Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 107, Issue 2, pp 147–158 | Cite as

Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?



In recent years, the stakeholder approach has been widely applied in the debate on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Although many authors of this approach have reviewed many elements of the model, they have unconditionally accepted several criteria assumed by Freeman (1984) to identify stakeholders. In general, stakeholder authors have assumed that (a) the company establishes dyadic relationships with other agents, and (b) decisions made by a company only have foreseen and direct effects on other agents. These criteria have enabled researchers to understand simple processes. However, they have also prevented researchers from explaining how action comes about, and how responsibility is shared, in many complex processes taking place in contemporary societies. Such complex processes involve many agents, and each decision can generate unexpected effects which accumulate or disseminate. Furthermore, the normative structure governing these processes can affect and/or be affected by the actions of agents. In this study, we propose new criteria to expand the stakeholder model and facilitate the study of CSR in such processes.


Stakeholder approach Effects Relationships Corporate responsibility Contemporary societies 


  1. Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(3), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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), 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez-Cobelas, M., Cirujano, S., & Sánchez-Carrillo, S. (2001). Hydrological and botanical man-made changes in the Spanish wetland of Las Tablas de Daimiel. Biological Conservation, 97(1), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaeshi, K. M., Osuji, O. K., & Nnodim, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in supply chains of global brands: A boundaryless responsibility? Clarifications, exceptions and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, R. (2002). An examination of organizational ethics. Human Relations, 55(9), 1097–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Beekun, R. I., & Badawi, J. A. (2005). Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. London: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bird, F., & Smucker, J. (2007). The social responsibilities of international business firms in developing areas. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bogner, W., & Thomas, H. (1993). The role of competitive groups in strategy formulation: A dynamic integration of two competing models. Journal of Management Studies, 30(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowie, N. (1991). New directions in corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 34(4), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A stakeholder framework of analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, L. (2011). Losses from failure of stakeholder sensitive processes: Financial consequences for large us companies from breakdowns in product, environmental, and accounting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(2), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cragg, W., & Greenbaum, A. (2002). Reasoning about responsibilities: Mining company managers on what stakeholders are owed. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(3), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. D’Aquino, P. (2007). Empowerment and participation: How could the wide range of social effects of participatory approaches be better elicited and compared? The Icfai Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(6), 76–87.Google Scholar
  20. De Lombaerde, P., & Iapadre, P. L. (2008). The world is not flat. World Economics, 9(4), 159–180.Google Scholar
  21. De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2001). Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 60.Google Scholar
  22. Detomasi, D. A. (2007). The multinational corporation and global governance: Modelling global public policy networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO activism in Europe and the US: An institutional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.Google Scholar
  27. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Business School Press.Google Scholar
  28. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory and the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  29. Douglas, S. P., & Wind, Y. (1987). The myth of globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
  30. Driscoll, K., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  32. Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Epstein, E. M. (1989). Business ethics, corporate good citizenship and the corporate social policy process: A view from the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(8), 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Estrella, M. (2000). Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  36. Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Ottawa: IDRC.Google Scholar
  37. Etzioni, A. (1998). A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(4), 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  41. Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Freeman, R. E. (2005). The development of stakeholder theory: An idiosyncratic approach. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 417–435). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. French, P. A. (1984). Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  45. Geraldi, J. G., Lee-Kelley, L., & Kutsch, E. (2010). The Titanic sunk, so what? Project manager response to unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Giddens, A. (1982). Profiles and critiques in social theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and identity in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  48. Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Graafland, J. J. (2002). Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: The case of C&A. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Haykin, S. (2009). Neural networks and learning machines. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Heugens, P., van den Bosch, F., & van Riel, C. (2002). Stakeholder integration: Building mutually enforcing relationships. Business & Society, 41(1), 36–60.Google Scholar
  54. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line. Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hodgkinson, G. (1997). The cognitive analysis of competitive structures: A review and critique. Human Relations, 50(6), 625–654.Google Scholar
  56. Holte-McKenzie, M., Forde, S., & Theobald, S. (2006). Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(4), 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Idemudia, U. (2009). Oil extraction and poverty reduction in the Niger delta: A critical examination of partnership initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jafaari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jansson, E. (2005). The stakeholder model: The influence of ownership and governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder “theory”. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Krueger, D. A. (2008). The ethics of global supply chains in China—convergences of east and west. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1–2), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Linz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201–217.Google Scholar
  68. Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92–102.Google Scholar
  69. Løwendahl, B., & Revang, Ø. (1998). Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 755–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Martin, M. C., & Kennedy, P. F. (1993). Advertising and social comparison: Consequences for female preadolescents and adolescents. Psychology & Marketing, 10(6), 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 Journal, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  72. Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nichols, L. (2002). Participatory program planning: Including program participants and evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Osborne, J. D., Stubbart, C. I., & Ramaprasad, A. (2001). Strategic groups and competitive enactment: A study of dynamic relationships between mental models and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Özen, S., & Küskü, F. (2009). Corporate environmental citizenship variation in developing countries: An institutional framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1261–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Park, S. Y., Yun, G. W., McSweeney, J. H., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). Do third-person perceptions of media influence contribute to pluralistic ignorance on the norm of ideal female thinness? Sex Roles, 57(7–8), 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pesqueux, Y., & Damak-Ayadi, S. (2005). Stakeholder theory in perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organization ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  82. Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.Google Scholar
  83. Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & De Meyer, A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.Google Scholar
  85. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Post, J., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.Google Scholar
  88. Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Reynolds, S. J., Shultz, F. C., & Hekman, G. R. (2006). Stakeholder theory and managerial decision-making: Constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder interests. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2005). Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies, 27(2), 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  93. Rudell, F. (2006). Shopping with a social conscience: Consumer attitudes toward sweatshop labor. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(4), 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ryan, L. V., & Schneider, M. (2003). Institutional investor power and heterogeneity. Business & Society, 42(4), 398–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sampler, J. L. (1998). Redefining industry structure for the information age. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schwarzkopf, D. L. (2006). Stakeholder perspectives and business risk perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sears, R. R., Dávalos, L. M., & Ferraz, G. (2001). Missing the forest for the profits: The role of multinational corporations in the international forest regime. The Journal of Environment Development, 10(4), 345–364.Google Scholar
  100. Shankar, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2003). Network effects and competition: An empirical analysis of the home video game industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Soares, C. (2003). Corporate versus individual moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Söderholm, A. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  104. Tapscott, D. (1996). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  105. Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12(5), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Massachusetts: Addison-Astley.Google Scholar
  107. Welcomer, S. A. (2002). Firm-stakeholder networks. Business & Society, 41(2), 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wolfe, J. H., & Dickson, M. A. (2002). Apparel manufacturer and retailer efforts to reduce child labor: An ethics of virtue perspective on codes of conduct. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(4), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Maria Lopez-De-Pedro
    • 1
  • Eva Rimbau-Gilabert
    • 2
  1. 1.C.U. VillanuevaMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Business ScienceOpen University of Catalonia (UOC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations