Skip to main content

Toward Dynamic Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility

From Corporate Social Responsibility Toward a Comprehensive and Dynamic View of Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility

Abstract

Today, sustainable relations with a broad range of key stakeholders are not only important from a normative business ethics perspective, but also from an entrepreneurial viewpoint to allow and support the long-term survival of a firm. We will argue that the traditional conception of a firm’s corporate social responsibility does not reflect this view and that a comprehensive and dynamic conception of a firm’s responsibilities is necessary to map the reality of business practice and to manage the challenges implied by sustainability. We think that distributive justice, that is the way in which firms involve their stakeholders in their wealth creation and dissemination processes, provides a comprehensive understanding of corporate responsibilities. Concerning procedural justice, we will discuss how firms involve stakeholders in their strategic processes according to their contribution to wealth creation. In the course of the article, we will propose a framework along with three design principles that can be used for shaping dynamic and comprehensive corporate responsibilities, and which thereby allow a sustainable procedure for changing business and non-business environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Abe, N. and S. Shimizutani: 2005, `Employment Policy and Corporate Governance: An Empirical Analysis on the Stakeholder Model in Japan', ESRI Discussion Paper Series No. 136, http://www.esri.go.jp/jp/archive/e_dis/e_dis140/e_dis136a.pdf

  • Agle, B. R., T. Donaldson, R. E. Freeman, M. C. Jensen, R. K. Mitchell and D. J. Wood: 2008, `Dialogue: Towards Superior Stakeholder Theory', Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2), 153–190.

  • Alchian, A. A. and H. Demsetz: 1972, ‘Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization’, American Economic Review LXII(5), 777-795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, C. C., J. M. Mahoney and J. T. Mahoney: 2005, ‘Towards a Property Rights Foundation for a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm’, Journal of Management and Governance 9(1), 5-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, S. and J. Pasquero: 2002, ‘Reintroducing Stakeholder Dynamics in Stakeholder Thinking: A Negotiated-Order Perspective’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 6, 53-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. C.: 1978, Property Rights (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. C.: 1992, ‘Property’, in L. D. Becker and C. B. Becker (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Ethics, Vol. 2 (Garland, New York), pp. 1023-1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M.: 1995, Ownership and Control (The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M.: 2005, ‘Closing the Theory Gap: How the Economic Theory of Property Rights can Help Bring Stakeholders Back into Theories of the Firm’, Journal of Management and Governance 9(1), 33-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M., and L. Stout: 1999, ‘A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law’, Virginia Law Review 85(2), 246-328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buono, A. F.: 2003, ‘A Review of Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth’, Business and Society Review 108(2), 279-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C.: 2004, ‘Book Review Essay: Effective Governance in Managing Change: Common Perspective from Two Lenses’, Academy of Management Review 29(2), 296-301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, C., and R. A. Phillips: 2005, ‘A Farewell to Arm’s Length: Value Chain Responsibility’, Business and Society Review 110(4), 345-370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. M.: 2006, ‘Social Contracting in a Pluralist Process of Moral Sense Making: A Dialogic Twist on the ISCT’, Journal of Business Ethics 68(3), 329-346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34(4), 39-48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H.: 1960, ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N. A. and A. Heene: 2004, ‘Toward Stakeholder Responsibility and Stakeholder Motivation: Systemic and Holistic Perspectives on Corporate Sustainability’, in S. Sharma and M. Starik (eds.), Stakeholders, the environment and society: New perspectives in research on corporate sustainability (Edward Elgar Publishing, Gent), pp. 117-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H. and H. Singh: 1998, ‘The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage’, Academy of Management Review 23(4), 660-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist: 2004, ‘Two-Faced Capitalism’, Economist January 24, p. 53.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532-550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 409-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 2004, ‘Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Responsibility: Some Practical Questions’, Paper Presented at the 3rd Annual Colloquium of the European Academy of Business in Society (Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Gent).

  • Freeman, R. E., A. C. Wicks and B. Parmar: 2004, ‘Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Objective Revisited’, Organization Science 15(3), 264-269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits’, New York Times September 13, pp. 32–33.

  • Lamont, B. T.: 2004, ‘James E. Post, Lee E. Preston, and Sybille Sachs: Redefining the Corporation’, Administrative Science Quarterly 49(1), 145-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E.: 2004a, ‘Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth [Book Review]’, Academy of Management Review 29(3), 520-523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E.: 2004b, ‘Stakeholder Salience, Structural Development, and Firm Performance: Structural and Performance Correlates of Sociopolitical Stakeholder Management Strategies’, Business and Society 43, 97-114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, M. and S. Sachs: 2005, ‘Implementing the Stakeholder View: Learning Processes Toward a Changed Stakeholder Orientation’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17, 93-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., R. E. Freeman and A. C. Wicks: 2003, ‘What Stakeholder Theory is Not’, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4), 479-502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review 80(12), 27-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., L. E. Preston and S. Sachs: 2002, Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth (Stanford University Press, Stanford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S.: 2000, Die Rolle der Unternehmung in ihrer Interaktion mit der Gesellschaft (Haupt, Bern).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S.: 2004, ‘Neudefinition der Unternehmung in der heutigen Gesellschaft’, in H. Ruh and M. Leisinger (eds.), Ethik im Management: Ethik und Erfolg verbünden sich (Orell Füssli Verlag, Zürich), pp. 221-236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S. and E. Rühli: 2004, ‘Stakeholder View: A Case Research’, Paper Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting (New Orleans, CA).

  • Sachs, S., E. Rühli and I. Kern: 2009, ‘Sustainable Suc- cess with Stakeholders – The Untapped Potential’, London: Palgrave.

  • Schwartz, M. S.: 1997, ‘Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: A New Approach’, Paper Presented at the Eight Annual Conference of the International Association for Business and Society (Destin, FL).

  • Sveiby, K. E.: 1997, The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D.: 2005, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (Brookings Institute Press, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P.: 2005, ‘Taking Stock of Stakeholder Management’, Academy of Management Review 30(2), 426-438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. and R. E. Freeman: 1999, ‘Business Ethics: The State of the Art’, International Journal of Management Review 1(1), 1-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D.: 2002, ‘Stakeholder Responsibilities: Lessons for managers’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 6, 19-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16, 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): 1987, Our common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, K. K.: 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sybille Sachs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sachs, S., Maurer, M. Toward Dynamic Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 85, 535–544 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0213-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0213-y

Keywords

  • corporate stakeholder responsibility
  • CSR
  • distributive justice
  • procedural justice
  • stakeholder view
  • wealth creation