uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum

, Volume 21, Issue 1–2, pp 113–118 | Cite as

The irony of stakeholder management in Germany: The difficulty of implementing an essential concept for CSR

  • Matthias S. FifkaEmail author


Germany, in most academic works on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR), is regarded as a stakeholder democracy (e.g., Aguilera and Jackson 2003; O’Dwyer 2005; Crane et al. 2004; Crane et al. 2005; Schmidt 2006). Allen et al. (2009, p. 1) attribute this notion to the German legal system which “ensures that firms are stakeholder oriented.” Especially relevant in this context—and key to the perception of Germany as a stakeholder-oriented country—is the system of co-determination (Mitbestimmung), which gives employees the possibility to participate in the organizational decision-making process at all levels. In large listed corporations with more than 2,000 employees, employee representatives are even granted half of the seats on the supervisory board by law.

This model of capitalism, which integrates employee interests to a much higher degree than the Anglo-Saxon model, has also been branded as “Rhenish Capitalism”, a term coined by French economist...


Corporate Social Responsibility German Company Supervisory Board Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Stakeholder Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aguilera R, Jackson G (2003) The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: dimensions and determinants. Acad Manag Rev 28(3):447–465Google Scholar
  2. Albert M (1991) Capitalisme Contre Capitalisme. Le Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen F, Carletti E, Marquez R (2009) Stakeholder capitalism, corporate governance and firm value. EFA 2007 Ljubljana Meetings Paper. Accessed 12 Dec 2012
  4. Ascolese M (2003) European and U.S. multinationals place different emphases on corporate sustainability. PricewaterhouseCoopers Press Release.Google Scholar
  5. Ayuso S, Rodríguez MA, Ricart JE (2006) Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corp Gov 6(4):475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Backhaus-Maul H (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility für Manager. In: Habisch A, Schmidpeter R, Neureiter M (eds) Handbuch Corporate Citizenship. Springer, Berlin, pp 485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett ML (2007) Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 32(3):794–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):488–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CAF (2006) International comparisons of charitable giving. Accessed 22 Dec 2012
  10. Center for Corporate Citizenship Germany (CCCG) (2007) Corporate citizenship in Germany and a transatlantic comparison with the USA. Center for Corporate Citizenship Germany (CCCG), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen S, Bouvain P (2009) Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J Bus Ethics 871:299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane A, Matten D, Moon J (2004) Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. J Bus Ethics 53(1–2):107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane A, Driver C, Kaler J, Parker M, Parkinson M (2005) Stakeholder democracy: towards a multi-disciplinary view. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 14(1):67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport K (2000) Corporate citizenship: a stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Bus Soc 3(2):210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denis D, McConnell J (2003) International Corporate Governance. J Financ Quant Anal 38(1):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dettling W (2008) Wirtschaft als kulturelle Veranstaltung ‒ Über die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unternehmen. In: Backhaus-Maul H, Biedermann C, Naehrlich S (Hrsg) Corporate Citizenship in Deutschland—Bilanz und Perspektiven. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, S 513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esping-Andersen G (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrell OC, Gonzalez-Padron TL, Hult GMT, Maignan I (2010) From market orientation to stakeholder orientation. J Pub Policy and Market 29(1):93–96Google Scholar
  19. Fifka MS (2012) The integration of stakeholders through dialogue in Germany, France and the United States. In: Kotler P, Lindgreen A, Maon F, Vanhamme J (eds) A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: pressures, conflicts, reconciliation. Gower, London, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  20. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman RE, McVea J (2001) A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In: Hitt MA, Freeman RE, Harrison JS (eds) The blackwell handbook of strategic management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 189–207Google Scholar
  22. Frooman J (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):191–205Google Scholar
  23. Giving USA Foundation (2009) U.S. charitable giving estimated to be $307.65 billion in 2008. Accessed 22 Dec 2012
  24. Habisch A, Patelli L, Pedrini M, Schwartz C (2011) Different talks with different folks: a comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. J Bus Ethics 100:381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison JS, St. John CH (1997) Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders. South-Western College Publications, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  26. Heuberger F (2008) CC als Herausforderung an die Politik. In: Habisch A, Schmidpeter R, Neureiter M (Hrsg) Handbuch Corporate Citizenship -- Corporate Social Responsibility für Manager. Springer, Berlin, S 465–476Google Scholar
  27. Holder-Webb L, Cohen JR, Nath L, Wood D (2009) The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. J Bus Ethics 84(4):497–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holtbrügge D, Berg N (2004) How multinational corporations deal with their socio-political stakeholders: an empirical study in Asia, Europe, and the US. Asian Bus Manag 3(3):299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaptein M, van Tulder R (2003) Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Bus Soc Rev 108(2):203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Logsdon JM, Yuthas K (1997) Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and organizational moral development. J Bus Ethics 16:1213–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Dwyer B (2005) Stakeholder democracy: challenges and contributions from social accounting. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 14(1):28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (2009) Society at a Glance 2009 – OECD Social Indicators.,3343,en_2649_34637_2671576_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 22 Nov 2011
  33. Palazzo B (2010) An introduction to stakeholder dialogue. In: Pohl M, Tolhurst N (eds) Responsible business: how to manage a CSR strategy successfully. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 17–42Google Scholar
  34. Sangle S, Babu PR (2007) Evaluating sustainability practices in terms of stakeholders’ satisfaction. Int J Bus Gov Ethics 3(1):56–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt R (2006) Stakeholder orientation, systemic consistency and stability of German corporate governance. Finance and Accounting Working Paper No. 162, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversitätGoogle Scholar
  36. Turnbull S (1994) Stakeholder democracy: redesigning the governance of firms and bureaucracies. J Socio-Economics 23(3):321–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Buren H. (2001) If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 11(3):481–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vos JFJ (2003) Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 10(3):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wheeler D, Elkington J (2001) The end of the corporate environmental report? Or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and communication? Bus Strat Environ 10(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2010) The WBCSD’s approach to engagement. Accessed 22 Nov 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr. Juergen Meyer Endowed Chair for International Business Ethics and SustainabilityCologne Business School (CBS)KölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations