Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility

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

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to transcend the assumption that stakeholder engagement is necessarily a responsible practice. Stakeholder engagement is traditionally seen as corporate responsibility in action. Indeed, in some literatures there exists an assumption that the more an organisation engages with its stakeholders, the more it is responsible. This simple ‹more is better’ view of stakeholder engagement belies the true complexity of the relationship between engagement and corporate responsibility. Stakeholder engagement may be understood in a variety of different ways and from a variety of different theoretical perspectives. Stakeholder engagement may or may not involve a moral dimension and, hence, is primarily a morally neutral practice. It is therefore argued that stakeholder engagement must be seen as separate from, but related to, corporate responsibility. A model that reflects the multifaceted relationship between the two constructs is proposed. This model not only allows the coincidence of stakeholder engagement with corporate responsibility, but also allows for the development of the notion of corporate irresponsibility.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnstein S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell E., Taylor S. (2003) The Elevation of Work: Pastoral Power and the New Age Work Ethic. Organization 10(2):329–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSR: 2006, ‹Stakeholder Engagement’, (Business for Social Responsibility, San Francisco) www.bsr.org, date accessed November 26:2006

  • Buchholz R. A., Rosenthal S. B. (2005) Toward a Contemporary Conceptual Framework for Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camelot: 2006, ‹Corporate Responsibility Report 2006’ (Camelot Group)

  • Claydon T., Doyle M. (1996) Trusting Me, Trusting You? The Ethics of Employee Empowerment. Personnel Review 25(6):13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane A., Matten D. (2004) Business Ethics, a European Perspective: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan C. (2002) The Legitimising Effects of Social and Environmental Disclosures – A Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15(3):282–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T. (2002) The Stakeholder Revolution and the Clarkson Principles. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2):107–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., Preston L. E. (1995) The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1):65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan W. M., Freeman R. E. (2004) A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism. In Beauchamp T. L., Bowie N. (eds.) Ethical Theory and Business. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13:1970

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman J. (1999) Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review 24(2):191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson K. (2000) The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26(3):245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R. (2002) The Social Accounting Project and Accounting Organizations and Society. Accounting Organizations and Society 27(7):687–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood M. R. (2001) The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders. Business and Society Review 106(1):29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer L. T. (1995) Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review 20(2):379–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M. C. (2002) Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2):235–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaler J. (2002) Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics 39(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler J. (2003) Differentiating Stakeholder Theories. Journal of Business Ethics 46(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamoche K. N. (2006) Managing People in Turbulent Economic Times: A Knowledge-creation and Appropriation Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 44(1):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein M., Wempe J. (1998) The Ethics Report: A Means of Sharing Responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review 7(3):131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight P. (1998) Principles and Profits: Does There Have to be a Choice? The Shell Report 1998. The Royal Dutch Shell Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kok P., van der Wiele T., McKenna R., Brown A. (2001) A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit Within a Quality Management Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 31:285–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legge K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Reality. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Livesey S. M., Kearins K. (2002) Transparent and Caring Corporations? A Study of Sustainability Reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment 15(3):233–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby J., Wilkinson R. (1998) Stakeholding and Corporate Governance in the UK. Politics 18(3):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles S. and A. L. Friedman: 2002, `Exploring the Social Construction of Stakeholder Management in the UK', Discussion Papers in Governance and Accountability No 02/008, Oxford Brookes University Business School

  • 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(4):853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore G. (2004) The Institute of Business Ethics/European Business Ethics Network–UK Student Competition in Business Ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review 13(1):64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dywer B.: (2003) Conceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Nature of Managerial Capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 16(4):523–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obi C. (1997) Globalisation and Local Resistance: The Case of the Ogoni versus Shell. New Political Economy 2(1):137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen D., Swift T. (2001) Social Accounting, Reporting and Auditing: Beyond the Rhetoric?. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen D., Swift T., Hunt K. (2001) Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Accounting Forum 25(3):264–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen D., Swift T., Humphrey C., Bowerman M. (2000) The New Social Audits: Accountability, Managerial Capture or the Agenda of Social Champions?. European Accounting Review 9(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peccei R. and D. Guest: 2002, ‹Trust, Exchange and Virtuous Circles of Co-operation: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Partnerships at Work’, The Management Centre Research Papers, King’s College London Research Paper 011

  • Phillips R. (1997) Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1):51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. (1999) On Stakeholder Delimitation. Business and Society 38:32–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R. (2003) Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Power M. (2004) Counting, Control and Calculation: Reflections on Measuring and Management. Human Relations 57(6):765–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts J. (2003) The Manufacture of Corporate Social Responsibility: Constructing Corporate Sensibility. Organization 10(2):249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild J. (2000) Creating a Just and Democratic Workplace: More Engagement, Less Hierarchy. Contemporary Sociology 29(1):195–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowan J. R. (2000) The Moral Foundation of Employee Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 24(4):355–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‹Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility. Business and Society Seen From a Habermasian Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 32(4), forthcoming

  • Sillanpaa M. (1998) The Body Shop Values Report – Towards Integrated Stakeholder Auditing. Journal of Business Ethics 17(13):1443–1456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slinger G. (2000) Essays on Stakeholders and Takeovers. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg E. (1999) The Stakeholder Concept: A Mistaken Doctrine. Foundations for Business Responsibilities, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney M. and R. Estes: 2000, ‹Corporate Social Reporting and the Sunshine Standards: Is there Light at the End of the Tunnel?’, In B. E. R. U. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ethical Governance and Management Conference: Costs and Benefits. Victoria University, Melbourne Australia

  • Swift T. (2001) Trust, Reputation and Corporate Accountability to Stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Bos R., Willmott H. (2001) Towards a Post-dualistic Business Ethics: Interweaving Reason and Emotion in Working Life. Journal of Management Studies 38(6):769–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten C. (1980) Mill on Liberty. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2000) Engaging Stakeholders: The Global Reporters. United Nations Environment Programme, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren III H. (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 

  • Vidal J.: 1999, ‹Eco Soundings’, The Guardian, 3 November

  • Wheeler D., Boele R., Fabig H. (2002) Paradoxes and Dilemmas for Stakeholder Responsive Firms in the Extractive Sector – Lessons from the Case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics 39(3):297–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks A. C., Gilbert J., Daniel R., Freeman R. E. (1994) A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4):475–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks A. C., Berman S. L., Jones T. M. (1999) The Structure of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic Implications. Academy of Management Review 24(1):99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D. (2001) The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9:225–256

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Box 11e, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Michelle Greenwood

Authors
  1. Michelle Greenwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Greenwood.

Additional information

Michelle Greenwood is on faculty at the Department of Management, Monash University Australia, where she teaches and researches in the area of Business Ethics. Her specific research fields are ethical issues in HRM, stakeholder theory␣and social and ethical auditing. She has published in Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Business and Society Review, Business Ethics: A European Review, Journal of Management Studies and several edited books. Michelle currently serves on the editorial board of Journal of Business Ethics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenwood, M. Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 74, 315–327 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation