STAKEHOLDER THEORY: ISSUES TO RESOLVE
Emerson Wagner Mainardes (corresponding author)
University of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –
Center for Studies in Management Science
E-mail adress: emerson.wm@sapo.pt; emainardes@kesservice.br
Helena Alves
University of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –
Center for Studies in Management Science
E-mail adress: halves@ubi.pt
Mario Raposo
University of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –
Center for Studies in Management Science
E-mail adress: mraposo@ubi.pt
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this article is to collate and debate the main issues driving the Stakeholder Theory academic debate.
Design/methodology/approach: First, a discussion of the stakeholder concept is set out before moving onto the history and nature of Stakeholder Theory. The work proceeds with an attempt to systematically bring together the points of divergence among researchers interested in Stakeholder Theory and finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a proposed research agenda for the field.
Findings: Based upon the unification of the theoretically problematic issues, research agendas are put forward with the objective of clarifying doubts and resolving the controversies ongoing among academics. As regards the formulation of Stakeholders Theory, one question requiring resolution is that of the stakeholder concept itself. Additionally, further research should focus on the boundaries a
s to what constitutes a stakeholder group as well as defining the criteria for attributing individual membership of one or another group. In practical theoretical application, it is correspondingly necessary to target research on aspects such as conflicts of interest between stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives. Finally, there is a need for research that systematizes the knowledge produced with the objective of attaining the theoretical convergence necessary for the development of Stakeholder Theory.
Originality/value: The main contribution of this article derives from the systematization of the various shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of Stakeholder Theory and the identification of research agendas.
Keywords: Stakeholders; Stakeholder Theory; Stakeholder Concept; Normative Stakeholder Theorizing; Analytical Stakeholder Theorizing; Criticism of Stakeholder Theory.
Paper type: Literature review
1. Introduction
Stakeholder Theory was put forward by Freeman (1984) as a proposal for the strategic management
of organizations in the late 20th century. Over time, this Theory has gained in importance with key works by Clarkson (1994, 1995), Donaldson and Preston (1995), Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), Rowley (1997) and Frooman (1999) enabling both greater theoretical depth and development. From an initially strategic perspective, the Theory evolved and was adopted as a means of management by many market based organizations.
Stakeholder Theory, given it remains a relatively recent addition to the management field, has not been fully developed. According to Fassin (2008), the success of Stakeholder Theory, both in management literature and in business practice, is due in large part to the simplicity inherent to the model. However, over the years, some academics have criticized the vagueness and ambiguity of this Theory. The stakeholder model, backed as it is by its simplicity and clear visual presentation, has stirred debates in academic literature.
Indeed, very few management themes have generated as many published works in recent decades as the underlying concept, the model and theories around stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Gibson, 2000, Wolfe and Putler, 2002, Friedman and Miles, 2006). One of the most salient characteristics of this Theory is the diversity in the points of view that have been expressed within its scope. Correspondingly, there is a low level of theoretical integration whether in terms of the normati
ve, instrumental or descriptive dimensions as well as within the actual dimensions themselves (Lépineux, 2005).
Hence, the objective of this article is to bring together and discuss some of the questions driving Stakeholder Theory academic debate. This research was motivated by the sheer relevance of the Theory to various different areas, especially strategic management, marketing, corporative governance, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, public management, among others.
Similarly, the main contribution of this article derives primarily from the systematization of some of the shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of
Stakeholder Theory. Based upon this unification of the theoretically problematic issues, we then set out research agendas aiming to clarify the doubts and resolve the controversies that have been ongoing among academics.
In order to achieve this objective, this paper is structured as follows: firstly, there is discussion of the stakeholder concept before moving onto the history and nature of Stakeholder Theory and presenting the three approaches that explain the Theory, the normative, instrumental and descriptive approaches. The next stage attempts to systematically bring together the points of divergence amon
g researchers interested in Stakeholder Theory and finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a suggested research agenda for the field.
2. The Stakeholder Concept
The origin of the stakeholder concept lies in the business science literature (Freeman, 1984), and may be traced back even as far as Adam Smith and his “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Its modern utilization in management literature was brought about by the Stanford Research Institute that introduced the term in 1963 so as to generalize and expand the notion of the shareholder as the only group that management needed to be sensitive towards (Jongbloed, Enders and Salerno, 2008). Within this perspective, Freeman (1984) argued that business organizations should be concerned about the interests of other stakeholders when taking strategic decisions.
Although a relatively longstanding term, the development of Stakeholder Theory was set in motion by the work of Freeman (1984). The objective of his work was to delineate an alternative form of strategic management as a response to rising competitiveness, globalization and the growing complexity of company operations. As time went by, the stakeholder concept has taken on greater importance due to public interest, greater coverage by the media, concerns about corporative govern
ance and its adoption as a policy within the scope of the Third Way (Hutton, 1999, Greenwood, 2008).
Meanwhile, in accordance with Friedman and Miles (2006), the term stakeholder has been deployed indiscriminately in the last two decades. The term is highly popular with businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations and even with the media. Despite this widespread usage, many who adopt the term neither define the concept nor provide any particularly clear understanding of what they mean as regards what a stakeholder actually is. Even in academic circles, countless definitions of stakeholder have been put forward without any of those suggested ever gaining consensus and hence there is no single, definitive and
generally accepted definition for stakeholder. The works of Bryson (2004), Buchholz and Rosenthal (2005), Pesqueux and Damak-Ayadi (2005), Friedman and Miles (2006) and Beach (2008) amount to a total of 66 different concepts for the term stakeholder.
Although each researcher defines the concept differently, they do as a rule reflect the same principle to a greater or lesser extent: the company should take into consideration the needs, interests and influences of peoples and groups who either impact on or may be impacted by its policies and operat
ions (Frederick, Post and St. Davis, 1992). Hence, according to Clarkson (1995), the stakeholder concept contains three fundamental factors: the organization, the other actors and the nature of the company-actor relationships.
However, Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) propose that these concepts represent phenomena in themselves, including: the relationship between the company and the stakeholders (as in Freeman, 1994), the position of the stakeholder towards the company (for example, Starik, 1994), the company as dependent upon stakeholders (see Freeman and Reed, 1983), the stakeholder wielding power over the company (according to Brenner, 1995), the stakeholder as dependent on the company (as is the case in Langtry, 1994), the company as holding power over the stakeholder (see Carroll, 1993), the company and stakeholder as mutually dependent (for example, Wicks, Gilbert Jr. and Freeman, 1994), the company and the stakeholder as engaged in contractual relations (as in Hill and Jones, 1992), the stakeholder as holding a right on the company (see Evan and Freeman, 1988), the stakeholder as running some kind of risk (see Clarkson, 1994), the stakeholder as having a moral right over the company (according to Carroll, 1989), or the stakeholder as having an interest in the company (see Clarkson, 1995). In summary, whether broader or more restrictive, these are understandings of the stakeholder concept as connected to organizations and which, according to Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), may guide the actions of a specific organization.
However, despite the countless definitions and differing emphasizes, which may result in distorted conceptual interpretations (Friedman and Miles, 2006), a large majority of studies adopt the definition idealized by Freeman (1984) that individuals or groups may influence or be influenced by the scope of organizational objectives. Within this concept, a person, an informal group, an organization or an institution may all be stakeholders. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) state that the Freeman (1984) definition is so broad that it opens up an infinite scope for stakeholders as even climatic factors may play this role. Hence, there is a need to establish limits to the extent of stakeholders. To this end, Freeman and Evan (1990) reduce the organizational environment to a multilateral agreement between an organization and its stakeholders.
governance
3. History and Nature of Stakeholder Theory
The origins of Stakeholder Theory draw on four key academic fields: sociology, economics, politics and ethics, and especially the literature on Corporate Planning, Systems Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Theory. Freeman (1984), over the course of his work entitled Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, generally accepted as launching the Stakeholder Theory concepts, defines how stakeholders with similar interests or rights form a group. What Freeman (1984) was seeking to explain was the relationship between the company and its external e
nvironment and its behavior within this environment. The author set out his model as if a chart in which the company is positioned at the centre and is involved with stakeholders connected with the company.
In this model, the company-stakeholder relationships are dyadic and mutually independent (Frooman, 1999). According to Fassin (2009), the model proposed by Freeman (1984) may have been inspired by a tool drawn from sociology, the sociogram, which visualizes the frequency of interactions between individuals or groups. The model design was influenced by the traditional capitalist organizational production model in which the company is related only to four groups: the suppliers, employees and shareholders supplying the basic resources that the company transforms into products or services for the fourth group, that is, the clients. Nevertheless, Freeman (1984) also added other groups influenced by company activities and saw the organization as the centre of a series of interdependent relationships (Crane and Matten, 2004).
The ideas of Freeman (1984), which culminated in Stakeholder Theory, emerged out of an organizational context in which the company was perceived as not being self-sufficient and actually dependent on the external environment made up of groups external to the organization, as Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) had earlier observed. These were the external groups that Freeman (1984) term
ed stakeholders. This situation was later handled by Frooman (1999) as resource dependency.
According to Jones and Wicks (1999) and Savage, Dunkin and Ford (2004), the basic premises of Stakeholder Theory are:
•the organization enters into relationships with many groups that influence or are influenced by the company, stakeholders in accordance with Freeman’s (1984) terminology,
•the Theory focuses on the nature of these relationships in terms of processes and results for the company and for stakeholders,

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。