IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/08-529.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Stakeholder Model Refined

Author

Listed:
  • Y. FASSIN

Abstract

The popularity of the stakeholder model has been achieved thanks to its powerful visual scheme and its very simplicity. Stakeholder management has become an important tool to transfer ethics to management practice and strategy. Nevertheless, legitimate criticism continues to insist on clarification and emphasises on the perfectible nature of the model. Here, rather than building on the discussion from a philosophical or theoretical point of view, a different and innovative approach has been chosen: the analysis will return to the origin of stakeholder theory and will keep the graphical framework firmly in perspective. It will confront the stakeholder model’s graphical representation to the discussion on stakeholder definition, stakeholder identification and categorisation, to re-centre the debate to the strategic origin of the stakeholder model. The ambiguity and the vagueness of the stakeholder concept are discussed from managerial and legal approaches. The impacts of two major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are examined: the boundaries and the level of the firm’s environment, and the ambivalent position of pressure groups and regulators. Working pragmatically, with a focus on the managerial and organisational perspective, an attempt is made to clarify the categorisations and classifications by introducing new terminology with a distinction between stakeholders, stakewatchers and stakekeepers. The analysis will finally lead to a proposed upgraded and refined version of the stakeholder model, with incremental ameliorations close to Freeman’s original model and a return of focus to its essence, the managerial implications in a strategic approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:08/529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_08_529.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/406 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Donaldson, Thomas, 2002. "The Stakeholder Revolution and the Clarkson Principles," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 107-111, April.
    4. Marcoux, Alexei M., 2003. "A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Carroll, Archie B., 1991. "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 39-48.
    6. Langtry, Bruce, 1994. "Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 431-443, October.
    7. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    8. Orts, Eric W. & Strudler, Alan, 2002. "The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 215-233, April.
    9. Ouchi, William, 1981. "Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 82-83.
    10. Alan D. Meyer, 1991. "Visual Data in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 218-236, May.
    11. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 25-41, January.
    12. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Boatright, John R., 1994. "Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: or, What's so Special About Shareholders?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 393-407, October.
    15. Christopher Stoney & Diana Winstanley, 2001. "Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Terrain," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 603-626, July.
    16. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    17. Child, James W. & Marcoux, Alexei M., 1999. "Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 207-223, April.
    18. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    19. Richard A. Wolfe & Daniel S. Putler, 2002. "How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 64-80, February.
    20. Salma Damak-Ayadi & Yvon Pesqueux, 2005. "stakeholder theory in perspective," Post-Print halshs-00154129, HAL.
    21. Hendry, John, 2001. "Missing the Target: Normative Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance Debate," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 159-176, January.
    22. Egels, Niklas, 2005. "Sorting out the mess. A Review of Definitions of Ethical Issues in Business," GRI-rapport 2005:4, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Research Institute GRI.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Jesus Munoz-Torres & Maria Angeles Fernandez-Izquierdo & Luisa Nieto-Soria & Juana Maria Rivera-Lirio & Elena Escrig-Olmedo & Raul Leon-Soriano, 2009. "SMEs and corporate social responsibility. The perspective from Spanish companies," International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 270-288.
    2. D. Vazquez-Brust & C. Liston-Heyes & J. Plaza-Úbeda & J. Burgos-Jiménez, 2010. "Stakeholders Pressures and Strategic Prioritisation: An Empirical Analysis of Environmental Responses in Argentinean Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 171-192, February.
    3. Nikolai Mouraviev & Nada K. Kakabadse, 2014. "Risk allocation in a public-private partnership: a case study of construction and operation of kindergartens in Kazakhstan," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 621-640, May.
    4. Réka Saáry, 2019. "The Relationship Between Stakeholder Orientation And Strategy Of Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 13(1), pages 435-445.
    5. Cristian PARASCHIV & Cosmin TILEAGĂ, 2019. "Financial Sustainability Of The Sovereign Development And Investment Fund (Sdif), Between Theory And Practice," Management of Sustainable Development, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 1-7, December.
    6. Rahizah Abd Rahim Author_Email: rahizah@utar.edu.my & Morni Hayati Jaafar Sidik & Farah Waheeda Jalaludin, 2011. "The Importance Of Corporate Social Performance To The Prospective Employees In Malaysia," International Conference on Management (ICM 2011) Proceeding 2011-090-351, Conference Master Resources.

    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. 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.
    2. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    3. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    4. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    5. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    6. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    11. Giovanni Ferri & Angelo Leogrande, 2015. "Was the Crisis due to a shift from stakeholder to shareholder finance? Surveying the debate," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 108, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    12. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    13. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    14. Sefa Hayibor, 2017. "Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 43-64, January.
    15. Yves Fassin, 2008. "Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(4), pages 879-888, July.
    16. Brink, Alexander, 2011. "Spezifische Investitionen als Legitimationsgrundlage für Stakeholderansprüche," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 65(1), pages 50-68.
    17. Tae Wan Kim & Alan Scheller-Wolf, 2019. "Technological Unemployment, Meaning in Life, Purpose of Business, and the Future of Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 319-337, December.
    18. Jose Lopez-De-Pedro & Eva Rimbau-Gilabert, 2012. "Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 147-158, May.
    19. Velamuri, Rama & Venkataraman, Sankaran, 2005. "Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A knightian insight," IESE Research Papers D/591, IESE Business School.
    20. Ulf Richter, 2010. "Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 625-649, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stakeholder; stakewatcher; stakekeeper; stakeholder model; stakeholder theory; strategy; graphical framework; Freeman’s model; pressure groups; business ethic;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rug:rugwps:08/529. 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: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    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.