Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stakeholder theory is widely accepted but elementary aspects remain indeterminate as the term ‘stakeholder’ is an essentially contested concept (Miles, J Bus Ethics 108:285–298, 2012; Mitchell, Organ Stud 33:1407–1411, 2012), being variously describable, internally complex and open in character (Gallie, Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198, 1956). Such contestability is highly problematic for theory development and empirical testing. The extent of essential contestability, previously unknown, is demonstrated in this paper through a bounded systematic review of 593 different stakeholder theory definitions. As an essentially contested concept, the solution does not lie in a universal stakeholder definition, but in debating the boundaries of stakeholder identification. To this end, this paper presents the first major attempt at sorting, filtering and ordering stakeholder theory and stakeholder definitions to produce a comprehensive, multi-dimensional classification of stakeholder theory. The constructs of the classification model juxtapose existing stakeholder theories and contributions from across the multi-contextual applications of stakeholder theory, thereby providing an invaluable overview of what we know about stakeholder theory in one model. The classification model is then tested with positive results. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion of the implications of classification stakeholder theory definitions, which has for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The focus of this paper is on the creation and presentation of a new classification model of stakeholder definitions, based on an essentialist approach to classification derived from empirical observation and tested with empirical data. Due to the nature of essentialism such empirical investigation cannot take the form of a pure statistical enquiry as precise factor coefficients are unfeasible and inappropriate.

  2. Jones and Wicks stressed that the core assumptions of stakeholder theory are that it is a managerial (not ethical) theory which recognises that organisations engage in relationships with many groups and, that stakeholder theory focuses on these relationships in terms of processes and results for the organisation and the stakeholder.

  3. Not all essentialist approaches are applicable to a classification of stakeholder theory definitions. For example, dimensioning, associated with the periodic table of chemical elements, and hierarchal systematising, associated with the Linnaean biological classification system, and used in the classification of financial reporting systems (Nobes 1983; Seidler 1967) require absolute, mutually exclusive categories which fail to recognise convergence and diffusion of concepts as evident in Kaler’s (2003) ‘combinatory’ stakeholder definitions.

  4. Thompson et al. (1991) was included in the Mitchell et al. (1997) paper, upon which Kaler (2002) based his analysis. It is not evident how Kaler classified this definition as this paper was not referenced.

  5. Any seminal definitions included in articles that do not have ‘stakeholder(s)’ in the title are heavily cited in those that do and so are not excluded from analysis (e.g. Stoney and Winstanley 2001).

  6. The resulting typology may be open to revision if extended to other disciplines such as medicine, psychology or the environmental sciences.

  7. Consolidated rankings are preferred as individual ranking systems differ according to the severity of the imposed hurdle and the basis for judging quality (author affiliation, academic surveys and citation frequency). Other lists could be used to similar effect e.g. the Association of Business Schools’ academic journal quality guide which would equate to 2* and above. The author acknowledges that such ranking systems are flawed but as with the other filters, it is expected that important contributions excluded by this criteria will be heavily cited by others in the database.

  8. The review was completed in two stages. The first stage, undertaken in 2009, included all articles up to 2008. This considered 1982 articles in which 435 different stakeholder theory definitions were identified (Miles 2011). In 2012 this was then extended, using the exact bounded systematic review filters to cover 2728 management journal articles published up to 2012.

  9. A further question is who/what is defining the stakeholder? The variation in nouns describing organisations (firm, organisation, corporation etc.), or stakeholders (actor, group, coalition etc.) are not boundary conditions of identification and, consequently, are not of interest in the development of a classification typology.

  10. Many attributes have received much attention in the literature but Figs. 2, 3 and 4 refer to the author(s) first identifying the attribute as a determinant for stakeholder identification.

  11. Freeman (1984) proposed five definitions which are all broadly similar. The variations are shown in parenthesis.

  12. Normative stakeholder theories are based on eternal values derived from ethical theory, rather than observed norms, and explore the reasons why stakeholders' interests ought to be taken into account in an attempt to alter management behaviour. This is contrasted with the instrumental approach aligned with strategic stakeholder management in which there may be ethical consequences from derived stakeholder benefit but stakeholder management is not necessarily predicated from an ethical basis.

  13. The apostrophe is used to denote instances where definitions are not in a particular category i.e. a’bcd’ refers to a definition that is not included in categories a and d but is included in b and c.

References

  • Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, I., & Morris, C. T. (1965). A factor analysis of the interrelationship between social and political variables and per capita gross national product. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79(4), 555–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance; managing in a dynamic environment. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative political systems. The Journal of Politics, 18(3), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, S. L., Hill, N. C., & Sundaram, S. (1989). An empirical test of stakeholder theory predictions of capital structure. Financial Management, 18, 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R. (2000). Ethics and the conduct of business (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boonstra, A., & Govers, M. J. G. (2009). Understanding ERP system implementation in a hospital by analysing stakeholders. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43, 649–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowmann-Larsen, L., & Wiggen, O. (2004). Responsibility in world business: Managing harmful side-effects of corporate activity. New York: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner S. N. (1993). The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision making: Some propositions and a model. In J. Pasqueroa & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. San Diego.

  • Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, T. L. (1993). Does the stakeholder theory constitute a new kind of theory of social responsibility? Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(2), 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1994). Risk-based model of stakeholder theory. Toronto: The Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 92–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management, Joseph L. Rotman school of management, University of Toronto, Toronto. Reproduced in 2002. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), 256–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimovski, B., & Brooks, R. (2004). Stakeholder representation on the boards of Australian initial public offerings. Applied Financial Economics, 14, 233–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emshoff, J. R & Freeman, R. E. (1978). Stakeholder management. Working paper July, Wharton Applied Research Center, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). 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 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2009). An enterprise-wide strategic stakeholder approach to sales ethics. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(3–4), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of a firm is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardised ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political concepts. Political Theory, 5(3), 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & De Cieri, H. (2006). Stakeholder theory and the ethics of human resource management. In A. Pinnington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.), Ethics in human resource management and employment relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanly, K. (1992). Hostile takeovers and methods of defense: A stakeholder analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2013). Journal quality list. Retrieved from http://www.harzing.com/jql.htm.

  • Heaton, P., Miles, S., & Duhan, S. (2012). Dynamic mapping of stakeholders for dealing with plant closure complexity. Social Business, 2(2), 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, H. (2002). The confines of stakeholder management: Evidence from the Dutch manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofsted, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 8, 319–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2009). An optimally viable version of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of stakeholder ‘‘theory’’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laan, G., Ees, H., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. T. (2010). Managing disputes with nonmarket stakeholders: wage a fight, withdraw, wait, or work it out? California Management Review, 53(1), 90–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, A. (2013). Quality and Governance in High Frequency Trading Systems. University of Oslo, Department of Informatics.

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Research notes: Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(2), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. (1994). Stakeholder responsibilities: turning the ethical tables. Business Ethics: A European Review, 3(4), 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 956–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Tomas, G., Hult, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux, A. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLarney, C. (2002). Stepping into the light: Stakeholder impact on competitive adaptation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrilees, B., Getz, D., & O’Brien, D. (2005). Marketing stakeholder analysis: Branding the Brisbane goodwill games. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 1060–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S. (2011). Stakeholder definitions: profusion and confusion. EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholders, resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona.

  • Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholders: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mir, M. Z., & Rahaman, A. S. (2011). In pursuit of environmental excellence: A stakeholder analysis of the environmental management strategies and performance of an Australian energy company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(7), 848–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K. (2012). Book review: Stakeholder theory: impacts and prospects. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1407–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, R. D., & Frank, W. G. (1980). The impact of disclosure and measurement practices on international accounting classifications. Accounting Review, 55, 426–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobes, C. W. (1983). A judgmental international classification of financial reporting practices. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 10(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuti, D. M. (1997). Democracy and economy: What role for stakeholders? Business Strategy Review, 8(2), 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojala, J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade. Business History, 50(6), 749–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okoye, A. (2009). ‘Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 605–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (1999). On stakeholder delimitation. Business and Society, 38, 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. D. (1995). The very idea of classification in international accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 639–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W., & Mahoney, L. (2004). Stakeholder conceptions of the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 399–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 885–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Seidler, L. J. (1967). International accounting—the ultimate theory course. The Accounting Review, 42, 775–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shankman, N. A. (1999). Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholder’s model of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to product symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation. Journal of Business Research, 22, 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SRI (Stanford Research Institute). (1963). Internal memo (unpublished). Stanford Research Institute, California, USA.

  • Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Towards stakeholder status for nonhuman nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanton, C. (1985). On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts. Ethics, 95(4), 811–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teklemariama, D., Azadi, H., Nyssena, J., Haile, M., & Witloxa, F. (2015). Transnational land deals: Towards an inclusive land governance framework. Land Use Policy, 42, 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organizations: a stakeholder approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. K., Wartick, S. L., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Integrating corporate social performance and stakeholder management: Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinkaus, J., & Giacalone, J. (2005). The silence of the stakeholders: Zero decibel level at Enron. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capital hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 685–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., & Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinten, G. (2000). The stakeholder manager. Management Decisions, 38, 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R, Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management, 7(4), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley Campus, Oxford, OX33 1HX, UK

    Samantha Miles

Authors
  1. Samantha Miles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samantha Miles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miles, S. Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions. J Bus Ethics 142, 437–459 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation