Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 3/2017

08-07-2015

Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions

Author: Samantha Miles

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 3/2017

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Stakeholder theory is widely accepted but elementary aspects remain indeterminate as the term ‘stakeholder’ is an essentially contested concept (Miles, J Bus Ethics 108:285–298, 2012; Mitchell, Organ Stud 33:1407–1411, 2012), being variously describable, internally complex and open in character (Gallie, Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198, 1956). Such contestability is highly problematic for theory development and empirical testing. The extent of essential contestability, previously unknown, is demonstrated in this paper through a bounded systematic review of 593 different stakeholder theory definitions. As an essentially contested concept, the solution does not lie in a universal stakeholder definition, but in debating the boundaries of stakeholder identification. To this end, this paper presents the first major attempt at sorting, filtering and ordering stakeholder theory and stakeholder definitions to produce a comprehensive, multi-dimensional classification of stakeholder theory. The constructs of the classification model juxtapose existing stakeholder theories and contributions from across the multi-contextual applications of stakeholder theory, thereby providing an invaluable overview of what we know about stakeholder theory in one model. The classification model is then tested with positive results. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion of the implications of classification stakeholder theory definitions, which has for future research.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
The focus of this paper is on the creation and presentation of a new classification model of stakeholder definitions, based on an essentialist approach to classification derived from empirical observation and tested with empirical data. Due to the nature of essentialism such empirical investigation cannot take the form of a pure statistical enquiry as precise factor coefficients are unfeasible and inappropriate.
 
2
Jones and Wicks stressed that the core assumptions of stakeholder theory are that it is a managerial (not ethical) theory which recognises that organisations engage in relationships with many groups and, that stakeholder theory focuses on these relationships in terms of processes and results for the organisation and the stakeholder.
 
3
Not all essentialist approaches are applicable to a classification of stakeholder theory definitions. For example, dimensioning, associated with the periodic table of chemical elements, and hierarchal systematising, associated with the Linnaean biological classification system, and used in the classification of financial reporting systems (Nobes 1983; Seidler 1967) require absolute, mutually exclusive categories which fail to recognise convergence and diffusion of concepts as evident in Kaler’s (2003) ‘combinatory’ stakeholder definitions.
 
4
Thompson et al. (1991) was included in the Mitchell et al. (1997) paper, upon which Kaler (2002) based his analysis. It is not evident how Kaler classified this definition as this paper was not referenced.
 
5
Any seminal definitions included in articles that do not have ‘stakeholder(s)’ in the title are heavily cited in those that do and so are not excluded from analysis (e.g. Stoney and Winstanley 2001).
 
6
The resulting typology may be open to revision if extended to other disciplines such as medicine, psychology or the environmental sciences.
 
7
Consolidated rankings are preferred as individual ranking systems differ according to the severity of the imposed hurdle and the basis for judging quality (author affiliation, academic surveys and citation frequency). Other lists could be used to similar effect e.g. the Association of Business Schools’ academic journal quality guide which would equate to 2* and above. The author acknowledges that such ranking systems are flawed but as with the other filters, it is expected that important contributions excluded by this criteria will be heavily cited by others in the database.
 
8
The review was completed in two stages. The first stage, undertaken in 2009, included all articles up to 2008. This considered 1982 articles in which 435 different stakeholder theory definitions were identified (Miles 2011). In 2012 this was then extended, using the exact bounded systematic review filters to cover 2728 management journal articles published up to 2012.
 
9
A further question is who/what is defining the stakeholder? The variation in nouns describing organisations (firm, organisation, corporation etc.), or stakeholders (actor, group, coalition etc.) are not boundary conditions of identification and, consequently, are not of interest in the development of a classification typology.
 
10
Many attributes have received much attention in the literature but Figs. 2, 3 and 4 refer to the author(s) first identifying the attribute as a determinant for stakeholder identification.
 
11
Freeman (1984) proposed five definitions which are all broadly similar. The variations are shown in parenthesis.
 
12
Normative stakeholder theories are based on eternal values derived from ethical theory, rather than observed norms, and explore the reasons why stakeholders' interests ought to be taken into account in an attempt to alter management behaviour. This is contrasted with the instrumental approach aligned with strategic stakeholder management in which there may be ethical consequences from derived stakeholder benefit but stakeholder management is not necessarily predicated from an ethical basis.
 
13
The apostrophe is used to denote instances where definitions are not in a particular category i.e. a’bcd’ refers to a definition that is not included in categories a and d but is included in b and c.
 
Literature
go back to reference Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.CrossRef Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.CrossRef
go back to reference Adelman, I., & Morris, C. T. (1965). A factor analysis of the interrelationship between social and political variables and per capita gross national product. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79(4), 555–578.CrossRef Adelman, I., & Morris, C. T. (1965). A factor analysis of the interrelationship between social and political variables and per capita gross national product. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79(4), 555–578.CrossRef
go back to reference Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.CrossRef Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.CrossRef
go back to reference Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance; managing in a dynamic environment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance; managing in a dynamic environment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
go back to reference Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative political systems. The Journal of Politics, 18(3), 391–409.CrossRef Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative political systems. The Journal of Politics, 18(3), 391–409.CrossRef
go back to reference Barton, S. L., Hill, N. C., & Sundaram, S. (1989). An empirical test of stakeholder theory predictions of capital structure. Financial Management, 18, 36–44.CrossRef Barton, S. L., Hill, N. C., & Sundaram, S. (1989). An empirical test of stakeholder theory predictions of capital structure. Financial Management, 18, 36–44.CrossRef
go back to reference Boatright, J. R. (2000). Ethics and the conduct of business (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Boatright, J. R. (2000). Ethics and the conduct of business (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
go back to reference Boonstra, A., & Govers, M. J. G. (2009). Understanding ERP system implementation in a hospital by analysing stakeholders. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 177–193.CrossRef Boonstra, A., & Govers, M. J. G. (2009). Understanding ERP system implementation in a hospital by analysing stakeholders. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 177–193.CrossRef
go back to reference Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.CrossRef Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.CrossRef
go back to reference Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43, 649–660.CrossRef Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43, 649–660.CrossRef
go back to reference Bowmann-Larsen, L., & Wiggen, O. (2004). Responsibility in world business: Managing harmful side-effects of corporate activity. New York: United Nations University Press. Bowmann-Larsen, L., & Wiggen, O. (2004). Responsibility in world business: Managing harmful side-effects of corporate activity. New York: United Nations University Press.
go back to reference Brenner S. N. (1993). The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision making: Some propositions and a model. In J. Pasqueroa & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. San Diego. Brenner S. N. (1993). The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision making: Some propositions and a model. In J. Pasqueroa & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. San Diego.
go back to reference Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRef Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRef
go back to reference Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company. Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company.
go back to reference Carson, T. L. (1993). Does the stakeholder theory constitute a new kind of theory of social responsibility? Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(2), 171–176.CrossRef Carson, T. L. (1993). Does the stakeholder theory constitute a new kind of theory of social responsibility? Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(2), 171–176.CrossRef
go back to reference Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.CrossRef Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.CrossRef
go back to reference Clarkson, M. E. (1994). Risk-based model of stakeholder theory. Toronto: The Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics. Clarkson, M. E. (1994). Risk-based model of stakeholder theory. Toronto: The Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics.
go back to reference Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 92–118. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 92–118.
go back to reference Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management, Joseph L. Rotman school of management, University of Toronto, Toronto. Reproduced in 2002. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), 256–264. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management, Joseph L. Rotman school of management, University of Toronto, Toronto. Reproduced in 2002. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), 256–264.
go back to reference Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 121–136.CrossRef Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 121–136.CrossRef
go back to reference Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.CrossRef Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.CrossRef
go back to reference Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 77–87.CrossRef Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 77–87.CrossRef
go back to reference Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.CrossRef Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.CrossRef
go back to reference de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 8–20.CrossRef de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 8–20.CrossRef
go back to reference Dimovski, B., & Brooks, R. (2004). Stakeholder representation on the boards of Australian initial public offerings. Applied Financial Economics, 14, 233–1238.CrossRef Dimovski, B., & Brooks, R. (2004). Stakeholder representation on the boards of Australian initial public offerings. Applied Financial Economics, 14, 233–1238.CrossRef
go back to reference Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–92. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–92.
go back to reference Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–74.CrossRef Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–74.CrossRef
go back to reference Emshoff, J. R & Freeman, R. E. (1978). Stakeholder management. Working paper July, Wharton Applied Research Center, University of Pennsylvania. Emshoff, J. R & Freeman, R. E. (1978). Stakeholder management. Working paper July, Wharton Applied Research Center, University of Pennsylvania.
go back to reference Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
go back to reference Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.CrossRef Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.CrossRef
go back to reference Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2009). An enterprise-wide strategic stakeholder approach to sales ethics. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(3–4), 257–270.CrossRef Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2009). An enterprise-wide strategic stakeholder approach to sales ethics. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(3–4), 257–270.CrossRef
go back to reference Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
go back to reference Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.CrossRef Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.CrossRef
go back to reference Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
go back to reference Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.CrossRef Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.CrossRef
go back to reference Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.CrossRef Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.CrossRef
go back to reference Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of a firm is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of a firm is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.
go back to reference Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.CrossRef Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.CrossRef
go back to reference Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.
go back to reference Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.CrossRef Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.CrossRef
go back to reference Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.CrossRef Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.CrossRef
go back to reference Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardised ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.CrossRef Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardised ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.CrossRef
go back to reference Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRef Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRef
go back to reference Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political concepts. Political Theory, 5(3), 331–348. Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political concepts. Political Theory, 5(3), 331–348.
go back to reference Greenwood, M., & De Cieri, H. (2006). Stakeholder theory and the ethics of human resource management. In A. Pinnington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.), Ethics in human resource management and employment relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenwood, M., & De Cieri, H. (2006). Stakeholder theory and the ethics of human resource management. In A. Pinnington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.), Ethics in human resource management and employment relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Hanly, K. (1992). Hostile takeovers and methods of defense: A stakeholder analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 895–913.CrossRef Hanly, K. (1992). Hostile takeovers and methods of defense: A stakeholder analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 895–913.CrossRef
go back to reference Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7–18.CrossRef Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7–18.CrossRef
go back to reference Heaton, P., Miles, S., & Duhan, S. (2012). Dynamic mapping of stakeholders for dealing with plant closure complexity. Social Business, 2(2), 95–119.CrossRef Heaton, P., Miles, S., & Duhan, S. (2012). Dynamic mapping of stakeholders for dealing with plant closure complexity. Social Business, 2(2), 95–119.CrossRef
go back to reference Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.CrossRef Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.CrossRef
go back to reference Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, H. (2002). The confines of stakeholder management: Evidence from the Dutch manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 387–403.CrossRef Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, H. (2002). The confines of stakeholder management: Evidence from the Dutch manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 387–403.CrossRef
go back to reference Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.CrossRef Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.CrossRef
go back to reference Hofsted, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99.CrossRef Hofsted, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99.CrossRef
go back to reference Jacobs, M. (2006). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, M. (2006). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 8, 319–339. Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 8, 319–339.
go back to reference Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–438. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–438.
go back to reference Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.
go back to reference Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–100.CrossRef Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–100.CrossRef
go back to reference Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.CrossRef Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.CrossRef
go back to reference Kaler, J. (2009). An optimally viable version of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 297–312.CrossRef Kaler, J. (2009). An optimally viable version of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 297–312.CrossRef
go back to reference Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder ‘‘theory’’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRef Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder ‘‘theory’’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRef
go back to reference Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.CrossRef Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.CrossRef
go back to reference Laan, G., Ees, H., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 299–310.CrossRef Laan, G., Ees, H., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 299–310.CrossRef
go back to reference Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.CrossRef Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.CrossRef
go back to reference Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRef Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRef
go back to reference Lawrence, A. T. (2010). Managing disputes with nonmarket stakeholders: wage a fight, withdraw, wait, or work it out? California Management Review, 53(1), 90–113.CrossRef Lawrence, A. T. (2010). Managing disputes with nonmarket stakeholders: wage a fight, withdraw, wait, or work it out? California Management Review, 53(1), 90–113.CrossRef
go back to reference Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 201–217.CrossRef Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 201–217.CrossRef
go back to reference Lehmann, A. (2013). Quality and Governance in High Frequency Trading Systems. University of Oslo, Department of Informatics. Lehmann, A. (2013). Quality and Governance in High Frequency Trading Systems. University of Oslo, Department of Informatics.
go back to reference Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Research notes: Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.CrossRef Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Research notes: Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.CrossRef
go back to reference Madsen, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(2), 77–88.CrossRef Madsen, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(2), 77–88.CrossRef
go back to reference Mahoney, J. (1994). Stakeholder responsibilities: turning the ethical tables. Business Ethics: A European Review, 3(4), 31–35.CrossRef Mahoney, J. (1994). Stakeholder responsibilities: turning the ethical tables. Business Ethics: A European Review, 3(4), 31–35.CrossRef
go back to reference Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 956–977.CrossRef Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 956–977.CrossRef
go back to reference Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Tomas, G., Hult, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.CrossRef Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Tomas, G., Hult, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.CrossRef
go back to reference Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.CrossRef Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.CrossRef
go back to reference Marcoux, A. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 1–24.CrossRef Marcoux, A. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 1–24.CrossRef
go back to reference McLarney, C. (2002). Stepping into the light: Stakeholder impact on competitive adaptation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 255–272.CrossRef McLarney, C. (2002). Stepping into the light: Stakeholder impact on competitive adaptation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 255–272.CrossRef
go back to reference Merrilees, B., Getz, D., & O’Brien, D. (2005). Marketing stakeholder analysis: Branding the Brisbane goodwill games. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 1060–1077.CrossRef Merrilees, B., Getz, D., & O’Brien, D. (2005). Marketing stakeholder analysis: Branding the Brisbane goodwill games. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 1060–1077.CrossRef
go back to reference Miles, S. (2011). Stakeholder definitions: profusion and confusion. EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholders, resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona. Miles, S. (2011). Stakeholder definitions: profusion and confusion. EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholders, resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.
go back to reference Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholders: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 285–298.CrossRef Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholders: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 285–298.CrossRef
go back to reference Miller, R. L., & Lewis, W. F. (1991). A stakeholder approach to marketing management using the value exchange models. European Journal of Marketing, 25(8), 55–68.CrossRef Miller, R. L., & Lewis, W. F. (1991). A stakeholder approach to marketing management using the value exchange models. European Journal of Marketing, 25(8), 55–68.CrossRef
go back to reference Mir, M. Z., & Rahaman, A. S. (2011). In pursuit of environmental excellence: A stakeholder analysis of the environmental management strategies and performance of an Australian energy company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(7), 848–878.CrossRef Mir, M. Z., & Rahaman, A. S. (2011). In pursuit of environmental excellence: A stakeholder analysis of the environmental management strategies and performance of an Australian energy company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(7), 848–878.CrossRef
go back to reference Mitchell, R. K. (2012). Book review: Stakeholder theory: impacts and prospects. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1407–1411.CrossRef Mitchell, R. K. (2012). Book review: Stakeholder theory: impacts and prospects. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1407–1411.CrossRef
go back to reference Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
go back to reference Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
go back to reference Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141–159.CrossRef Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141–159.CrossRef
go back to reference Nair, R. D., & Frank, W. G. (1980). The impact of disclosure and measurement practices on international accounting classifications. Accounting Review, 55, 426–450. Nair, R. D., & Frank, W. G. (1980). The impact of disclosure and measurement practices on international accounting classifications. Accounting Review, 55, 426–450.
go back to reference Nobes, C. W. (1983). A judgmental international classification of financial reporting practices. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 10(1), 1–19.CrossRef Nobes, C. W. (1983). A judgmental international classification of financial reporting practices. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 10(1), 1–19.CrossRef
go back to reference Nuti, D. M. (1997). Democracy and economy: What role for stakeholders? Business Strategy Review, 8(2), 14–20.CrossRef Nuti, D. M. (1997). Democracy and economy: What role for stakeholders? Business Strategy Review, 8(2), 14–20.CrossRef
go back to reference Ojala, J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade. Business History, 50(6), 749–764.CrossRef Ojala, J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade. Business History, 50(6), 749–764.CrossRef
go back to reference Okoye, A. (2009). ‘Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.CrossRef Okoye, A. (2009). ‘Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.CrossRef
go back to reference O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.CrossRef O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.CrossRef
go back to reference Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.CrossRef Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.CrossRef
go back to reference Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 605–615.CrossRef Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 605–615.CrossRef
go back to reference Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
go back to reference Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
go back to reference Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.CrossRef Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.CrossRef
go back to reference Phillips, R. A. (1999). On stakeholder delimitation. Business and Society, 38, 32–34. Phillips, R. A. (1999). On stakeholder delimitation. Business and Society, 38, 32–34.
go back to reference Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 25–41.CrossRef Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 25–41.CrossRef
go back to reference Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef
go back to reference Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
go back to reference Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.CrossRef Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.CrossRef
go back to reference Roberts, A. D. (1995). The very idea of classification in international accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 639–664.CrossRef Roberts, A. D. (1995). The very idea of classification in international accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 639–664.CrossRef
go back to reference Roberts, R. W., & Mahoney, L. (2004). Stakeholder conceptions of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 399–431.CrossRef Roberts, R. W., & Mahoney, L. (2004). Stakeholder conceptions of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 399–431.CrossRef
go back to reference Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 885–910. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 885–910.
go back to reference Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.
go back to reference Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 535–544.CrossRef Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 535–544.CrossRef
go back to reference Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.CrossRef Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.CrossRef
go back to reference Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209–220.CrossRef Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209–220.CrossRef
go back to reference Schneper, W. D., & Guillén, M. (2004). Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile takeovers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 263–295. Schneper, W. D., & Guillén, M. (2004). Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile takeovers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 263–295.
go back to reference Seidler, L. J. (1967). International accounting—the ultimate theory course. The Accounting Review, 42, 775–781. Seidler, L. J. (1967). International accounting—the ultimate theory course. The Accounting Review, 42, 775–781.
go back to reference Shankman, N. A. (1999). Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 319–334.CrossRef Shankman, N. A. (1999). Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 319–334.CrossRef
go back to reference Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholder’s model of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 143–162.CrossRef Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholder’s model of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 143–162.CrossRef
go back to reference Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to product symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation. Journal of Business Research, 22, 95–109.CrossRef Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to product symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation. Journal of Business Research, 22, 95–109.CrossRef
go back to reference SRI (Stanford Research Institute). (1963). Internal memo (unpublished). Stanford Research Institute, California, USA. SRI (Stanford Research Institute). (1963). Internal memo (unpublished). Stanford Research Institute, California, USA.
go back to reference Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Towards stakeholder status for nonhuman nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.CrossRef Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Towards stakeholder status for nonhuman nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.CrossRef
go back to reference Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5, 3–10.CrossRef Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5, 3–10.CrossRef
go back to reference Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626.CrossRef Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626.CrossRef
go back to reference Swanton, C. (1985). On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts. Ethics, 95(4), 811–827.CrossRef Swanton, C. (1985). On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts. Ethics, 95(4), 811–827.CrossRef
go back to reference Teklemariama, D., Azadi, H., Nyssena, J., Haile, M., & Witloxa, F. (2015). Transnational land deals: Towards an inclusive land governance framework. Land Use Policy, 42, 781–789.CrossRef Teklemariama, D., Azadi, H., Nyssena, J., Haile, M., & Witloxa, F. (2015). Transnational land deals: Towards an inclusive land governance framework. Land Use Policy, 42, 781–789.CrossRef
go back to reference Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organizations: a stakeholder approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), 353–366.CrossRef Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organizations: a stakeholder approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), 353–366.CrossRef
go back to reference Thompson, J. K., Wartick, S. L., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Integrating corporate social performance and stakeholder management: Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207–230. Thompson, J. K., Wartick, S. L., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Integrating corporate social performance and stakeholder management: Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207–230.
go back to reference Trinkaus, J., & Giacalone, J. (2005). The silence of the stakeholders: Zero decibel level at Enron. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 237–248.CrossRef Trinkaus, J., & Giacalone, J. (2005). The silence of the stakeholders: Zero decibel level at Enron. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 237–248.CrossRef
go back to reference Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capital hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 685–707.CrossRef Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capital hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 685–707.CrossRef
go back to reference Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRef Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.CrossRef
go back to reference Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., & Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 171–192.CrossRef Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., & Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 171–192.CrossRef
go back to reference Vinten, G. (2000). The stakeholder manager. Management Decisions, 38, 377–383.CrossRef Vinten, G. (2000). The stakeholder manager. Management Decisions, 38, 377–383.CrossRef
go back to reference Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman Publishing. Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman Publishing.
go back to reference Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R, Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–497.CrossRef Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R, Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–497.CrossRef
go back to reference Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management, 7(4), 329–347.CrossRef Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management, 7(4), 329–347.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
Author
Samantha Miles
Publication date
08-07-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Journal of Business Ethics 3/2017 Go to the issue

Premium Partner