Skip to main content

Theorizing stakeholders of sustainability in the digital age

Sustainability Science volume 12, pages 235–245 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Stakeholder theory, originally introduced in 1984 by philosopher Edward Freeman, is among the most influential theories today addressing the complex interplay of societal actors. It underwent several transformations and expansions, but the original Freeman model as well as the latest approaches places the corporation at the center positioning the theory as management driven. In this article—from a sustainability science perspective—we argue that sustainability could also be considered as the center, around which societal actors are grouped, because everyone, individuals as well as stakeholders, have a stake in a ‘common future’ that is built on the transformative concept of sustainability. Next to this shift of perspective from corporation to sustainability at the center, we advance the concept of sustainability stakeholders with the new paradigm of the digital age we (are about to) live in: the proposed sustainability-centered stakeholder theory is developed to incorporate novel parameters as brought about by digitalization (such as big data, real-time transparency, algorithmic correlations, predictive analytics, or changing privacy standards). Hence, we classify the stakeholders of sustainability according to their roles as “big data stakeholders:” collectors, generators, and utilizers of big data. This digital sustainability stakeholder model operationalizes the complex interplay between stakeholders focused on their ‘stake’ in sustainability and a common future and illustrates their roles in the digital age. Thus, it offers a normative framework to analyze stakeholders’ responsibility to contribute to, advance, promote, and achieve sustainability.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Anheier HK (2001) Foundations in Europe: a comparative perspective. Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann G (2016) Science for Sustainability—a societal and political perspective. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science: an introduction. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 359–367

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16(5):290–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr S (2003) Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area 35(3):227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry J (2006) Resistance is fertile: from environmental to sustainability citizenship. In: Dobson A, Bell D (eds) Environmental citizenship. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 21–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth M (2016) Teaching and learning in sustainability science. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) sustainability science. An introduction, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 325–333

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baur D, Palazzo G (2011) The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Bus Ethics Q 21(4):579–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beumer C, Martens P (2015) Biodiversity in my (back) yard: towards a framework for citizen engagement in exploring biodiversity and ecosystem services in residential gardens. Sustain Sci 10(1):87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2016) Polio strategy overview. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Polio. Accessed 18 Oct 2016

  • Boyd D, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):662–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JA, Forster WR (2013) CSR and stakeholder theory: a tale of adam smith. J Bus Ethics 112(2):301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Water Boards (2015) Californians meet governor’s water conservation mandate for fourth consecutive month. Media Release October 30th, Sacramento, CA. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2015/pr103015_sept_waterconservation.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2016

  • Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8059–8061

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (2016) Digital financial services. http://www.cgap.org/topics/digital-financial-services. Accessed 18 Oct 2016

  • Dahan NM, Doh JP, Raelin JD (2015) Pivoting the role of government in the business and society interface: a stakeholder perspective. J Bus Ethics 131(3):665–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies AR (2009) Does sustainability count? Environmental policy, sustainable development and the governance of grassroots sustainability enterprise in Ireland. Sustain Dev 17(3):174–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies AR, Mullin SJ (2011) Greening the economy: interrogating sustainability innovations beyond the mainstream. J Econ Geogr 11(5):793–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hond F, de Bakker FG, Doh J (2015) What prompts companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from the Netherlands. Bus Soc 54(2):187–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine J (2003) The paradox of sustainability: reflections on NGOs in Bangladesh. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 590(1):227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson LE, Preston (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Egels-Zandén N, Wahlqvist E (2007) Post-partnership strategies for defining corporate responsibility: the business social compliance initiative. J Bus Ethics 70(2):175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekbia H, Mattioli M, Kouper I, Arave G, Ghazinejad A, Bowman T, Sugimoto CR (2015) Big data, bigger dilemmas: a critical review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66(8):1523–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J (1998) Partnerships fromcannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manag 8(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fineman S, Clarke K (1996) Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response. J Manag Stud 33(6):715–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foundation Center (2016) Top funders. http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2016

  • Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Bus Ethics Q 4(04):409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC (2007) Managing for stakeholders. Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman AL, Miles S (2002) Developing stakeholder theory. J Manag Stud 39(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga E, Melé D (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. J Bus Ethics 53:51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvare R, Johansson P (2010) Management for sustainability—a stakeholder theory. Total Qual Manag 21(7):737–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijzen H (2013) Development: big data for a sustainable future. Nature 502:38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goes PB (2014) Editor’s comments: big data and IS research. Mis Quarterly 38(3):iii–viii

  • Hampton SE, Strasser CA, Tewksbury JJ, Gram WK, Budden AE, Batcheller AL, Duke CS, Porter JH (2013) Big data and the future of ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11(3):156–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves T, Hielscher S, Seyfang G, Smith A (2013) Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob Environ Change 23(5):868–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins CV, Wang X (2012) Sustainable development governance: citizen participation and support networks in local sustainability initiatives. Public Works Manag Policy 17(1):7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helbing D (2012) The future ICT knowledge accelerator towards a more resilient and sustainable future. In: Ball P (ed) Why society is a complex matter. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins P (2013) From sustainable development to carbon control: urban transformation in Hong Kong and London. J Clean Prod 50:56–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood CC, Margetts HZ (2015) The tools of government in the digital age. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali D (2008) A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice. J Bus Ethics 82(1):213–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):404–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones T, Wick AC (1999) Convergent stakeholders theory. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):206–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman J, Arico S (2014) New directions in sustainability science: promoting integration and cooperation. Sustain Sci 9(4):413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krysiak FC (2009) Risk management as a tool for sustainability. J Bus Ethics 85(3):483–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krysiak FC, Krysiak D (2006) Sustainability with uncertain future preferences. Environ Resour Econ 33(4):511–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach M, Rockström J, Raskin P, Scoones IC, Stirling AC, Smith A, Folke C (2012) Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol Soc 17(2):11

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin J (2015) On building better mousetraps and understanding the human condition reflections on big data in the social sciences. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 659(1):33–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mader C (2013) Sustainability process assessment on transformative potentials: the Graz model for integrative development. J Clean Prod 49:54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick K, Anderberg S, Coenen L, Neji L (2013) Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J Clean Prod 50(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute (2012) The social economy: unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. McKinsey & Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McVea JF, Freeman RE (2005) A Names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management how focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. J Manag Inq 14(1):57–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH (1972) The limits of growth. A report for the club of Rome’s project of the predicament of mankind. Earth Island, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Middlemiss L, Parrish BD (2010) Building capacity for low-carbon communities: the role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy 38(12):7559–7566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller O, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2013) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Review 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan A (2009) Conceptual niche management of grassroots innovation for sustainability: the case of body disposal practices in the UK. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76(8):1026–1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville BA, Menguc B (2006) Stakeholder multiplicity: toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. J Bus Ethics 66(4):377–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard RB (1992) Sustainability and the economics of assuring assets for future generations, Working Paper Series No. 832. World Bank Publications, Washington, pp 1–74

  • Parker C (2015) Strawberry fields forever: can consumers see pesticides and sustainability as an issue? Sustain Sci 10(2):285–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar BL, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Purnell L, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Acad Manag Ann 4(1):403–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Batres LA, Miller VV, Pisani MJ (2011) Institutionalizing sustainability: an empirical study of corporate registration and commitment to the United Nations global compact guidelines. J Clean Prod 19(8):843–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R, Freeman RE, Wicks AC (2003) What stakeholder theory is not. Bus Ethics Q 13(04):479–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podnar K, Jancic Z (2006) Towards a categorization of stakeholder groups: an empirical verification of a three-level model. J Mark Commun 12(4):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):887–910

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs S, Maurer S (2009) Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. J Bus Ethics 85(S3):535–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz A (2006) The triple bottom line. How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—and how you can too. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid E, Cohen J (2013) The new digital age: reshaping the future of people, nations and business. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider T, Sachs S (2015) The impact of stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks. J Bus Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2845-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Seele P (2016) Envisioning the digital sustainability panopticon: a thought experiment how big data may help advancing sustainability in the digital age. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0381-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Seele P, Lock I (2015) Instrumental and/or deliberative? A typology of CSR communication tools. J Bus Ethics 131(2):401–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang G, Haxeltine A (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30(3):381–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfang G, Smith A (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ Politics 16(4):584–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shevchenko A, Levesque M, Pagell M (2016) Why firms delay reaching true sustainability. J Manag Stud. doi:10.1111/joms.12199

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava P (1995) The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):936–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith J (2005) Dangerous news: media decision making about climate change risk. Risk Anal 25(6):1471–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaargaren G, Oosterveer P (2010) Citizen-consumers as agents of change in globalizing modernity: the case of sustainable consumption. Sustainability 2(7):1887–1908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens K, Morris J (2001) Struggling toward sustainability: considering grassroots development. Sustain Dev 9(3):149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumaila UR, Walters C (2005) Intergenerational discounting: a new intuitive approach. Ecol Econ 52(2):135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumi A (2007) On several issues regarding efforts toward a sustainable society. Sustain Sci 2(1):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Chang 14(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uphoff N (1993) Grassroots organizations and NGOs in rural development: opportunities with diminishing states and expanding markets. World Dev 21(4):607–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Schnurbein G, Seele P, Lock I (2016) Exclusive corporate philanthropy: rethinking the nexus of csr and corporate philanthropy (accepted). Soc Responsib J 12(12):280–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhues M, Einwiller S (2006) Corporate foundations: their role for corporate social responsibility. Corp Reput Rev 9(2):144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2014) Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 9(4):497–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Council of Economic Development—WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwitter A (2014) Big data ethics. Big Data Soc 1(2):1–6. doi:10.1177/2053951714559253

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Irina Lock & Peter Seele

  2. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Irina Lock

Authors
  1. Irina Lock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Seele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina Lock.

Additional information

Handled by Osamu Saito, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Japan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lock, I., Seele, P. Theorizing stakeholders of sustainability in the digital age. Sustain Sci 12, 235–245 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0404-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0404-2

Keywords

  • Digital age
  • Stakeholder theory
  • Sustainability
  • Big data