Skip to main content

Stakeholder Engagement, Knowledge Problems and Ethical Challenges

With an ever-increasing global population, hunger in the developing world, and the health risks of pesticides, some experts view genetically modified food as a panacea. Others view it as one of the most serious threats to human civilization. These diametrically opposing views point to an ethical dilemma that will certainly be difficult to resolve: whether the benefits of developing and supplying the world with genetically modified foods outweigh future consequences that these products may have for the human species, animal life, and the ecosystem (Jefferson 2006, p. 33).

Abstract

In the management and business ethics literatures, stakeholder engagement has been demonstrated to lead to more ethical management practices. However, there may be limits on the extent to which stakeholder engagement can, as currently conceptualized, resolve some of the more difficult ethical challenges faced by managers. In this paper we argue that stakeholder engagement, when seen as a way of reducing five types of knowledge problems—risk, ambiguity, complexity, equivocality, and a priori irreducible uncertainty—can aid managers in resolving such ethical challenges. Using a practical illustration of the ethical challenges surrounding the development and application of genetic modification technologies, we demonstrate how stakeholder engagement enables managers to better address these knowledge problems, thereby to manage more ethically. In this way, we suggest that stakeholder engagement has an even more crucial role to play in business ethics research and practice.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    We note that another difficulty in resolving ethical challenges may also result from an unwillingness on the part of managers to address knowledge problems relating to certain beliefs, facts, inferences, needs, etc., vis-à-vis their stakeholders. In this sense, a boundary condition of our approach is that a manager must first want to address a knowledge problem through stakeholder engagement.

  2. 2.

    We recognize that the example of recombinant DNA that we utilize involves decision makers who are primarily scientists. Nonetheless, we consider these individuals to be managers of a set of technologies that have given rise to an industry valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars and acknowledge that a subset of these scientists went on to be the founders and managers of the firms that make up this industry. In this role, they created both their own firms and also substantial value for their universities through the licensing of their patents.

  3. 3.

    As we previously have noted, equivocality often is confused with ambiguity; but these are distinct concepts. With ambiguity, increases in information lead to increases in consensus. Whereas with equivocality no amount of additional information can create consensus. Only increased dialogue relative to some common purpose will produce the intersubjective agreement necessary to coordinated action, without any expectation that the distinct world views that give rise to equivocality will be reconciled (Townsend et al. 2018).

  4. 4.

    See various documentaries e.g., National Geographic Channel (2018). Mars: Inside SpaceX, Documentary.

References

  1. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alvarez, S. A., Young, S. L., & Woolley, J. L. (2018). Creating the world’s deadliest catch: The process of enrolling stakeholders in an uncertain endeavor. Business & Society, 59(2), 287–321.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Boyer, H. W., Cohen, S. N., Davis, R. W., Hogness, D. S., et al. (1974). Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Science, 185(4148), 303.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berg, P. (2008). Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature, 455(7211), 290–291.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berg, P., & Singer, M. F. (1995). The recombinant DNA controversy: Twenty years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92(20), 9011–9013.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. (2016). Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1197–1222.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. I. (2003a). The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. I. (2003b). The evolution of corporate charitable contributions in the UK between 1989 and 1999: Industry structure and stakeholder influences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(3), 216–228.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Making the link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brossard, D., Belluck, P., Gould, F., & Wirz, C. D. (2019). Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7692–7697.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carter, S. M. (2006). The interaction of top management group, stakeholder, and situational factors on certain corporate reputation management activities. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1145–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why family-controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1153–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clark, C. E., Bryant, A. P., & Griffin, J. J. (2017). Firm engagement and social issue salience, consensus, and contestation. Business & Society, 56(8), 1136–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413–452.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dawkins, C. E. (2014). The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effects of social and environmental disclosures - A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Google Scholar 

  31. DeTienne, K. B., & Lewis, L. W. (2005). The pragmatic and ethical barriers to corporate social responsibility disclosure: The Nike case. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(4), 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. (2017). Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 561–597.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 879–888.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113–135.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fassin, Y. (2012). Stakeholder management, reciprocity and stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fassin, Y., de Colle, S., & Freeman, R. E. (2017). Intra-stakeholder alliances in plant-closing decisions: A stakeholder theory approach. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(2), 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fredrickson, D. S. (2001). The recombinant DNA controversy: A memoir. Washington DC: ASM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gilbert, D. T., & Osborne, R. E. (1989). Thinking backward: Some curable and incurable consequences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 940–949.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Girard, C., & Sobczak, A. (2012). Towards a model of corporate and social stakeholder engagement: Analyzing the relations between a French mutual bank and its members. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(2), 215–225.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Greenwood, M., & Mir, R. A. (2019). Critical management studies and stakeholder theory: Possibilities for a critical stakeholder theory. In J. B. Barney, R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison, & R. A. Phillips (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory (pp. 35–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2005). Managing stakeholder ambiguity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2016). Organizing risk: Discourse, power, and “riskification”. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), 80–108.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Harris, M. (2020). Shell is looking forward. Intelligencer. Retrieved March 3, 2020, from https://www.nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change.html

  52. Heffernan, O. (2017). A meaty issue. Nature, 544(7651), S18–S20.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  55. Holzer, B. (2008). Turning stakeseekers into stakeholders: A political coalition perspective on the politics of stakeholder influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 50–67.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Husted, B. W., Jamali, D., & Saffar, W. (2016). Near and dear? The role of location in CSR engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), 2050–2070.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Jefferson, V. (2006). The ethical dilemma of genetically modified food. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(1), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1/2), 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Hart, Schaffner and Marx.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kobeissi, N., & Damanpour, F. (2009). Corporate responsiveness to community stakeholders: Effects of contextual and organizational characteristics. Business & Society, 48(3), 326–359.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Krimsky, S. (1982). Genetic alchemy: The social history of the recombinant DNA controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kuechle, G., Boulu-Reshef, B., & Carr, S. (2016). Prediction- and control-based strategies in entrepreneurship: The role of information. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lenn, J. (1993). Statement on stakeholders and failure. Informal presentation at the Annual meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (IABS), San Diego, CA.

  66. Lewis, R. (2019). Anatomy of an impossible burger. DNA science blog: genetics in context: PLOS. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2019/05/16/anatomy-of-an-impossible-burger/.

  67. Lotila, P. (2010). Corporate responsiveness to social pressure: An interaction-based model. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  69. March, J. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Marens, R., & Wicks, A. (1999). Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 273–293.

    Google Scholar 

  71. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Miller, J. I. (2012). The mortality problem of learning and mimetic practice in emerging industries: Dying to be legitimate. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 59–88.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Michaelson, C. (2008). Moral luck and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 773–787.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 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 

  76. Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Musteen, M., & Ahsan, M. (2013). Beyond cost: The role of intellectual capital in offshoring and innovation in young firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Niiler, E. (2018). Why gene editing is the next food revolution, National Geographic, August. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/future-of-food/food-technology-gene-editing.

  79. Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Nutt, P. C. (1998). How decision makers evaluate alternatives and the influence of complexity. Management Science, 44(8), 1148–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Phillips, L. T., Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., & Goudeau, S. (2020). Access is not enough: Cultural mismatch persists to limit first-generation students’ opportunities for achievement throughout college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Pieper, T. M., Smith, A. D., Kudlats, J., & Astrachan, J. H. (2015). The persistence of multifamily firms: Founder imprinting, simple rules, and monitoring processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(6), 1313–1337.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rehbein, K., Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, I. I. I. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organization Science, 12(3), 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Sachs, S., & Rühli, E. (2011). Stakeholders matter: A new paradigm for strategy in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Selden, P. D., & Fletcher, D. E. (2015). The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of artifact-creating processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 603–615.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Shapira, Z. (1995). Risk taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Shiu, Y. M., & Yang, S. L. (2017). Does engagement in corporate social responsibility provide strategic insurance-like effects? Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 455–470.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sidgwick, H. (1879). The establishment of ethical first principles. Mind, 4(13), 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Sillanpaa, M. (1998). The Body Shop values report: Towards integrated stakeholder auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1443–1456.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(2), 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sonenshein, S. (2016). How corporations overcome issue illegitimacy and issue equivocality to address social welfare: The role of the social change agent. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 349–366.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sull, D. N., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Simple rules: How to thrive in a complex world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2012). Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 483–500.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2018). Uncertainty, knowledge problems and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 659–687.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  105. von Groddeck, V. (2011). Rethinking the role of value communication in business corporations from a sociological perspective: Why organisations need value-based semantics to cope with societal and organisational fuzziness. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1135–1153.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Winkler, A. L. P., Brown, J. A., & Finegold, D. L. (2018). Employees as conduits for effective stakeholder engagement: An example from B corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and competence and strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159–184. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Wiseman, R. M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, 41(3), 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Zattoni, A. (2011). Who should control a corporation? Toward a contingency stakeholder model for allocating ownership rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald K. Mitchell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

To the best of authors’ knowledge, there are no relationships or interests either financial or non-financial that could influence or bias the work presented in this paper, including not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence this research.

Research Involving Animal and Human Rights

Authors attest that there are no sources of funding for this research, and that this research did not involve human subjects or animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mitchell, J.R., Mitchell, R.K., Hunt, R.A. et al. Stakeholder Engagement, Knowledge Problems and Ethical Challenges. J Bus Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04550-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Stakeholder engagement
  • Uncertainty and knowledge problems
  • Ethical challenges