Applying Stakeholder Theory to E-government

Benefits and Limits
  • Hans J. Scholl
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 74)


According to most scholars in the field, stakeholder theory is not a special theory on a firm’s constituencies but sets out to replace today’s prevailing neoclassical economic concept of the firm. Though stakeholder theory explicitly is a theory on a private sector entity, some scholars apply it to public sector organizations. This paper summarizes stakeholder theory, discusses its premises and justifications, compares its tracks, sheds light on recent attempts to join the two tracks, and discusses the benefits and limits of its practical applicability to the public sector using the case of a recent New York State e-Government initiative.


Business Ethic Corporate Governance Management Review Stakeholder Theory Corporate Social Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
    R. E. Freeman, “Divergent stakeholder theory,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. 233–236, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Key, “Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder “theory”,” Management Decision, vol. 37, pp. 317–328, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Marens and A. Wicks, “Getting real:stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 273–293, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. E. Freeman, Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. K. Mitchell, B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood, “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Defining the principle of who and what really counts,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, pp. 853–866, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Reed, “Stakeholder management theory: a critical theory perspective.,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 453–483, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. E. Freeman, “Strategic management: a stakeholder approach,” in Advances in strategic management, vol. 1, R. Lamb, Ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1983, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Cohen, “Stakeholders and consent.,” Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 14, pp, 3–14, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. A. Phillips, “Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 7, pp. 51–46, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Clarkson, “A risk based model of stakeholder theory,” presented at Proceedings of the second Toronto conference on stakeholder theory, Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. F. Alkhafaji, A stakeholder approach to corporate governance: managing in a dynamic environment. New York: Quorum Books, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Etzioni, “A communitarian note on stakeholder theory.,” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 8, pp. 679–691, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    T. M. Jones, “Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics.,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 404–437, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Donaldson and L. E. Preston, “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 63–91, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Frooman, “Stakeholder influence strategies,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. p191 15p, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. B. E. Clarkson, “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 92–117, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. P. Sethi, “Introduction to AMR’s special topic forum on shifting paradigms: societal expectations and corporate performance,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 18–21, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    T. M. Jones and A. C. Wicks, “Convergent stakeholder theory,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. 206–221, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    L. K. Treviño and G. R. Weaver, “The stakeholder research tradition: converging theorists-not convergent theory,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. p. 222–227, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Friedman, “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,” in New York Times Magazine, 1970.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    D. A. Gioia, “Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, pp. 228–232, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    T. Donaldson, “Making stakeholder theory whole,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, pp. 237–241, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. F. Weston and T. E. Copeland, Managerial finance, 9th ed. Fort Worth: Dryden Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. O. Cloninger, “Managerial goals and ethical behavior,” Financial Practice & Education, vol. 5, pp. 50–59, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Argandoña, “The stakeholder theory and the common good,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 17, pp. 10931102, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    N. A. Shankman, “Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 19, pp. 319–334, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    D. P. Quinn and T. M. Jones, “An agent morality view of business policy.,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, pp. 22–42, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. R. Tennert and A. D. Schroeder, “Stakeholder analysis,” presented at 60th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Orlando, FL, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    D. L. Blair and C. J. Whitehead, “Too many on the seesaw. Stakeholder diagnosis and management for hospitals,” Hospital and Health Administratian, vol. 33, pp. 153–166, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    T. A. Pardo, H. J. Scholl, M. E. Cook, D. R. Connelly, and S. S. Dawes, New York State Central Accounting System Stakeholder Needs Analysis. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans J. Scholl
    • 1
  1. 1.University at AlbanySunyUSA

Personalised recommendations