IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v41y2024i2p301-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections

Author

Listed:
  • Vladislav Valentinov
  • Steffen Roth

Abstract

Modern stakeholder theory is premised on the ‘integration thesis’, according to which business and ethics constitute an inseparable unity. For many management scholars, this thesis raised the difficult question of how far business can pursue ethical goals without losing its functional autonomy. We address this question by interpreting the integration thesis as the Luhmannian ‘unity of difference’ of business and ethics. This interpretation allows business and ethics to remain conceptually distinct, yet takes their very distinction to constitute a logical and dialectical unity as envisioned by the integration thesis. To justify this interpretation, we draw on the Luhmannian systems theory which accentuates the precariousness of the environment faced by business corporations, and on process philosophy which underscores the unique human capacity to navigate this precariousness by following social norms of ethical behaviour. We argue that a key prerequisite of successful stakeholder management is the activation of this human capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladislav Valentinov & Steffen Roth, 2024. "Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 301-315, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:41:y:2024:i:2:p:301-315
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2970
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    2. Birte Freudenreich & Florian Lüdeke-Freund & Stefan Schaltegger, 2020. "A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 3-18, September.
    3. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2022. "Stakeholder theory and the knowledge problem: A Hayekian perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 536-545.
    4. Wangjun Zhang & Dongping Fan, 2022. "The system‐process view of life from the perspective of systems science and its enlightenment to artificial life," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 978-985, September.
    5. Alberto Paucar‐Caceres & Melissa Franchini Cavalcanti‐Bandos & Silvia Cristina Quispe‐Prieto & Lucero Nicole Huerta‐Tantalean & Katarzyna Werner‐Masters, 2022. "Using soft systems methodology to align community projects with sustainability development in higher education stakeholders' networks in a Brazilian university," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 750-764, July.
    6. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    7. Sebastian Raisch & Timothy J. Hargrave & Andrew H. van de Ven, 2018. "The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(8), pages 1507-1526, December.
    8. Steffen Roth & Vladislav Valentinov & Markus Heidingsfelder & Miguel Pérez-Valls, 2020. "CSR Beyond Economy and Society: A Post-capitalist Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 411-423, September.
    9. Tommy Jensen & Johan Sandström, 2013. "In Defence of Stakeholder Pragmatism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 225-237, May.
    10. Ermanno Celeste Tortia & Carlo Borzaga, 2020. "Social Enterprises and Welfare Systems. The Role of Multi-stakeholder Governance and Price Discrimination," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 9(2), pages 23-44.
    11. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    12. Burton, Brian K. & Dunn, Craig P., 1996. "Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory 1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 133-147, April.
    13. Jonathan Schad & Pratima Bansal, 2018. "Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(8), pages 1490-1506, December.
    14. Ahrne, Göran & Brunsson, Nils & Seidl, David, 2016. "Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 93-101.
    15. Duska, Ronald, 2000. "Business Ethics: Oxymoron or Good Business?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 111-129, January.
    16. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    17. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    18. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    19. van der Linden, Bastiaan & Freeman, R. Edward, 2017. "Profit and Other Values: Thick Evaluation in Decision Making," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 353-379, July.
    20. Julie Nelson, 2007. "Economics for Humans:," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 17-25.
    21. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valentinov, Vladislav & Roth, Steffen, 2024. "Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 301-315.
    2. Valentinov, Vladislav & Chia, Robert, 2022. "Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 762-776.
    3. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    4. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    5. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    6. Mollie Painter & Mar Pérezts & Ghislain Deslandes, 2021. "Understanding the human in stakeholder theory : a phenomenological approach to affect-based learning," Post-Print hal-03188192, HAL.
    7. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2023. "Stakeholder theory: Toward a classical institutional economics perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88.
    8. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    9. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    10. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    11. Lorenzo Dorigo & Giuseppe Marcon, 2014. "A caring interpretation of stakeholder management for the social enterprise. Evidence from a regional survey of micro social cooperatives in the Italian welfare mix," Working Papers 01, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    12. Vladislav Valentinov, 2023. "Stakeholder Theory: Toward a Classical Institutional Economics Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88, November.
    13. Ali, Tanweer, 2015. "Beyond shareholders versus stakeholders: Towards a Rawlsian concept of the firm," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 126-141.
    14. Silvana Signori & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2009. "Ethical Thinking in Traditional Italian Economia Aziendale and the Stakeholder Management Theory: The Search for Possible Interactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 303-318, November.
    15. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    16. Bastiaan Linden & Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 2024. "How to Assess Multiple-Value Accounting Narratives from a Value Pluralist Perspective? Some Metaethical Criteria," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(2), pages 243-259, June.
    17. Silvana Signori & Leire San-Jose & Jose Luis Retolaza & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2021. "Stakeholder Value Creation: Comparing ESG and Value Added in European Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    18. repec:eme:srjpps:v:6:y:2010:i:2:p:381-392 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. David Weitzner & Yuval Deutsch, 2023. "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 479-492, September.
    20. Itziar Castelló & Michael Etter & Finn Årup Nielsen, 2016. "Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 402-432, May.
    21. Garrod, Brian & Fyall, Alan & Leask, Anna & Reid, Elaine, 2012. "Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1159-1173.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:41:y:2024:i:2:p:301-315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.