Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stakeholder theory advocates that firms bear responsibility for the implications of their actions. However, while a firm affects or can affect stakeholders, stakeholders can also affect the corporation. Previous stakeholder theorising has neglected the reciprocal nature of responsibility. The question can be asked whether—in a spirit of reciprocity, loyalty and fairness—stakeholders should treat the corporation in a fair and responsible way. This study based on different definitions of stakeholders argues that various stakeholder attributes differ for different categories of stakeholders. This analysis presumes that the attribute of stakeholder reciprocity can probably be restricted to real stakeholders, labelled stakeowners: genuine stakeholders with a legitimate stake, the loyal partners who strive for mutual benefits. Stakeowners own and deserve a stake in the firm. Stakeholder reciprocity could be an innovative criterion in the corporate governance debate as to who should be accorded representation on the board. Corporate social responsibility should imply corporate stakeholder responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair, A. (1999). Codes for conduct are good for NGOs too. Review—Institute of Public Affairs, 51(1), 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkhafaji, A. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance. Managing in a dynamic environment. Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Sutherland Rahman, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder thinking. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attarça, M., & Jacquot, T. (2005). La représentation de la Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises: Une confrontation entre les approches théoriques et les visions managériales. XIViéme Conférence internationale de Management Stratégique, Angers.

  • Baker, L. (1996). The ethics of protest. Vital Speeches of the Day, 62(8), 252–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2009). Managing human resources. New York: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. (1991). New directions in CSR. Business Horizons, 34, 56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N., & Werhane, P. (2005). Management ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (1993). In J. Pasquero & D. Collins (Eds.), The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision-making: Some propositions and a model (pp. 205–210). San Diego: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1997). Stakeholders: The case in favour. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 446–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2006). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (6th ed.). Mason: Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, T. (2003). Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the recent corporate scandals. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 389–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J., & Roberts, J. (2001). An ethic for corporate governance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, R., & Shapiro, A. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). The behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, N. (2005). A contribution to the conceptualization of political resources utilized in corporate political action. Journal of Public Affairs, 5(1), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, F., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business & Society, 47, 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., & Teegen, H. (2002). Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: Theory and implications. International Business Review, 11, 665–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elms, H. (2006). Corporate and stakeholder responsibility in Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Emerging Markets., 3, 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elms, H., & Phillips, R. (2009). Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: Corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W., & Freeman, E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 75–84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2009a). Inconsistencies in activist’s behaviour and the ethics of NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 503–521.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2010). A dynamic perspective in Freeman’s stakeholder model. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2. Business and Society, 33(2), 150–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 220–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., & Evan, W. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioural Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., & Gilbert, D. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., Harrison, J., & Wicks, A. (2007). Managing for stakeholders. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Galai, D., & Wiener, Z. (2008). Stakeholders and the composition of the voting rights of the board of directors. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(2), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S., & Starks, L. (2000). Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(2), 275–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., & Mercier, S. (2006). La théorie des parties prenantes: une synthèse critique. In J. Allouche (Ed.), Encyclopédie des Ressources Humaines. Paris: Vuibert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Wicks, A. (2007). Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 375–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C., & Ross, I. (1992). Consumer responses to service failures: Influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 25(2), 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, U., Bode, M., & Moosmayer, D. (2004). Stakeholder theory between general and contextual approaches: A German view. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 312–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J., & Freeman, E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten, S., & Mallin, C. (2006). Are ‘ethical’ or ‘socially responsible’ investments socially responsible? Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. (2001). Misguided virtue: False notions of corporate social responsibility. Wellington: New Business Roundtable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, W., MacDougall, A., & Zadek, S. (2001). Corporate stakeholding, ethical investment, social accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, L., & Murdoch, H. (2005). Auditing (and communicating) your way to an ethical supply chain. Corporate Responsibility Management, 1(3), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J., & Nijhof, A. (2006). Looking through the eyes of the others: Assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR. Corporate Governance an International Review, 14(5), 456–466.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapstein, E. (2001). The corporate ethics crusade. Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T., & Rubinstein, S. (2000). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization Science, 11(4), 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J., & Greening, D. (2002). Public-interest groups as stakeholders: A ‘stakeholder salience’ explanation of activism. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 267–289). Greenleaf: Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (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 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003a). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003b). Stakeholder theory and organization ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., & Caldwell, C. (2005). Value chain responsibility: A farewell to arm’s length. Business and Society Review, 110(4), 345–370.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K. (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichheld, F. (1993). Loyalty-based management. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, F. (2005). The future of corporate social responsibility. Asian Business And Management, 2005(4), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G., Nix, T., Whitehead, J., & Blair, J. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, E. (2008). Shareholder activism for corporate social responsibility: What do we know? Sustainable Development, 163, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood, P. (2003). Shareholder engagement: Prospects for improving corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5(2, 3), 223–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spar, D., & La Mure, L. (2003). The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), 207–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, P. (1995). Business in the nineties: Facing public interest. In P. Ulrich & C. Sarasin (Eds.), Facing public interest. The ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communication (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 349–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., & Silampää, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, M. (2002). NGO strategies for promoting corporate social responsibility. Ethics & International Affairs, 16(1), 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaziji, M. (2004). Turning gadflies into allies. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 110–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. (2008). Building chains and directing flows. Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business and Society, 47(1), 68–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the professors Silvana Signori (Università di Bergamo), Ed Freeman (Darden School, University of Virginia), Aimé Heene (Ghent University) and Marc Buelens (Vlerick Business School) for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve this paper. I would also like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers to whom I owe the formulation of the three observations marked with an asterisk* in the text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vlerick Business School & Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Fassin

Authors
  1. Yves Fassin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Fassin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fassin, Y. Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 109, 83–96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation