A. Phillips . 2002. “Libertarian Stakeholder Theory.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12(3): 331349.

J. Frooman 1999. “Stakeholder Influence Strategies.” Academy of Management Review 24(2): 191205.

D. A. Gioia 1999. “Practicability, Paradigms, and Problems in Stakeholder Theorizing.” Academy of Management Review 24(2): 228232.

Jerald Greenberg . 1990. “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Journal of Management 16(2): 399432.

John Hendry . 2001a. “Missing the Target: Normative Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance Debate.” Business Ethics Quarterly 11(1): 159176.

John Hendry . 2001b.Economic Contracts versus Social Relationships as a Foundation for Normative Stakeholder Theory.” Business Ethics: A European Review 10(3): 223232.

C. W. L. Hill , and T.M. Jones . 1992. “Stakeholder-agency Theory.” Journal of Management Studies 29: 131154.

Thomas M. Jones 1995. “Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics.” Academy of Management Review 20(2): 404437.

Thomas M. Jones , and A.C. Wicks . 1999b. “Letter to AMR Regarding ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory.’Academy of Management Review 24(4): 621623.

G. S. Leventhal 1976. “The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations.” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, ed. L. Berkowitz and E. Walster (New York: Academic Press), pp. 91131.

E. A. Lind , and T. Tyler . 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. (New York: Plenum).

Richard Marens , and Wicks Andrew . 1999. “Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders.” Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2): 273294.

David A. Nadler , and Michael L. Tushman . 1997. Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture (New York: Oxford University Press).

Eric W. Orts , and Strudler Alan . 2002. “The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 215234.

R. A. Phillips 1997. “Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of FairnessBusiness Ethics Quarterly 7 (1): 5166.

R. A. Phillips . 2003. “Stakeholder Legitimacy.” Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1).

R. A. Phillips , and J.M. Margolis . 1999. “Toward an Ethics of OrganizationsBusiness Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 619638.

R. A. Phillips , and J. Reichart . 2000. “The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness Based Approach.” Journal of Business Ethics 23(2): 183197.

Dennis P. Quinn , and Thomas M. Jones . 1995. “An Agent Morality View of Business Policy.” Academy of Management Review 20(1): 2242.

G. G. Sollars 2001. “An Appraisal of Shareholder Proportional Liability.” Journal of Business Ethics 32(4): 329345.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business Ethics Quarterly
  • ISSN: 1052-150X
  • EISSN: 2153-3326
  • URL: /core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 36 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2225 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.