Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions

Journal of Business Ethics 142 (3):437-459 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Stakeholder theory is widely accepted but elementary aspects remain indeterminate as the term ‘stakeholder’ is an essentially contested concept, being variously describable, internally complex and open in character. Such contestability is highly problematic for theory development and empirical testing. The extent of essential contestability, previously unknown, is demonstrated in this paper through a bounded systematic review of 593 different stakeholder theory definitions. As an essentially contested concept, the solution does not lie in a universal stakeholder definition, but in debating the boundaries of stakeholder identification. To this end, this paper presents the first major attempt at sorting, filtering and ordering stakeholder theory and stakeholder definitions to produce a comprehensive, multi-dimensional classification of stakeholder theory. The constructs of the classification model juxtapose existing stakeholder theories and contributions from across the multi-contextual applications of stakeholder theory, thereby providing an invaluable overview of what we know about stakeholder theory in one model. The classification model is then tested with positive results. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion of the implications of classification stakeholder theory definitions, which has for future research.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,752

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused? [REVIEW]Samantha Miles - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 108 (3):285-298.
Whither Stakeholder Theory? A Guide for the Perplexed Revisited.John Hasnas - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 112 (1):47-57.
Theoretical terms and partial definitions.John A. Winnie - 1965 - Philosophy of Science 32 (3/4):324-328.
God as a Managerial Stakeholder?Mark S. Schwartz - 2006 - Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2/3):291 - 306.
Decentered Stakeholder Theory: Toward a Research Agenda.Dominic Kaeslin, Ruth Schmitt & Jerry Calton - 2007 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 18:448-452.
Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy.Adele Santana - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2):257-265.
Analysing moral issues in stakeholder relations.Johanna Kujala - 2001 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 10 (3):233–247.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-03

Downloads
125 (#144,576)

6 months
24 (#116,337)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

IX.—Essentially Contested Concepts.W. B. Gallie - 1956 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1):167-198.
The Politics of Stakeholder Theory.R. Edward Freeman - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4):409-421.
Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.Kenneth E. Goodpaster - 1991 - Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1):53-73.
Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management.Archie B. Carroll - 2002 - Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Pub./Thomson Learning. Edited by Ann K. Buchholtz.
Ethics and the Conduct of Business.John Raymond Boatright - 2009 - Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall. Edited by Jeffery David Smith.

View all 54 references / Add more references