Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 102, Supplement 1, pp 77–87

Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification



In this article, we propose an adaption to stakeholder theory whereby stakeholders are conceptualized on the basis of their social identity. We begin by offering a critical review of both traditional and more recent developments in stakeholder theory, focusing in particular on the way in which stakeholder categories are identified. By identifying critical weaknesses in the existing approach, as well as important points of strength, we outline an alternative approach that refines our understanding of stakeholders in important ways. To do so, we draw on notions of social identity as the fundamental basis for group cohesion, mobilization, and action. A new form of cross-mapping as a basis for stakeholder identification is advanced and key research questions are set out.


Corporate responsibility Identity salience Social identity theory Stakeholder identification and classification Stakeholder theory 



Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered


Non-governmental organizations


  1. Agle, B., & Agle, L. (2007). The stated objectives of the Fortune 500: Examining the philosophical approaches that drive America’s largest firms. Working paper, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
  3. Bart, C. K. (1997). Sex, lies, and mission statements. Business Horizons, 40(6), 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartkus, B. R., & Glassman, M. (2007). Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101.Google Scholar
  6. Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen, A. W. (2004). Two approaches to stakeholder identification. Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics, 2(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business and society. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
  9. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  10. Clarkson, M., et al. (1994). The Toronto conference: reflections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), 82–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane, A., & Kazmi, B. A. (2010). Business and children: Mapping impacts, managing responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens: Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  17. Dunfee, T. W. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Managing corporate social responsibility in a multiple actor context. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dunham, L., Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (2006). Enhancing stakeholder practice: A particularized exporation of community. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  19. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.Google Scholar
  20. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Fairfax, L. M. (2006). The rhetoric of corporate law: The impact of stakeholder rhetoric on corporate norms. Journal of Corporation Law, 31(3), 675–718.Google Scholar
  22. Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2003). Support for rapid growth firms: A comparison of the views of founders, government policymakers, and private sector resource providers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4), 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frederick, W. C. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business and Society, 33(2), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Business Economics, 19(4), 337–359.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  32. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Graves, S., & Waddock, S. (1994). Institutional investors and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1035–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hall, J., & Vrendenberg, H. (2005). Managing stakeholder ambiguity. Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  38. Handelman, J. M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hartman, E. (1996). Organizational ethics and the good life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 9, 159–172.Google Scholar
  41. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, J. D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  42. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.Google Scholar
  46. Jones, T. E., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  47. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder “theory”. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Leuthesser, L., & Kohli, C. (1997). Corporate identity: The role of mission statements. Business Horizons, 40(3), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lozano, J. M. (2005). Towards the relational corporation: From managing stakeholder relationship to building stakeholder relationships (waiting for Copernicus). Corporate Governance, 5(2), 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  55. Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(Spring), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. E. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: A market-based and resource-based framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1027–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.Google Scholar
  61. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  64. Rowley, T. I., & 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
  65. 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, 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: From the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’ to three perspectives on business-society relations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 4, 556–564.Google Scholar
  68. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  69. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  72. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Thoits, P. A. (1987). Negotiating roles. In F. J. Crosby (Ed.), Spouse, parent, worker: On gender and multiple roles (pp. 11–22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Turner, J. C. (1987). Introducing the problem: Individual and group. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Werhane, P. (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and systems thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13(1), 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations