Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:04:05.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Bradley R. Agle ,
Thomas Donaldson ,
R. Edward Freeman ,
Michael C. Jensen ,
Ronald K. Mitchell  and
Donna J. Wood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A quick look at what is happening in the corporate world makes it clear that the stakeholder idea is alive, well, and flourishing; and the question now is not “if ” but “how” stakeholder theory will meet the challenges of its success. Does stakeholder theory’s “arrival” mean continued dynamism, refinement, and relevance, or stasis? How will superior stakeholder theory continue to develop? In light of these and related questions, the authors of these essays conducted an ongoing dialogue on the current state and future of stakeholder thinking. Beginning with a review of research and theory that has developed since the major stakeholder theorizing efforts of the 1990s, the authors individually offer their perspectives on the key issues relevant today to stakeholder thinking, and to suggest possible approaches that might lead toward and enable the continuing development of superior stakeholder theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 153 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2008

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

Abdel-Magid, M. 1979. General-price-level-adjusted historical-cost statements and The Ratio-Scale view: A comment. The Accounting Review, 54 (4): 825–29.Google Scholar
Agle, B., & Agle, L. 2007. The stated objectives of the Fortune 500: Examining the philosophical approaches that drive America’s largest firms. Working Paper. University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
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) 507–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchain, A. A., & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62: 777–95.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. 1984. Individual choice under certainty and uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, A. 1993. Critical accounting theory and practical philosophy: Applying the tools. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 4 (3): 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, B. 1996. Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review (July/August): 100–09.Google Scholar
Bartkus, B., Glassman, M., & McAfee, B. 2006. Mission statement quality and financial performance. European Management Journal, 24 (2): 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S., Wicks, A., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briloff, A. J. 1990. Accountancy and society: A covenant desecrated. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1 (2): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryer, R. A. 1999. A Marxist critique of the FASB’s conceptual framework. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10 (5): 551–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2): 234–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1998. Introduction. In Clarkson, M. B. E. (Ed.), The Corporation and its stakeholders—Classic and contemporary readings : 1–9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cludts, S. 1999. The stakeholders as investors: A response to Etzioni. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9 (4):673–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. In Stigler, G. J. & Boulding, K.E. (Eds.), Readings in Price Theory: 386–405. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
Collins, J., & Porras, J. 1994. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Cooper, C., Taylor, P., Smith, N., & Catchpowle, L. 2005. A discussion of the political potential of social accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16 (7): 951–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T.. 1982. Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T.. 1999. Response: Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 237–41.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Ties that bind. Boston: HBS Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, R., & Pollard, S. 2001. A conceptual framework for a country poverty reduction strategy. Paper presented at The Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming policies and institutions for poverty reduction, Manila.Google Scholar
Egidi, M., & Marris, R. 1995. Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, B. 2001. Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Frederick, W. C. 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2. Business & Society 33 (2): 150–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, W. C.. 2006. Corporation be good!: The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A., & Parmar, B. 2004. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited” Organization Science 15 (3): 364–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2):191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J., 1997. Beyond accounting: The possibilities of accounting and “critical” accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8 (1–2): 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodsell, C. T. 1983. The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Gray, R. 1998. Imagination, a bowl of petunias and social accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9 (2): 205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. 1991. Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J., & Vrendenberg, H. 2005. Managing stakeholder ambiguity: Companies increasingly need to engage a wide range of stakeholders, but managers often underestimate the complexity of the task. Sloan Management Review, 47 (2):11–19.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2006. Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16 (4): 533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, J. 2001. Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 (2):159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–39.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, R. 1944. Social Darwinism in American thought, 1860–1915. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugo, V. 1982 (1862). Les miserables. Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, Ltd.Google Scholar
Jawahar, L. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26 (3): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Michael C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 (2): 235–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T., & Wicks, A. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 206–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jönsson, S. 1994. Changing accounting regulatory structures in the context of a strong state. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 5 (4): 341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaghan, W. N., & Bowker, G. C. 2004. Accounting practices and networks of accountancy: A comment on “what is measured counts” by Kala Saravanamuthu. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15 (3): 325–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochan, T. A., & Rubenstein, S. A. 2000. Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization Science, 11 (4): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1996. Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. 2002. Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): 155–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, R. E. 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22 (2): 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. 1999. Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 553–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcoux, A. 2003. A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (2): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marens, R., & Wicks, A. 1999. Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9 (2): 273–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, R. 1998. A political technology of the body: How labour is organized into a productive force. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9 (2): 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1848. Of production on a large, and production on a small scale. In Robson, J. S. (Ed.), Principles of Political Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K. 1976. Classification theory. Unpublished working paper. University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 853–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitnick, B. M. 1980. The political economy of regulation: Creating, designing, and removing regulatory forms. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mitnick, B. M.. 1981. The strategic uses of regulation—and deregulation. Business Horizons, 24 (2): 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moneva, J., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., & Munoz-Torres, M. J. 2007. The corporate stakeholder commitment and social and financial performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107 (2): 84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neu, D., & Ocampo, E. 2007. Doing missionary work: The World Bank and the diffusion of financial practices. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18 (3): 363–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, S., & Watson, R. 1999. Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 526–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, D. 1961. Europe in the seventeenth century,8th ed. London: A. & C. Black.Google Scholar
Omran, M., Atrill, P., & Pointon, J. 2002. Shareholders versus stakeholders: Corporate mission statements and investor returns. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11 (4): 318–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacioli, L. 1494. Summa de arithmetica, geometrica, proportioni etproportionalita. Venice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajunen, K. 2006. Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (6): 1261–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, D. 1999. Upping the stakes: A response to John Hasnas on the normative viability of the stockholder and stakeholder theories. Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (4): 699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesqueux, Y. 2005. Corporate governance and accounting systems: A critical perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16 (6): 797–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, K. 2006. American theocracy : The peril and politics of radical religion, oil, and borrowed money in the 21st century. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.Google Scholar
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (4): 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, P. M. 1986. Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94 (5):1002–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, P. M.. 1990. Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5): S71–S101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. 2004. Stakeholders versus shareholders: Journalism, business, and ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 19 (2): 119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior. 7: 1–37.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. 2002. A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13 (2): 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S., & Lane, V. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25 (2): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1985. The moral standing of the market. Social Philosophy & Policy, 2 (2): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A.. 1987. On ethics and economics. Oxford : B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, A.. 1997. On economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1776. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Dublin: Whitestone.Google Scholar
Smith, H. J. 2003. The shareholders versus stakeholders debate. Sloan Management Review, 44 (4): 85–90.Google Scholar
Stone, A. 1982. Regulation and its alternatives. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Sundaram, A., & Inkpen, A. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15 (3): 350–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 1999. The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists—not converging theory. Academy of Management Review, 24 (2): 222–27.Google Scholar
Uchetelle, L. 2007. Encouraging more reality in economics. New York Times (January 6), accessed January 6, 2007, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/business/06econ.html?adxnnl=1&ref=business&adxnnlx=1168106947-CQ27C+6uLl+Pp0rPSXyMnA.Google Scholar
Van Buren, H. 2001. If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 (3):481–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. 2005. Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A Knightian insight. Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkataraman, S. 2002. Stakeholder value equilibration and the entrepreneurial process. In Freeman, R. E. & Venkataraman, S. (Eds.), Ethics and Entrepreneurship (The Ruffin Series No. 3): 45–57. Charlottesville, VA: Society for Business Ethics.Google Scholar
Vickrey, D. W. 1979. General-price-level adjusted historical-costs statements and the ratio scale view. The Accounting Review, 54 (2): 31–40.Google Scholar
Vilanova, L. 2007. Neither shareholder nor stakeholder management: What happens when firms are run for their short-term relevant stakeholder? European Management Journal, 25 (2): 146–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10: 758–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13 (2): 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. 2002. Business citizenship: From individuals to organizations. In Freeman, R. E. & Venkataraman, S. (Eds.), Ethics and Entrepreneurship (The Ruffin Series No. 3): 59–94. Charlottesville, VA: Society for Business Ethics.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J., Logsdon, J. M., Lewellyn, P. G., & Davenport, K. 2006. Global business citizenship: A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar