Abstract
The success of the stakeholder theory in management literature as well as in current business practices is largely due to the inherent simplicity of the stakeholder model––and to the clarity of Freeman’s powerful synthesised visual conceptualisation. However, over the years, critics have attacked the vagueness and ambiguity of stakeholder theory. In this article, rather than building on the discussion from a theoretical point of view, a radically different and innovative approach is chosen: the graphical framework is used as the central perspective. The major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are systematically confronted with the graphical scheme to illustrate their visual impact. The graphical illustrations of the imperfections help explain the sometimes-oversimplified generalisation inherent to every graphical model. They also make some interrelationships easier to understand. The analysis demonstrates that, with the tacit but implicit acceptance of simplification of the discussed explanatory elements, Freeman’s framework remains a rather good approximation of reality. Only a few minor changes to the stakeholder model are consequently proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andriof J., Waddock S., Husted B., Sutherland Rahman S. (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing
Argenti, J.: 1997, `Stakeholders: The Case Against', Long Range Planning 30(3), 441–445
Carroll A., Buchholtz A. (2006). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (6th ed.). Mason: Thompson Learning
Clarkson M. (1994). The Toronto Conference: Reflections on Stakeholder Theory. Business & Society, 33(1):82–131
Clarkson M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117
Cooper G., Argyris C. (eds): 1998, The Concise Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 674–676
Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics: A European Perspective (Oxford University Press)
Cyert R., March J. (1963). The Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall
Dentchev, N. and A. Heene: 2003, ‹Toward Stakeholder Responsibility and Stakeholder Motivation: Systemic and Holistic Perspectives on Corporate Responsibility’, in S. Sharma and M. Starik (eds.), Stakeholders, the Environment and Society: New Perspectives in Research on Corporate Responsibility (Northampton, Edward Elgar Publications), pp.117–139
Donaldson T., Dunfee T. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contract Theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 252–284
Donaldson T., Preston L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91
Evan W., Freeman E. (1988). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism In Beauchamp T, Bowie N. (ed.), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 97–106
Freeman E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman
Freeman, E. and J. McVea: 2001, ‹A Stakeholder Approach to Management: The State of the Art’, in M. Hitt, E. Freeman and J. Harrison (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing), pp. 189–207
Friedman A., Miles S. (2002). Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1): 14–17
Friedman A., Miles S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gibson K. (2000). The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3): 245–257
Gioia D. (1999). Practicability, Paradigms, and Problems in Stakeholder Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 228–232
Gond, J-P. and S. Mercier: 2004, `Les théories des parties prenantes : une synthèse critique de la littérature'. Actes du Congrès de l’Association francophone des ressources humaines, Montréal. http://www.agrh(2004)-esg.uqam.ca/pdf/Tome1/Gond_Mercier.pdf
Goodpaster K. (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1): 53–72
Harrison J., Freeman E. (1999). Stakeholders, Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 479–485
Hill, C. and T. Jones: 1992, `Stakeholder–Agency Theory', Journal of Management Studies 29(2), 133–154
Jansson E. (2005). The Stakeholder Model: The Influence of Ownership and Governance Structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 56: 1–13
Jawahar I., McLaughlin G. (2001). Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 397–414
Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–221
Kaler J. (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 71–83
Key S. (1999). Toward a New Theory of the Firm: A Critique of Stakeholder “Theory”. Management Decision, 37(4): 317–328
Kochan T. A., Rubinstein S. A. (2000) Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership. Organization Science 11(4): 367–386
Lépineux: 2005, `Stakeholder Theory, Society and Social Cohesion', Corporate Governance 5(2), 99–110
Marcoux Alexei M. (2003). A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 1–24
Maruyama M (1986) Toward Picture-coded Information Systems. Futures, 18: 450–452
Meyer A. (1991). Visual Data in Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2(2): 218–236
Mitchell R., Agle B., Wood D. (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
Moore G. (1999). Tinged Shareholder Theory: Or What’s So Special About Stakeholders? Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2): 117–127
Neville, B., S. Bell and G. Whitwell: 2004, `Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Toward an Actionable Tool for the Management of Stakeholders', Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, SIM:D1–D6
Pesqueux Y., Damak-Ayadi S. (2005). Stakeholder Theory in Perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2): 5–21
Phillips R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organization Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Phillips R. (2003a). Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 25–41
Phillips R. (2004) Ethics and A Manager’s Obligations Under Stakeholder Theory. Ivey Business Journal 68: 1–4
Post J., Preston L., Sachs S. (2002). Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View. California Management Review, 45(1): 6–28
Rowley T. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 887–910
Sternberg E. (1996). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance 5(1): 3–10
Sullivan D. (1998). Cognitive Tendencies in International Business Research: Implications of a “Narrow Vision”. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4): 837–862
Venkataraman, S.: 2002, ‹Stakeholder Value Equilibrium and the Entrepreneurial Process’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 3: 45–58. The Ruffin series: Special issue
Waxenberger B., Spence, L. (2003), Reinterpretation of a Metaphor: From Stakes to Claims. Strategic Change, 12: 239–249
Weiss, A.: 1995, Cracks in the Foundations of Stakeholder Theory. Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational Theory. http://www.mgnt.waikato.ac.nz/research/ejrot:Vol1_1 /weiss.pdf
Williamson, O. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press
Winn M. (2001). Building Stakeholder Theory With a Decision Modeling Methodology. Business & Society, 40(2): 133–166
Wolfe RA, Putler DS (2002). How Tight are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups? Organizational Science, 13(1): 64–82
Worren N., Moore K., Elliott R. (2002). When Theories Become Tools: Toward a Framework for Pragmatic Validity. Human Relations, 55(10): 1227–1249
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fassin, Y. Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation. J Bus Ethics 80, 879–888 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5