Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 108, Issue 3, pp 285–298 | Cite as

Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?

Article

Abstract

The concept of the ‘stakeholder’ has become central to business, yet there is no common consensus as to what the concept of a stakeholder means, with hundreds of different published definitions suggested. Whilst every concept is liable to be contested, for stakeholder research, this is problematic for both theoretical and empirical analysis. This article explores whether this lack of consensus is conceptual confusion, which would benefit from further debate to try to reach a higher degree of elucidation, or whether the stakeholder concept is essentially contested, rendering the quest to seek a singular definition unfeasible. The theory of essentially contested concepts was proposed by Gallie (Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198, 1956). The seven criteria Gallie prescribes for evaluating essentially contested concepts are applied to the stakeholder concept. The analysis suggests that this concept is an essentially contested concept and this explains the degree of definitional variation.

Keywords

Stakeholder Stakeholder definitions Essentially contested concepts 

References

  1. Abbey, R. (2005). Is liberalism now an essentially contested concept? New Political Science, 27(4), 461–480.Google Scholar
  2. Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C., Mitchell, R. K., & Wood, D. J. (2008). Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(2), 153–190.Google Scholar
  3. Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance: Managing in a dynamic environment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  4. Argandoña, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1093–1102.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23, 5–26.Google Scholar
  6. Bendheim, C. L., Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1998). Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis. Business & Society, 37, 306–339.Google Scholar
  7. Blair, M. M. (1998). Whose interests should corporations serve? In M. B. E. Clarkson (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary reading. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boatright, J. R. (1994). Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: Or what’s so special about shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 393–407.Google Scholar
  9. Boatright, J. R. (2002). Contractors as stakeholders: Reconciling stakeholder theory with the nexus-of-contracts firm. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, 1837–1852.Google Scholar
  10. Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of capitalism. Business Ethics Quarterly, The Ruffin Series, Special Issue, 1, 37–60.Google Scholar
  11. Brenner, S. N. (1993). The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision making: Some propositions and a model. In J. Pasquero & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, pp. 205–210.Google Scholar
  12. Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 133–147.Google Scholar
  13. Care, N. S. (1973). On fixing social concepts. Ethics, 84(1), 10–21.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Does stakeholder management have a dark side? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 491–507.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, B. (1979). Eccentrically contested concepts. British Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 122–126.Google Scholar
  17. Clarkson, M. E. (1994). Risk-based model of stakeholder theory. Toronto: The Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics.Google Scholar
  18. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 92–118.Google Scholar
  19. Collier, D., Hidalgo, F. D., & Maciuceanu, A. O. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3), 211–246.Google Scholar
  20. Connolly, W. E. (1983). Essentially contested concepts in politics. In Terms of Political Discourse (2nd edn). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  22. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 107–122.Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–92.Google Scholar
  24. Driscoll, C., & Crombie, A. (2001). Stakeholder legitimacy management and the qualified good neighbor: The case of Nova Nada and JDI. Business & Society, 40, 442–471.Google Scholar
  25. Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765–781.Google Scholar
  26. Etzioni, A. (1998). A communitarian note on stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 679–691.Google Scholar
  27. Evan, W. M., & Freeman R. E. (1988/1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.Google Scholar
  29. Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2008). A macromarketing ethics framework: Stakeholder orientation and distributive justice. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(1), 24–32.Google Scholar
  30. Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2007). Towards a third generation of quality management: Searching for a theoretical re-conceptualisation of contemporary organisations based on the notions of stakeholders and transactivity. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(7), 683–703.Google Scholar
  31. Freeden, M. (1998). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.Google Scholar
  34. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Friedman, M. (1970, Sept 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase profits. New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  36. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  37. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  39. Galai, D., & Wiener, Z. (2008). Stakeholders and the composition of the voting rights of the board of directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 107–117.Google Scholar
  40. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.Google Scholar
  41. Gamble, A., & Kelly, G. (2001). Shareholder value and the stakeholder debate in the UK. Corporate Governance, 9(2), 110–117.Google Scholar
  42. Garver, E. (1990). Essentially contested concepts: The ethics and tactics of argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 23(4), 251–270.Google Scholar
  43. Gellner, E. (1967). The concept of a story. Ratio, 9(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  44. Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.Google Scholar
  45. Grafstein, R. (1988). A realist foundation for essentially contested political concepts. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 9–28.Google Scholar
  46. Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political concepts. Political Theory, 5(3), 331–348.Google Scholar
  47. Gray, J. N. (1978). On liberty, liberalism and essential contestability. British Journal of Political Science, 8(4), 385–402.Google Scholar
  48. Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, E., & Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(3), 325–364.Google Scholar
  49. Gray, R. H., Owen, D. L., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.Google Scholar
  51. Hamilton, R. P. (2006). Love as an essentially contested concept. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(3), 239–254.Google Scholar
  52. Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7–18.Google Scholar
  53. Hendry, J. (2001). Economic contacts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3), 223–232.Google Scholar
  54. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.Google Scholar
  55. Humber, J. M. (2002). Beyond stockholders and stakeholders: A plea for corporate moral autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 207–221.Google Scholar
  56. Jackson, J. (2001). Prioritising customers and other stakeholders using the AHP. European Journal of Marketing, 35(7/8), 858–871.Google Scholar
  57. Jacobs, M. (2006). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, April, pp. 319–339.Google Scholar
  59. Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management, 7, 297–317.Google Scholar
  60. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.Google Scholar
  61. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–438.Google Scholar
  62. Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–100.Google Scholar
  63. Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.Google Scholar
  64. Kaler, J. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 249–268.Google Scholar
  65. Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressure and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159.Google Scholar
  66. Kekes, J. (1977). Essentially contested concepts: A reconsideration. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
  67. King, B. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.Google Scholar
  68. Kochan, T. A., & Rubinstein, S. A. (2000). Towards a stakeholder theory of the firm: the Saturn approach. Organization Science, 11, 367–386.Google Scholar
  69. Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing management (11th ed.). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  70. Kuhn, (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationship. Organization Studies, 29, 1227–1254.Google Scholar
  71. Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 165–173.Google Scholar
  72. Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.Google Scholar
  73. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.Google Scholar
  74. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. MacIntyre, A. (1973). The essential contestability of some social concepts. Ethics, 84(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  76. MacMillan, I. C., & Jones, P. E. (1986). Strategy formulation: Power and politics (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  77. Madsen, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy & the Environment, 10(2), 77–88.Google Scholar
  78. Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41, 415–445.Google Scholar
  79. Mahon, J. F., & Wartick, S. L. (2003). Dealing with stakeholders: How reputation, credibility and framing influence the game. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  80. Mason, K. J., & Gray, R. (1999). Stakeholders in a hybrid market: The example of air business passenger travel. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 844–858.Google Scholar
  81. Mattingly, J. E. (2004). Stakeholder salience, structural development, and firm performance: Structural and performance correlates of sociopolitical stakeholder management strategies. Business & Society, 43, 97–114.Google Scholar
  82. Miles, S. (2011, June 7–8). Stakeholder definitions: Profusion and confusion. Paper presented at the EIASM 1st Interdisciplinary conference on stakeholders, resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  83. Miller, R. L., & Lewis, W. F. (1991). A stakeholder approach to marketing management using the value exchange models. European Journal of Marketing, 25(8), 55–68.Google Scholar
  84. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.Google Scholar
  85. Mitroff, I. I., & Linstone, H. A. (1993). The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Murphy, B., Stevens, K., & McLeod, R. (1997). A stakeholderism framework for measuring relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(Spring), 43–57.Google Scholar
  87. Näsi, J. (1995). What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of social theory of the firm. In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19–32). Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.Google Scholar
  88. Nuti, D. M. (1995). The economics of participation. Jeddah: Islamic Research and Training Institute, IDB.Google Scholar
  89. O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.Google Scholar
  90. Ojala, J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade. Business History, 50(6), 749–764.Google Scholar
  91. Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.Google Scholar
  92. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.Google Scholar
  93. Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.Google Scholar
  94. Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 25–41.Google Scholar
  95. Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185–197.Google Scholar
  96. Polonsky, M. J. (1996). Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: Potential strategic marketing tools. Journal of Market Focused Management, 1(3), 209–229.Google Scholar
  97. Polonsky, M. J., & Ottman, J. (1998). Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 533–557.Google Scholar
  98. Post, F. G. M. (1989). Beware your stakeholders. Journal of Management Development, 8(1), 28–35.Google Scholar
  99. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Reed, D. (1999). Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 453–483.Google Scholar
  101. Reed, D. (2002). Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries. Business & Society, 41, 166–207.Google Scholar
  102. Rhenman, E. (1964). Foeretagsdemokrati och foeretagsorganisation. Stockholm: Thule.Google Scholar
  103. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.Google Scholar
  104. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.Google Scholar
  105. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 143–156.Google Scholar
  106. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.Google Scholar
  107. Schneper, W. D., & Guillén, M. (2004). Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile takeovers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 263–295.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, K. (2002). Mutually contested concepts and their standard general use. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(3), 329–343.Google Scholar
  109. Stanford Research Institute. (1963). Internal memo (unpublished). Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
  110. Starik, M. (1993). Is the environment an organizational stakeholder? Naturally! Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, CA. Google Scholar
  111. Starik, M. (1994). The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 33(1), 89–95.Google Scholar
  112. Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing?: Towards stakeholder status for nonhuman nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.Google Scholar
  113. Sternberg, E. (1996). Stakeholder theory exposed. The Corporate Governance Quarterly, 2(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
  114. Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5, 3–10.Google Scholar
  115. Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626.Google Scholar
  116. Swanton, C. (1985). On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts. Ethics, 95(4), 811–827.Google Scholar
  117. Waldron, J. (2002). Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)? Law and Philosophy, 21(2), 137–164.Google Scholar
  118. Walsh, J. P. (2005). Book review essays: Taking stock of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 426–438.Google Scholar
  119. Wartick, S. (1994). The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 33(1), 110–117.Google Scholar
  120. Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12, 239–249.Google Scholar
  121. Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., & Freeman, R. E., Jr. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–497.Google Scholar
  122. Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 329–342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Business SchoolOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations