Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:29:12.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology to Generate Value Matrix Weights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Jamshid C. Hosseini  and
Steven N. Brenner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various authors advocate consideration of stakeholder value concerns in organizational decision making. Brenner and Cochran (1990, 1991) propose a stakeholder theory of the firm which contains several propositions and a stakeholder value matrix. In order to begin any stakeholder model validation, an approach is needed to measure stakeholder value and influence weights. We propose a multicriteria decision modeling approach, utilizing the analytic hierarchy process, to estimate stakeholder value matrix weights. This approach is illustrated using a simplified example and suggestions are made regarding the process needed to begin to validate the stakeholder theory of the firm.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 99 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1992

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

Belton, V., & Gear, T. 1983. “On a Short-Coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies.” Omega, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, A.R., 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. N. & Cochran, P. 1990. “A Stakeholder Theory of the Firm.” working paper, MGMT 90-1, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. N. & Cochran, P. 1991. “A Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: Implications for Business and Society Theory and Research.” Proceedings of the International Society for Business and Society, Sundance, Utah.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. 1989. Business & Society. Cincinnati: South-Western.Google Scholar
Decision Support Software, Inc. 1983. Expert Choice. McLean, Virginia: Decision Support Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. S. 1990a. “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 249–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. S. 1990b. “A Clarification of ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’.” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 274–75.Google Scholar
Fairfield, R. P. (ed.) 1981. Madison, J. Federalist 10, in The Federalist Papers. 2nd ed., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, Massachusetts: Pitman.Google Scholar
Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A. Jr., & Harker, P. T. 1989. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M. & Dillon, W. R. 1978. Discrete Discriminant Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E. 1991. “Stakeholder Analysis.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 1 (1): 53–71.Google Scholar
Harker, P. T. 1987. “Incomplete Pairwise Comparisons in the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 9, No., 11, pp. 837–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, P. T. & Vargas, L. G. 1990. “Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’,” by Dyer, J. S.. Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 269–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseini, J. C. & Armacost, R. L. 1990. “Analytic Hierarchy Process: Combining the Micro and Macro Approaches to Decision Making.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences, Portland, Oregon: 750–56.Google Scholar
Marascuilo, L. A. 1966. “Large-Sample Multiple Comparisons.” Psychological Bulletin, 65: 280–90.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. I. 1983. Stakeholders of the Organization Mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C. & Simon, H. A. 1958. “Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving.” Psychological Review, 65: 151–66.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1986a. “Axiomatic Foundations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 841–55.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1986b. “Absolute and Relative Measurement with the AHR The Most Livable Cities in the United States.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Col. 20, No. 6, pp. 327–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1988. Decision Making for Leaders. Pittsburgh PA: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1989. “Decision Making, Scaling, and Number Crunching.” Decision Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 404–09.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1990. “An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’.” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 259–68.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L. 1991. “Some Mathematical Concepts of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Behaviormetrika, No. 29, pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. & Vargas, L. G. 1984. “The Legitimacy of Rank Reversal.” Omega, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 513–16.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B., 1951 (1965 ed). The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Whyte, L. L. 1969. “Organic Structural Hierarchies,” in Unity and Diversity in Systems, Essays in Honor of von Bertalanffy, L.. Jones, R. G. and Brandl, G., eds., New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Wind, Y. & Saaty, T. L. 1980. “Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 12, pp. 641–58.Google Scholar
Robert, Winkler L. 1990. “Decision Modeling and Rational Choice: AHP and Utility Theory.” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 247–48.Google Scholar
Zahedi, F. 1986. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and Its Applications.” Interfaces, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 96–108.Google Scholar