The Experts below are selected from a list of 34986 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Edward R Freeman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
integrating Stakeholder Theory and sustainability accounting a conceptual synthesis
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020Co-Authors: Jacob Hörisch, Stefan Schaltegger, Edward R FreemanAbstract:Abstract This paper aims at integrating the bodies of literature on Stakeholder Theory and sustainability accounting. Using the conceptual methodological approach of Theory synthesis, Stakeholder Theory is employed as a method Theory to advance sustainability accounting as a domain Theory. On this basis the concept of ‘Accounting for Sustainability and Stakeholders’ is developed. This concept highlights which sustainability topics and which Stakeholders to consider in accounting for a given organization and how the inclusion of additional Stakeholders and topics can contribute to creating value for Stakeholders. In conclusion, this paper highlights that an overly broad inclusion of Stakeholder groups and sustainability topics can be replaced by a purposeful selection of Stakeholders and topics of particular relevance for the specific organization. As an additional advantage, the concept prevents disconnecting sustainability accounting from conventional accounting.
-
tensions in Stakeholder Theory
Business & Society, 2020Co-Authors: Edward R Freeman, Robert A Phillips, Rajendra S SisodiaAbstract:A number of tensions have been suggested between Stakeholder Theory and strategic management (SM). Following a brief review of the histories of Stakeholder Theory and mainstream SM, we argue that m...
-
business cases for sustainability a Stakeholder Theory perspective
Organization & Environment, 2019Co-Authors: Stefan Schaltegger, Jacob Hörisch, Edward R FreemanAbstract:The “business case for sustainability” is a notion often referenced in the corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility literature. Whereas some see sustainability and the business ...
-
Stakeholder Theory concepts and strategies
2018Co-Authors: Edward R Freeman, Jeffrey S Harrison, Stelios C ZyglidopoulosAbstract:The Stakeholder perspective is an alternative way of understanding how companies and people create value and trade with each other. Freeman, Harrison and Zyglidopoulos discuss the foundation concepts and implementation of Stakeholder management as well as the advantages this approach provides to firms and their managers. They present a number of tools that managers can use to implement Stakeholder thinking, better understand Stakeholders and create value with and for them. The Element concludes by discussing how managers can create Stakeholder oriented control systems and by examining some of the important Stakeholder-related issues that are worthy of future scholarly and managerial attention.
-
corporate social responsibility and Stakeholder Theory learning from each other
Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 2017Co-Authors: Edward R Freeman, Sergiy DmytriyevAbstract:This paper explores the relationship between two major concepts in business ethics - Stakeholder Theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR). We argue that CSR is a part of corporate responsibilities (company responsibilities to all Stakeholders), and show that there is a need for both concepts in business ethics, and their applicability is dependent on a particular problem we want to solve. After reviewing some criticisms of CSR - covering wrongdoing and creating false dichotomies, we suggest that incorporating some findings from recent research on Stakeholder Theory can help align both concepts and overcome the criticisms. At the end of the article, we outline potential directions for future research on CSR.
Robert A Phillips - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tensions in Stakeholder Theory
Business & Society, 2020Co-Authors: Edward R Freeman, Robert A Phillips, Rajendra S SisodiaAbstract:A number of tensions have been suggested between Stakeholder Theory and strategic management (SM). Following a brief review of the histories of Stakeholder Theory and mainstream SM, we argue that m...
-
what Stakeholder Theory is not
Social Science Research Network, 2005Co-Authors: Robert A Phillips, Edward R Freeman, Andrew C. WicksAbstract:The term Stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of Stakeholder Theory's greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the Theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations - critical and friendly - of the Theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing Theory as a starting place for future research.
-
Stakeholder Theory and organizational ethics
2003Co-Authors: Robert A PhillipsAbstract:- The only detailed, comprehensive treatment of Stakeholder Theory-the most popular framework for discussions of business ethics-currently in print - Examines Stakeholder Theory from the perspective of several fields of study, including strategic management, economics, moral and political philosophy, social psychology, and environmental ethics - Provides a means for determining who are and are not Stakeholders and why-including such controversial Stakeholder candidates as competitors, activists, and the natural environment Business ethics is a staple in the news today. One of the most difficult ethical questions facing managers is, To whom are they responsible? Organizations can affect and are affected by many different constituencies-these groups are often called Stakeholders. But who are these Stakeholders? What sort of managerial attention should they receive? Is there a legal duty to attend to Stakeholders or is such a duty legally prohibited due to the shareholder wealth maximization imperative? In short, for whose benefit ought a firm be managed? Despite the ever growing importance of these questions, there is no comprehensive, theoretical treatment of the Stakeholder framework currently in print. In Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics, Robert Phillips provides an extended defense of Stakeholder Theory as the preeminent Theory of organizational ethics today. Addressing the difficult question of what the moral underpinning of Stakeholder Theory should be, Phillips elaborates a "principle of Stakeholder fairness" based on the ideas of the late John Rawls-the most prominent moral and political philosopher of the twentieth century. Phillips shows how this principle clarifies several long-standing questions in Stakeholder Theory, including: Who are an organization's legitimate Stakeholders? What is the basis for this legitimacy? What, if any, are the limits of Stakeholder Theory? What is the relationship between Stakeholder Theory and other moral, political, and business ethical theories? Applying research from many related disciplines, Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics is an overdue response to several long-standing and fundamental points of contention within business ethics and management Theory.
-
Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2002Co-Authors: R. Edward Freeman, Robert A PhillipsAbstract:The purpose of this paper is to suggest that at least one strain of what has come to be called “Stakeholder Theory” has roots that are deeply libertarian. We begin by explicating both “Stakeholder Theory” and “libertarian arguments.” We show how there are libertarian arguments for both instrumental and normative Stakeholder Theory, and we construct a version of capitalism, called “Stakeholder capitalism,” that builds on these libertarian ideas. We argue throughout that strong notions of “freedom” and “voluntary action” are the best possible underpinnings for Stakeholder Theory, and in doing so, seek to return “Stakeholder Theory” to its managerial and libertarian roots found in Freeman (1984).
-
Stakeholder Theory a libertarian defense
Social Science Research Network, 2001Co-Authors: Edward R Freeman, Robert A PhillipsAbstract:Quine once wrote that "sentences do not confront the tribunal of experience alone." And, he might have added, "nor do arguments and theories". Sentences, as well as arguments and theories, always import their background conditions and related theories with them. Context plays a crucial role in social phenomena, and sometimes we need to resist the efforts of greedy reductionists to set context aside and focus on the precision of hypotheses, the collection of data, and the rituals of method. Sometimes it is important to point out a feature of the everyday landscape which is often taken for granted, because in doing so, we can come to see new relationships and new features that previously were hidden. Such is the role of what has come to be called "Stakeholder Theory", and its relationship to our understanding of business activity.
Andrew C. Wicks - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stakeholder Theory value and firm performance
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2013Co-Authors: Jeffrey S Harrison, Andrew C. WicksAbstract:This paper argues that the notion of value has been overly simplified and narrowed to focus on economic returns. Stakeholder Theory provides an appropriate lens for considering a more complex perspective of the value that Stakeholders seek as well as new ways to measure it. We develop a four-factor perspective for defining value that includes, but extends beyond, the economic value Stakeholders seek. To highlight its distinctiveness, we compare this perspective to three other popular performance perspectives. Recommendations are made regarding performance measurement for both academic researchers and practitioners. The Stakeholder perspective on value offered in this paper draws attention to those factors that are most closely associated with building more value for Stakeholders, and in so doing, allows academics to better measure it and enhances managerial ability to create it.
-
Stakeholder Theory the state of the art
2010Co-Authors: Idha L Parma, Andrew C. Wicks, Edward R Freema, Jeffrey S Harriso, Laure Purnell, Simone De ColleAbstract:For the last 30 years a growing number of scholars and practitioners have been experimenting with concepts and models that facilitate our understanding of the complexities of today’s business challenges. Among these, “Stakeholder Theory” or “Stakeholder thinking” has emerged as a new narrative to understand and remedy three interconnected business problems—the problem of understanding how value is created and traded, the problem of connecting ethics and capitalism, and the problem of helping managers think about management such that the first two problems are addressed. In this article, we review the major uses and adaptations of Stakeholder Theory across a broad array of disciplines such as business ethics, corporate strategy, finance, accounting, management, and marketing. We also evaluate and suggest future directions in which research on Stakeholder Theory can continue to provide useful insights into the practice of sustainable and ethical value creation.
-
what Stakeholder Theory is not
Social Science Research Network, 2005Co-Authors: Robert A Phillips, Edward R Freeman, Andrew C. WicksAbstract:The term Stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of Stakeholder Theory's greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the Theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations - critical and friendly - of the Theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing Theory as a starting place for future research.
-
Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”
Organization Science, 2004Co-Authors: R. Edward Freeman, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan ParmarAbstract:Stakeholder Theory begins with the assumption that values are necessarily and explicitly a part of doing business. It asks managers to articulate the shared sense of the value they create, and what brings its core Stakeholders together. It also pushes managers to be clear about how they want to do business, specifically what kinds of relationships they want and need to create with their Stakeholders to deliver on their purpose. This paper offers a response to Sundaram and Inkpen’s article “The Corporate Objective Revisited” by clarifying misconceptions about Stakeholder Theory and concluding that truth and freedom are best served by seeing business and ethics as connected.
-
ethics and incentives an evaluation and development of Stakeholder Theory in the health care industry
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2002Co-Authors: Heather Elms, Shawn L Berman, Andrew C. WicksAbstract:This paper utilizes a qualitative case study of the health care industry and a recent legal case to demonstrate that Stakeholder Theory’s focus on ethics, without recognition of the effects of incentives, severely limits the Theory’s ability to provide managerial direction and explain managerial behavior. While ethics provide a basis for Stakeholder prioritization, incentives influence whether managerial action is consistent with that prioritization. Our health care examples highlight this and other limitations of Stakeholder Theory and demonstrate the explanatory and directive power added by the inclusion of the interactive effects of ethics and incentives in Stakeholder ordering.
Reinhard Steurer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mapping Stakeholder Theory anew from the Stakeholder Theory of the firm to three perspectives on business society relations
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Reinhard SteurerAbstract:Stakeholder Theory has evolved from a corporate-centric perspective into a more comprehensive research field which addresses business-society relations from various points of views. To reflect on and to guide such theoretical developments is the purpose of second-order theories. However, the second-order Stakeholder theories developed so far do not mirror the full spectrum of the Stakeholder research field. This paper tries to fill this gap with a triple-perspective typology of Stakeholder Theory. It shows that the issue of Stakeholder management can be approached from a corporate, a Stakeholder, or a conceptual point of view. The corporate perspective focuses on how corporations deal with Stakeholders, the Stakeholder perspective analyses how Stakeholders try to influence corporations, and the conceptual perspective explores how particular concepts, such as “the common good” or sustainable development, relate to business-Stakeholder interactions. In addition, the triple-perspective typology incorporates Donaldson and Preston’s influential second-order Theory and shows that each of the three perspectives features a normative, a descriptive and an instrumental aspect. Consequently, the typology presented here depicts nine ideal-typical Stakeholder research approaches, each of them approximating business-society relations in a unique way. Mapping Stakeholder Theory anew can advance Stakeholder research beyond its current limitations by raising awareness for neglected research approaches and issues.
-
mapping Stakeholder Theory anew from the Stakeholder Theory of the firm to three perspectives on business society relations
Business Strategy and The Environment, 2006Co-Authors: Reinhard SteurerAbstract:Stakeholder Theory has evolved from a corporate-centric perspective into a more comprehensive research field, which addresses business–society relations from various points of view. To reflect on and to guide such theoretical developments is the purpose of second-order theories. However, the second-order Stakeholder theories developed so far do not mirror the full spectrum of the Stakeholder research field. This paper tries to fill this gap with a triple-perspective typology of Stakeholder Theory. It shows that the issue of Stakeholder management can be approached from a corporate, a Stakeholder or a conceptual point of view. The corporate perspective focuses on how corporations deal with Stakeholders, the Stakeholder perspective analyses how Stakeholders try to influence corporations and the conceptual perspective explores how particular concepts, such as ‘the common good’ or sustainable development, relate to business–Stakeholder interactions. In addition, the triple-perspective typology incorporates the influential second-order Theory of Donaldson and Preston and shows that each of the three perspectives features a normative, a descriptive and an instrumental aspect. Consequently, the typology presented here depicts nine ideal-typical Stakeholder research approaches, each of them approximating business–society relations in a unique way. Mapping Stakeholder Theory anew can advance Stakeholder research beyond its current limitations by raising awareness for neglected research approaches and issues. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Trish Ruebottom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Stakeholder Theory and social identity rethinking Stakeholder identification
Journal of Business Ethics, 2011Co-Authors: Andrew Crane, Trish RuebottomAbstract:In this article, we propose an adaption to Stakeholder Theory whereby Stakeholders are conceptualized on the basis of their social identity. We begin by offering a critical review of both traditional and more recent developments in Stakeholder Theory, focusing in particular on the way in which Stakeholder categories are identified. By identifying critical weaknesses in the existing approach, as well as important points of strength, we outline an alternative approach that refines our understanding of Stakeholders in important ways. To do so, we draw on notions of social identity as the fundamental basis for group cohesion, mobilization, and action. A new form of cross-mapping as a basis for Stakeholder identification is advanced and key research questions are set out.
-
Stakeholder Theory and social identity rethinking Stakeholder identification
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Andrew Crane, Trish RuebottomAbstract:In this paper we propose an adaption to Stakeholder Theory whereby Stakeholders are conceptualized on the basis of their social identity. We begin by offering a critical review of both traditional and more recent developments in Stakeholder Theory, focusing in particular on the way in which Stakeholder categories are identified. By identifying critical weaknesses in the existing approach, as well as important points of strength, we outline an alternative approach that refines our understanding of Stakeholders in important ways. To do so, we draw on notions of social identity and identification as the fundamental basis for group cohesion, attention, mobilization, and action. A new form of cross-mapping as a basis for Stakeholder identification is advanced and key research questions are set out.
