The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder

Abstract

There is a longstanding debate in the stakeholder literature as to who and what really counts as the stakeholders of the firm. Likewise, there have been discussions on whether nature should be considered a stakeholder of the firm. However, one seldom encounters any definitions of the key concepts, that is of nature or the natural environment. We seek to contribute to the debate by taking a closer look at what this thing called nature actually is. In addition, we discuss the implications of this conceptual refinement for the stakeholder model. In order to reinforce the status of the natural environment in the stakeholder model, we propose that any visualisation of a stakeholder network should be embedded in the natural environment.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ahlstedt, L., & Jahnukainen, I. (1971). Yritysorganisaatio yhteistoiminnan ohjausjärjestelmänä [in Finnish: The organization of a firm as a management system for co-operation]. Helsinki: Weilin and Göös.

  2. Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. K., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Haigh, N., & Griffiths, A. (2009). The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(6), 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haila, Y. (2000). Beyond the nature–culture dualism. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haila, Y., & Dyke, C. (Eds.). (2006). How nature speaks? The dynamics of the human ecological condition. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haila, Y., & and Lähde, V. (2003), Luonnon poliittisuus: mikä on uutta? [in Finnish: The political nature of nature: what is new?]. In Y. Haila & V. Lähde (Eds.), Luonnon politiikka [in Finnish: Politics of nature]. Tampere: Vastapaino.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Lähde, V. (2008). Rousseau’s rhetoric ofnature’. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1344. Academic Dissertation, University of Tampere.

  16. Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Näsi, J. (1979), Yrityksen suunnittelun perusteet [in Finnish: The basis of corporate planning]. Tampere: University of Tampere, School of Business Administration, Series A1: 15,

  19. Näsi, J. (1980). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. A paper presented at the Turku Conference on Social Responsibility in Marketing, May 1980.

  20. Näsi, J. (1982). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. In Social responsibility in marketing. Turku: Publication of the Turku School of Economics, Series A-2.

  21. Näsi, J., Näsi, S., & Savage, G. T. (1998). Nature as a stakeholder: One more speculation. In J. Calton & K. Rehbein, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the international association for business and society (pp. 509–512). Kailua-Kona, HI.

  22. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Towards an ecocentric organization paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rhenman, E., & Stymne, B. (1965). Företagsledning I en föränderlig värld [in Swedish: Corporate management in a changing world]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.

  28. Shrivastava, P. (1994). CASTRATED environment: GREENING organization studies. Organization Studies, 15(5), 705–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1996). Management for a small planet (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stead, J. G., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world. Changing attitudes in England 1500–1800. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation. London: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Williams, R. (1980). Ideas of nature. In R. Williams (Ed.), Problems in materialism and culture. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article stems from the author’s discussions with the late Professor Juha Näsi, whose input on an early version of this article is gratefully acknowledged. The usual caveat still applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matias Laine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laine, M. The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder. J Bus Ethics 96, 73 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0936-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Natural environment
  • Nature
  • Stakeholder