Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Non stakeholders
Figure 5. The stake model of the rm.
124 Yves Fassin
taken from the PPS view. Again, it has to be pointed
out that the adapted, rened stake model, as every
model, is a simplication. The stake model when
applied in detail should therefore show the necessary
nuances in function of each specic situation. A
more detailed application to each specic rm can
present variations of different degrees. Stakeholders
have a dynamic aspect (Post et al., 2002b, p. 26),
situation and issue specic, and thus temporary
(Winn, 2001). Pressures, threats and opportunities in
a corporations environment vary over time (Jawahar
and McLaughlin, 2001; Phillips, 2003b). Some
pressure groups as specic interest groups can be
very cooperative with the company and can merit
the status of a stakeholder rather than a stakewatcher;
some shareholder activists may have more of a
stakewatcher approach than a stakeholder one, while
it is hard to see daytraders as genuine stakeholders.
The media can be helpful on some occasions and
aggressive on others, and can, in turn, present
characteristics of stakekeeper, stakewatcher and
stakeholder. The government is also a complex
stakeholder since it provides infrastructure and levies
taxes, while simultaneously enacting laws and
imposing regulations. Through its tax administration
role, government is even considered by some
observers as a silent shareholder one that imposes
taxes of up to one-third or even one-half of the
rms prots before dividends. Government can
indeed present the characteristics of stakeholder,
stakewatcher and stakekeeper, in line with its mul-
tiple functions. Regulation originating from law,
government and administration, belongs to the
stakekeepers, while self-regulation that generally
emanates from the industrial sectors or from pro-
fessional associations, as voluntary actions, has to be
located in the appropriate stakewatcher group.
For the sake of simplication, but keeping these
clarications and nuances in mind, the gure as
presented here (Figure 5) places the stakeholder
groups in the appropriate oval section for their most-
likely dominant function. For the same obvious
reasons of clarity, the multiple linkages between
stakeholders (Phillips, 2003a, p. 127) and the net-
work relations among the various stakeholders, as
quite rightly addressed by Rowley (1997), are not
represented on the graph (by superposition), but
have been tacitly and implicitly accepted (Fassin,
2008).
Justification of the stake model
This section will attempt to validate the proposed
stake model. Starting from Freemans stakeholder
model, the following criticisms levelled against it are
considered: the identication and selection of stake-
holder groups, the position of pressure groups and
regulators and the different levels of the environment.
The extent to which the various adaptations to the
stake model proposed here respond to them are
explored. The analysis concentrates on pragmatic
managerial and organisational implications.
The identication and selection of stakeholder groups
In a stakeholder approach, the rst critical phase
consists of identifying the stakeholders. A differen-
tiation among stakeholders, stakewatchers and
stakekeepers, on the basis of the attributes of the
Mitchell, Agle and Wood typology and responsi-
bility criteria, will facilitate the identication phase.
The model visibly distinguishes between internal
and external stakeholders. It underlines the tripartite
nature of stakeholders, making a clear distinction
among real stakeholders, pressure groups and regu-
lators. In so doing, it also better separates the
legitimate stakeholders from the rest. The new
graphical representation better visualises this more
realistic categorisation of stakeholders. This solar
system scheme corresponds more closely with the
view of the corporation as a complex network of
constituencies (Clarkson, 1995) and also better
coincides with the denition of organisations as
coalitions of individuals and organised sub-coalitions
(Cyert and March, 1963, p. 27).
In selecting individual stakeholder groups, choices
have to be made, and choices imply a degree of
arbitrary decision-making. The selection here was
based on an analysis of the major papers in the lit-
erature on the subject. The various stakeholders
were grouped on the basis of a thorough review in
order to select and retain an acceptable number of
them, and to end up with something comparable to
the classical stakeholder model. The original con-
stituencies have been accepted as real stakeholders.
This process resulted in the following categories of
stakeholders: shareholders, employees, customers,
business, communities, and the wider world each
The Stakeholder Model Rened 125
with an associated stakewatcher. The government,
civil society, the media, others and non-stake-
holders act as stakekeepers and orbit in the outer ring.
The stake model thus integrates virtually all of the
classical stakeholders and pressure groups found in
the existing models.
The different levels of the environment
Following the PPS viewpoint, the new stake model
better visualises the boundaries of the rm and the
three levels of the company, the business environ-
ment and the social political arena. The stakeholders
within the ring represent the rm; the adjacent
segments of the associated stakewatchers largely
cover the business environment; and beyond the
ring and segments is the wider environment of the
social political arena with its stakekeepers. The var-
ious economic levels are included in the model: the
rm at the microeconomic level, the broader eco-
nomic community and the world on the macro-
economic level. Beyond the economic world, the
model also integrates the public sector, the general
public and society, largely outside of the ring.
The ambivalent position of pressure groups
and regulators
The new stake model better illustrates the status of
the various stakeholders and stakewatchers, and re-
ects their attributes. Within the rm-level circle,
the power and inuence of the rm dominates the
stakeholders, whereas the stakewatchers outside the
rm generally have the greater inuence in their
relationship with the rm. In this stake model, it is
mainly the stakeholders that can be heavily affected
by the rm, whereas the rm is mainly affected by
the stakewatchers and the stakekeepers. The rm has
a moral obligation towards the stakeholders to care
about them but has no moral obligation to attend
to the wellbeing of the stakewatchers who hold
power over the rm. Since both stakewatchers and
stakekeepers derive their power from their legiti-
macy, they can call rms to account. They conse-
quently can exert both benecial and harmful
inuences on a rm (Phillips, 2003b). As stake-
keepers impose additional responsibilities upon the
rm they should be considered in a strategic
perspective.
The refined stakeholder model
as a strategic instrument
Returning to the stakeholder models graphical
representation has contributed to clarifying the dis-
cussion on stakeholder denition, stakeholder
identication and categorisation. It has re-centred
the debate to the strategic origin of stakeholder
theory. This confrontation from different perspec-
tives has lead to a few incremental improvements in
the graphical scheme, with better dened boundaries
of the rm, in conjunction with a new terminology.
This rened stakeholder model offers greater help in
identifying and selecting stakeholder groups, the rst
step for stakeholder analysis and strategic stakeholder
management.
The similarity to Freemans stakeholder model
Originally a different visual presentation had been
envisaged, one closer to reality and more reective of
certain criticisms (see Note 14). However, this is seen
as deviating too far from Freemans widely accepted
stakeholder model whose powerful visual value is
recognised and acknowledged. Freeman started from
a strategic and managerial approach. Therefore, the
new model was further developed such that it did not
lose the familiarity of the accepted basic scheme
while absorbing the logical evolution based on
stakeholder research. Indeed, the new model ts the
logic of the evolutionary line that started with
Freemans original version, includes his later adap-
tation and continues to beckon future research.
The essentials of the graphical presentation are
preserved. The major elements of Freemans model
remain unchanged: the central oval with a number of
surrounding ovals, plus a number of external ovals.
The desire for clarity has, however, required a few
minor but essential modications. The three princi-
pal differences are the adjacency of the stakeholders
and their associated pressure groups in a single oval
for each group, the ring that cuts the various asso-
ciated stakeholder groups, and the replacement of the
rm at the core by its management.
126 Yves Fassin
Schemes, diagrams, visual or graphical representa-
tions are sensemaking constructions. Like all syn-
thesised representations, the stakeholder framework
inevitably simplies and reduces reality (Pesqueux and
Damak-Ayadi, 2005; Fassin, 2008). Whereas the
complexity and subtlety of some meanings can be near
impossible to put intowords (Kress and VanLeeuwen,
1996; Meyer, 1991), visual representations can sim-
plify and aggregate complex information into mean-
ingful patterns (Worren et al., 2002). Diagrams can
help people comprehend their environments
(Anderson, 1980; Meyer, 1991). The stakeholder
model ts in perfectly to these criteria. In revealing
the data at several levels of analysis, and in inducing the
viewer to think about substance rather than about
methodology (Meyer, 1991, p. 232), the rened
stakeholder model corresponds even better to the
requirements for schemata. As a means for concep-
tualisation, schemes allow for simultaneous percep-
tion of parts as well as a grasp of interrelations between
parts (Maruyama, 1986 cited in Meyer, 1991, p.
229), which has always been the principal aim of the
stakeholder graphical model.
The strategy for managing stakeholders, stakewatchers
and stakekeepers
In order to be useful, stakeholder theory must
provide an account of how stakeholders try to act to
inuence the rms decision making and, ultimately,
the rms behaviour (Frooman, 1999, p. 192). The
proposed rened model clearly offers some benet
in terms of more efcient stakeholder management
(as recommended by Caroll and Buchholtz, 2006,
pp. 7589). Following the identication phase,
threats and opportunities can be evaluated while
taking into account the responsibilities of the rm
towards each group of stakeholders. Who is
dependent on whom and by how much will deter-
mine the type of inuence strategy (Frooman,
1999, p. 201). The assessment of a stakeholders
capacity and willingness to threaten or cooperate will
allow the rm to elaborate the appropriate response
in either an offensive or a defensive way. The
nature of their interdependency and the inuence on
the environmental uncertainty facing the rm will
help determine the priorities (Harrison and St. John,
1996).
Stakeholder theory is about managing potential
conict stemming from divergent interests. (Froo-
man, 1999, p. 193). The relationships with the
majority of stakeholders will be seen as a potential for
cooperation, whereas the relationships with most
stakewatchers will be considered as a potential threat
(Freeman, 1984; Savage et al., 1991). Applying the
typology of strategies put forward by Savage et al.
(1991) will help in developing a strategy for action
with respect to each stakeholder: accommodate,
negotiate, manipulate or resist. For the majority of
supportive stakeholders, a strategy of involvement
will be preferred. Non-supportive stakewatchers will
be handled with a defensive strategy, or through
monitoring in the case of marginal stakewatchers.
Due to the complexity of their role, involving
control and signalling, the relationship with stake-
keepers may be somewhat more complicated and
elaborated. Depending on their potential for coop-
eration with the rm, the strategy for stakekeepers
will be one of collaboration, or monitoring, often
expressed in lobbying.
Stakeholders who are strategically important
should be managed as partners (Harrison and
St. John, 1996, p. 51). The rened stakeholder
model helps in better understanding organisations
and thus facilitates both the strategic analysis of
assessing stakeholders and the elaboration of the
appropriate strategy for managing stakeholders.
While our rened stakeholder model is for reasons
of clarity predominantly rm-centred, as Freemans
original model, the network view of stakeholders
should still be considered as an implicit assumption.
The rm is only a node in a network of relations
among stakeholders, a perspective that has even more
relevance for issues in business and society than for
strategic management.
15
Conclusion
The conceptualisations in Freemans original stake-
holder model and in its revised version have been
widely accepted as a management tool for develop-
ing corporate strategy. However, over the years, the
uncontrolled broadening of its scope and applica-
tions, coupled with the parallel multiplication of
stakeholder denitions, has created confusion. Crit-
ics have attacked the vagueness and ambiguity of the
The Stakeholder Model Rened 127
underlying theory. A strong need for clarication
and a clear delimitation of the stakeholders was thus
urgently needed.
Curiously, while the graphical representation of
the stakeholder model has generally been adopted by
most scholars and has contributed to the acceptance
of the stakeholder concept by the business com-
munity, the graphical model has hardly been used in
most of the extensive debate and critique in aca-
demic literature. Confronting the dichotomy of
denitions with the graphical representation has
been both innovative and revelatory. It has con-
tributed to clarifying many of the misunderstandings
and misinterpretations that have threatened to
undermine the model. The systematic, graphical
analysis of the major criticisms levelled at the model
leads to modest adaptations that provide a new and
insightful extension to the existing stakeholder
literature.
Drawing on the various criticisms and sugges-
tions, a new, rened stakeholder model is proposed,
the stake model, incorporating minor changes but
respecting the logical line of evolution initiated by
Freemans rst conceptual stakeholder model and its
subsequent adaptation. The ambition was to adapt
Freemans framework, but with as little alteration as
possible, so as to retain the visual power of its
familiar scheme.
To help in clarication, the new concepts of
stakewatchers (mainly pressure groups) and stakekeepers
(largely regulators) have been introduced. This view
better reects the distinct activities of stakeholders in
one of three groups: the stakeholder who holds a stake,
the stakewatcher who watches the stake and the stake-
keeper who keeps the stake. This clear delimitation
should enhance understanding. Graphical models
can help in the sensemaking. The rened stake-
holder model offers an improved conceptualisation
of the rm and its environment, its parts and the
interrelations between the parts. The simple graph-
ical representation of the adapted stake model, as a
solar system, will hopefully contribute to silencing a
number of criticisms and objections, and so enable
the focus within the stakeholder discussions to
return to its essence: the managerial implications.
With its better delimitation of the boundaries of the
rm and its integrated visualisation of the categori-
sation options, the rened stake model will facilitate
the strategic analysis needed to better manage
stakeholders. This neatly brings us back to Freemans
strategic view that saw stakeholder theory as
managerial, intimately connected with the practice
of business and of value creation (Freeman, 1984,
p. 43; 2000), with the concept of fairness and the
notion of the common good as the core underlying
themes and values.
Notes
1
Donaldson and Preston (1995) note more than one
hundred articles on the stakeholder concept between
1984 and 1995, Wolfe and Putler (2002) 76 articles be-
tween 1990 and 1999. Gibson (2000) nds 200 articles
in the 1990s alone. A search on ABI-Proquest, at the
begin of 2008, produced over 14,000 references to
stakeholder, including 6,000 in academic journals. Sev-
eral leading journals have dedicated special editions to
the stakeholder concept (such as Infra 5). A search on
Google at the same time gave 230,000 entries under
stakeholder theory and 7.4 million on the term stake-
holder.
2
The popularity of Michael Porters model of indus-
trial competition at the beginning of the 1980s may
well be responsible for the incorporation of competitors
as a distinct stakeholder group. Both models also see the
rm holding the central position in the stakeholder
model.
3
This leads to critical distortions and management
misinterpretations involving well-meaning, but per-
haps overzealous commentators who stretched the the-
ory beyond its proper scope (Phillips et al., 2003).
The stakeholder theory has also invaded public man-
agement (Bingham et al., 2005) and other areas than
management (Stoney and Winstanley, 2001). Its termi-
nology has been claimed by political parties. In New
Labour campaign communications and in debates
around the Stakeholder Society, Blair introduced the
term stakeholder capitalism as against shareholder capi-
talism (Kay in Kelly et al., 1997; Metcalfe, 1998; Post
et al., 2002a, p. 7; Wheeler and Sillanpaa, 1997), and
the concept has become one of the cornerstones of
industrial democracy in Scandinavia. For more infor-
mation on the Scandinavian development of industrial
democracy see Nasi (1995) (source: Werhane and
Freeman, 1997, Blackwell Encyclopedia, p. 612).
4
A few comprehensive overviews of current think-
ing can be found including Frooman (1999), Freeman
128 Yves Fassin
(2000), Donaldson (2002) and Freeman (2004), an
overview of denitions is included in Mitchell et al.
(1997) and in Friedman and Miles (2006, pp. 58).
5
The resulting separation thesis engendered an intel-
lectual debate between partisans and opponents of the
theories, separating the business from the ethics discourse
(Freeman, 1994; Wicks, 1996). Some scholars have justi-
ed stakeholder theory (Freeman and McVea, 2001,
Hansen et al., 2004) using legal arguments such as prop-
erty rights (Blair, 1998; Donaldson and Preston, 1995);
others on a Rawlsian social contract argument (Child and
Marcoux, 1999; Freeman and Evan, 1990; Phillips, 2003;
Rawls, 1971); on economic arguments involving du-
ciary relationships (Boatright, 1994; Goodpaster, 1991;
Marcoux, 2003); on agency theory (Shankman, 1999); on
moral grounds (Gibson, 2000) with the principle of fair-
ness (Metcalfe, 1998; Phillips, 1997), on Kantian theory
and the right to be treated as an end (Bowie, 1999; Evan
and Freeman, 1988) or using the concept of the common
good (Argandona, 1998).
6
In some views, the importance of having a stake is
emphasised, in others it is power or inuence, bi-direc-
tional or one-way, that is decisive. In other cases, the
notion of a relationship is central. Some researchers and
practitioners argue that stakeholders who have a rela-
tionship but lack an element of risk do not hold a stake
in the company (Attas, 2004; Clarkson, 1994, p. 6).
While some groups or individuals do indeed bear a risk
(Freeman and Evan, 1990; Williamson, 1985), or express
loyalty or add value (Post et al., 2002a, p. 8); others
claim a share in the organisations benets, or seek to
have a voice (Phillips, 2003a, p. 159) or to participate in
the rms decision-making or governance through rep-
resentation (Harrison and Freeman, 2004; Kochan and
Rubinstein, 2000; Phillips, 2003a, p. 160).
7
Other scholars prefer terms such as constituency
(Argenti, 1998; Mitnick, 1980, cited in Freeman, 1984,
p. 40), claimant or inuencer (Mintzberg, 1983, p. 27).
For some authors, stakeholders are groups for which a
rms decisions to act or not to act are responsible for
their level of well-being (Langtry, 1994); for others they
are any individual or group that is the legitimate object of
managerial attention (Phillips, 2003b), or any party on
which the organisation is dependent for its continued sur-
vival (Freeman and Reed, 1994). Some dene stakehold-
ers as groups to whom the company should be concerned
or from whom they need loyalty (Campbell, 1997).
8
It is precisely this variation in the denition of a
stakeholder (Gond and Mercier, 2004) that leads to
confusion and, by the same token, demonstrates the ur-
gent need for a clear identication of a stakeholder.
Some elements come back in number of denitions of a
stakeholder.
The early vagueness in the denition of a stakeholder
led a number of scholars to dene the concept in slight-
ly different ways with variations in emphasis, interpreta-
tion and scope. From Mitchell et al.s (1997) extensive
analysis of 27 denitions of stakeholders one can distil a
number of elements: stakeholders are groups that have a
stake or an interest in the rm, that is they bear a risk;
groups that have a claim, a contract, ownership or right;
or groups that have a relationship with the rm, affect
or are affected by, inuence or are inuenced by the
rm. Some scholars incorporate responsibility in the
denition.
9
A major classication is based on priority. Propo-
nents classify stakeholders into primary and secondary
stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995), where primary stake-
holders refer to those actors who enjoy a direct and
contractually determined relationship with the com-
pany, while secondary stakeholders refer to actors at
the border of the rm who may be impacted upon by
its actions without having any contractual connection
(Carroll, 1991; Collier and Roberts, 2001). Prior to
stakeholder theory, some authors had already referred
to the different constituencies as claimants and inu-
encers. Claimants are groups with a legal, moral or
presumed claim on the rm, whereas inuencers are
groups that have an ability to inuence the rms
behaviour, direction, process or outcomes (Donaldson
and Preston, 1995; Mintzberg, 1983, p. 27; Mitchell
et al., 1997).
10
I owe this valuable observation to an anonymous
reviewer.
11
Some of these ideas were already intuitively pres-
ent in Dodds earlier view that corporate powers were
held in trust for the community rather than in trust for
just the shareholders, as was the then prevailing view
of Berle (Dodd, 1932; Goodpaster, 1991, quoting
Ruder, 1985). Stakeholder theory explicitly encom-
passes corporate responsibility and business ethics,
thereby enlarging strategic thinking to include the role
of business in society. Stakeholder theory ts into a
logical evolution of previous theories of organisation
and management from individual disciplines in this
area. In fact, in revealing the interconnectedness
between the owners and the other constituents, Mary
Parker Follett, was, in 1918, the rst author to develop
the stakeholder concept, although without using the
term (Post et al., 2002b, p. 18). One of the worlds
most widely quoted statements of business ethics, the
Four-Way Test of Rotary International, also implicitly
implies the notion of stakeholders within its questions:
Of the things we think, say or do: Is it fair to all con-
cerned? and Will it be benecial to all concerned? (cre-
ated in 1932 by Herbert J. Taylor).
The Stakeholder Model Rened 129
Marketing management was quick to emphasise the
importance of listening to customers and to potential
customers (Kotler, 1967). Subsequently, innovation
management focused on the need to pay attention to
external elements of information coming from the
rms wider environment (Allen, 1966). The inuence
of the environment on management had already been
acknowledged much earlier (Dill, 1958) while the pub-
lic affairs and public relations literature had recognised
the concerns of the wider world surrounding the com-
pany (Argenti, 1998). The impressive work of Henry
Mintzberg (1979, 1983) on the structure of organisa-
tions, and the well-known model of industrial compe-
tition in Michael Porters approach to competitive
strategy, have emphasised the importance of both
internal and external factors to a company (Porter,
1980, Figure I-2, xviii). These statements have been
supported by the literature on Japanese management
(Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos, 1981) and in the
descriptions/narratives on the characteristics of success-
ful companies in Peters and Watermans bestseller In
Search of Excellence (1982), and later in Built to
Last from Collins and Porras (1994). Finally, the need
to inform all stakeholders is also stressed in Fombruns
work on reputation (1996).
12
The central hub in Freemans model (1984, p. 55) is
the rm. Curiously, when one goes back to his in-depth
analysis leading to the implementation of the stakeholder
approach for strategic management, this central place is
lled by the manager for the traditional business disci-
plines of management (p. 218), by the marketing man-
ager for marketing (p. 227), by the nancial manager for
nance (p. 229), etc., while the CEO lls the central
place in the illustration of the role of the CEO (p. 241)
(Freeman, 1984, Chapter VIII).
13
As for the concept of stakeholder, the notion of
stakewatcher and stakekeeper is a generalised notion.
There may be some instances of stakeholder without
associated stakewatcher, for example when unions are
not present in the rm, or when consumers associations
are non-existent, as in emerging economies. In some
cases, some stakekeepers may be absent, as local com-
munities or NGOs; many investors feel not represented
by regulatory agencies.
This latter problem results from the generalising
aspect of the concept of stakeholder that does not suf-
ciently take into account the heterogeneity within the
stakeholder groups. The individual stakeholder may not
be or not feel well represented by the stakewatcher or
may not feel well protected by the stakekeeper. This
problem poses the issue of representation, which may be
another neglected area of stakeholder theory. It contains
the legitimacy of the representation of stakeholder and
the perception by stakeholders of the representativeness
of stakewatchers and of the legitimacy of stakekeepers.
14
The proposed systematic categorisation of stake-
holders led to a new version of the stakeholder model
(Figure 6). This was built on the earlier concept of the
stakeholder view of the corporation by Post, Preston
and Sachs. The superiority of the PPS view over Free-
mans model is that it clearly indicates the three levels
of operation the resource base, the industry structure
and the social political arena in four concentric ovals.
Unlike the PPS view which did not delimit the various
stakeholders but instead lumped them together within
the appropriate level, and in line with Carroll and Buc-
hholtzs (2006, p. 9) graphic display, it was decided to
divide the pie into a number of distinct segments, that
start from the corporation, cross the resource base and
the industry structure, and ow into the social political
arena where the delimitation will stop. The shareholders
are positioned in the resource base in this approach, the
associate stakewatchers within the industry structure le-
vel and stakekeepers are found within the social political
arena.
15
This important observation was made by an anony-
mous reviewer.
CORPORATION
Shareholders
Employees
Customers
RESOURCE BASE
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
SOCIAL POLITICAL ARENA
Unions
Competitors
Investors Funds
Government
Others
Media
Publications
Business
partners
Customer
organizations
State
Law
Special
Interest
Groups
Communities
Civil
Society
Regulatory Authorities
Figure 6. The adapted PPS view.
130 Yves Fassin
Appendix A
List of stakeholder groups, as identied in the literature and regrouped
Stakeholder
Constituencies
Stakewatcher
Pressure groups
Stakekeeper
Regulators
Management
Board
CEO
Special interest groups
Activist groups
Legislator
Court
Financiers
Owners
Shareholders
Bondholders
Financiers
Institutional investors
Shareholder activist
Pension funds
Auditors
Security & Exchange Commission (SEC)
Rating agencies
Securities analysts
Sophisticated nancial press
Professional associations of directors,
corporate secretaries and managers
Bankers Bank Commission
Employees
Employees Unions
Safety and health groups
Equal Employm. Opportunity Com. (EEOC)
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
Customers
Customer
Client
Buyer
Distributors
Consumers
Customer advocate group
Customer association
Control laboratories
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Customer protection journals
Consumer Product Safety Com (CPSC)
Business Media
Business partners suppliers
Trading partners
Trade associations
Supply chain associates
Joint venture partners and alliances
Advertisers
Consultants
Laboratories
Competitors
New entrants
Substitutes
Big business groups
Industry observers
Critics
Business press
Television news
Others
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Academic commentators
Creditors
Communities Civil society
Local communities
Local government
Neighbourhood
Beneciaries
Public interest groups General public
Private organizations
Citizens
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Wider world Government-state
The arts
Political groups
Religious groups
The military
Technology process
Academic institutes
Think-tank/Research group
Non-human species
Environment
Nature
Employees family
Students
Future generations
World issues
Political groups
Single-issue groups
Animal welfare organizations
Environmental groups
Watchdog groups
National government
Congress
Cabinets
Governmental agencies
Court
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Human rights associations
Non-stakeholders
Terrorists
Blackmailers
Thieves
The Stakeholder Model Rened 131
References
Allen, T.: 1966, Performance of Information Channels in
the Transfer of Technology, Industrial Management
Review 8(1), 8798.
Anderson, J.: 1980, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications
(W.H. Freeman, San Francisco).
Andriof, J., S. Waddock, B. Husted and S. Sutherland
Rahman: 2002, Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking
(Greenleaf Publishing, Shefeld).
Argandona, A.: 1998, The Stakeholder Theory and the
Common Good, Journal of Business Ethics 17(9/10),
10931102.
Argenti, J.: 1997, Stakeholders: The Case Against, Long
Range Planning 30(3), 441445.
Argenti, P.: 1998, Corporate Communication (McGraw-
Hill, New York).
Attarca, M. and T. Jacquot: 2005, La representation de la
Responsabilite Sociale des Entreprises: une confronta-
tion entre les approches theoriques et les visions man-
ageriales, Paper presented at the XIVieme Conference
Internationale de Management Strategique, Angers.
Attas, D.: 2004, A Moral Stakeholder Theory of the
Firm, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik
5(3), 312318.
Bingham, L., T. Nabatchi and R. OLeary: 2005, The
New Governance: Practices and Process for Stake-
holder and Citizen Participation in the Work of
Government, Public Administration Review 65(5), 547.
Blair, M.: 1998, For Whom Should Corporations be
Run?: An Economic Rationale for Stakeholder
Management, Long Range Planning 31(2), 195200.
Boatright, J.: 1994, Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-
Management Relation: Or, Whats so Special About
Shareholders?, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 393407.
Bowie, N.: 1999, Business Ethics a Kantian Perspective
(Blackwell Publishers, Oxford).
Campbell, A.: 1997, Stakeholders: The Case in Favour,
Long Range Planning 30(3), 446449.
Cappelen, A.: 2004, Two Approaches to Stakeholder
Identication, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Unterneh-
mensethik 5(3), 319325.
Carroll, A.: 1991, The Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders, Business Horizons 34(4),
3948.
Carroll, A. and A. Buchholtz: 2006, Business and Society:
Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 6th Edition
(Thompson Learning, Mason).
Child, J. and A. Marcoux: 1999, Freeman and Evan:
Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position, Business
Ethics Quarterly 9(2), 207225.
Clarkson, M.: 1994, The Toronto Conference: Reec-
tions on Stakeholder Theory, Business & Society 33(1),
82131.
Clarkson, M.: 1995, A Stakeholder Framework for
Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor-
mance, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 92117.
Clarkson, M. (ed.): 1998. The Corporation and Its
Stakeholders the Classic and Contemporary Read-
ings. University of Toronto Press.
Coffee, J.: 2006, Gatekeepers: The Role of Professions in
Corporate Governance (University Press, Oxford).
Collier, J. and J. Roberts: 2001, An Ethic for Corporate
Governance?, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(1), 6771.
Collins, J. and J. Porras: 1994, Built to Last (Harper-
Business).
Cooper, G. and C. Argyris (eds.): 1998, The Concise
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management (Blackwell).
Crane, A. and D. Matten: 2004, Business Ethics: A Euro-
pean Perspective (Oxford University Press).
Cyert, R. and J. March: 1963, The Behavioral Theory of the
Firm (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Dentchev, N.: 2008, To What Extent is Business &
Society Literature Idealistic?, Business & Society
(Forthcoming).
Dill, W.: 1958, Environment as an Inuence on Mana-
gerial Autonomy, Administrative Science Quarterly 1958,
409442.
Dodd, M.: 1932, For Whom are Corporate Managers
Trustees?, Harvard Law Review 45(7), 11451163
(in Clarkson (ed.), 1998).
Donaldson, T.: 2002, The Stakeholder Revolution and
the Clarkson Principles, Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2),
107111.
Donaldson, T. and T. Dunfee: 1994, Toward a Unied
Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social
Contract Theory, Academy of Management Review
19(2), 252284.
Donaldson, T. and L. Preston: 1995, The Stakeholder
Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and
Implications, Academy of Management Review 20(1),
6591.
Egels, N.: 2005, Sorting Out the Mess, A Review of
Denitions of Ethical Issues in Business. Center for
Business in Society, GRI, Goteborg University.
Evan, W. and E. Freeman: 1988, A Stakeholder Theory
of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism, in
T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and
Business (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall).
Fassin, Y.: 2008, Imperfections and Shortcomings of the
Stakeholder Models Graphical Representation,
Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-
9474-5.
132 Yves Fassin
Ferrell, O.: 2004, Business Ethics and Customer Stake-
holders, Academyof Management Executive 18(2), 126129.
Fombrun, C.: 1996, Reputation Realizing Value from the
Corporate Image (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).
Freeman, E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach (Pitman, Boston).
Freeman, E.: 1994, The Politics of Stakeholder Theory:
Some Future Directions, Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4),
409421.
Freeman, E.: 1999, Divergent Stakeholder Theory,
Academy of Management Review 24(2), 233236.
Freeman, E.: 2000, Business Ethics at the Millenium,
Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1), 169180.
Freeman, E.: 2003, Lecture Stakeholder Management
Revisited: Whats the State of the Art? Leuven, 20
November.
Freeman, E.: 2004, The Stakeholder Approach Revis-
ited, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik
5(3), 220241.
Freeman, E. and W. Evan: 1990, Corporate Governance:
A Stakeholder Interpretation, Journal of Behavioral
Economics 19(4), 337359.
Freeman, E. and J. McVea: 2001, AStakeholder Approach
to Management: The State of the Art, in M. Hitt, E.
Freeman and J. Harrison (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook
of Strategic Management (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford).
Freeman, E. and D. Reed: 1994, Stockholders and
Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Gov-
ernance, California Management Review 25(3), 88106.
Friedman, A. and S. Miles: 2006, Stakeholders: Theory and
Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Frooman, J.: 1999, Stakeholder Inuence Strategies,
Academy of Management Review 24(102), 191205.
Garriga, E. and D. Mele: 2004, Corporate Social
Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Theory, Journal
of Business Ethics 53(1/2), 5171.
Gibson, K.: 2000, The Moral Basis of Stakeholder
Theory, Journal of Business Ethics 26(3), 245257.
Gond, J.-P. and S. Mercier: 2004, Les theories des parties
prenantes : une synthe`se critique de la litterature, Actes
du Congre`s de lAssociation francophone des ressources hu-
maines, Montreal. http://www.agrh2004-esg.uqam.ca/
pdf/Tome1/Gond_Mercier.pdf.
Goodpaster, K.: 1991, Business Ethics and Stakeholder
Analysis, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 5372.
Hall, J. and H. Vredenburg: 2005, Managing Stake-
holder Ambiguity, MIT Sloan Management Review
47(1), 1113.
Hansen, U., M. Bode and D. Moosmayer: 2004,
Stakeholder Theory Between General and Contextual
Approaches a German View, Zeitschrift fur Wir-
tschafts- und Unternehmensethik 5(3), 312318.
Harrison, J. and E. Freeman: 1999, Stakeholders, Social
Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence
and Theoretical Perspectives, Academy of Management
Journal 42(5), 479485.
Harrison, J. and E. Freeman: 2004, Democracy in and
Around Organizations: Is Organizational Democracy
Worth the Effort?, Academy of Management Executive
18(3), 4952.
Harrison, J. and C. St. John: 1996, Managing and Part-
nering with External Stakeholders, Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10(2), 4660.
Heene, A. and N. Dentchev: 2006, A Strategic Per-
spective on Stakeholder Management, Accountancy &
Bedrijfskunde 26(1), 2534.
Hendry, J.: 2001, Missing the Target: Normative
Stakeholder Theory and the Corporate Governance
Debate, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(1), 159176.
Hill, C. and T. Jones: 1992, Stakeholder Agency
Theory, Journal of Management Studies 29(2), 133
154.
Jawahar, I. and G. McLaughlin: 2001, Toward a
Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational
Life Cycle Approach, Academy of Management Review
26(3), 397414.
Jensen, M.: 2002, Value Maximization, Stakeholder
Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function,
Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2), 235256.
Jones, T.: 1995, Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A
Synthesis of Ethics and Economics, Academy of Man-
agement Review 20(2), 404437.
Jones, T. and A. Wicks: 1999, Convergent Stakeholder
Theory, Academy of Management Review24(2), 206221.
Kaler, J.: 2002, Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder
Identication, Journal of Business Ethics 39, 9199.
Kaler, J.: 2003, Differentiating Stakeholder Theory,
Journal of Business Ethics 46, 7183.
Kelly, G., D. Kelly and A. Gamble (eds.): 1997, Stake-
holder Capitalism (St. Martins Press, New York).
Key, S.: 1999, Toward a New Theory of the Firm: A
Critique of Stakeholder Theory, Management Deci-
sion 37(4), 317328.
Kochan, T. A. and S. A. Rubinstein: 2000, Toward a
Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Part-
nership, Organization Science 11(4), 367386.
Kotler, P.: 1967, Marketing Management, Analysis, Plan-
ning, Implementation and Control (Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs).
Kress, G. and T. Van Leeuwen: 1996, Reading Images the
Grammar of Visual Design (Routledge, London).
Langtry, B.: 1994, Stakeholders and the Moral
Responsibilities of Business, Business Ethics Quarterly
4(4), 431443.
The Stakeholder Model Rened 133
Lepineux, F.: 2005, Stakeholder Theory, Society and
Social Cohesion, Corporate Governance 5(2), 99110.
Marcoux, A.: 2003, A Fiduciary Argument Against Stake-
holder Theory, Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1), 124.
Maruyama, M.: 1986, Toward Picture-Coded Informa-
tion Systems, Futures 18, 450452.
Metcalfe, C.: 1998, The Stakeholder Corporation,
Business Ethics: A European Review 7(1), 3036.
Meyer, A.: 1991, Visual Data in Organizational Research,
Organization Science 2(2), 218236.
Mintzberg, H.: 1979, The Structure of Organizations, A Syn-
thesis of the Research (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
Mintzberg, H.: 1983, Power in and Around Organizations
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
Mitchell, R., B. Agle and D. Wood: 1997, Toward a
Theory of Stakeholder Identication and Salience:
Dening the Principle of Who and What Really
Counts, Academy of Management Review22(4), 853886.
Moore, G.: 1999, Tinged Shareholder Theory: Or
Whats so Special About Stakeholders?, Business Ethics:
A European Review 8(2), 117127.
Nasi, J.: 1995, Understanding Stakeholder Thinking
(Helsinki, LSR-Julkaisut Oy).
Orts, E. and A. Strudler: 2002, The Ethical and Envi-
ronmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory, Business
Ethics Quarterly 12(2), 215234.
Ouchi, W.: 1981, Theory Z How American Business can
Meet the Japanese Challenge (Addison-Wesley, Reading).
Pascale, R. and A. Athos: 1982, The Art of Japanese
Management (Simon & Schuster, New York).
Pesqueux, Y. and S. Damak-Ayadi: 2005, Stakeholder
Theory in Perspective, Corporate Governance 5(2), 521.
Peters, T. and R. Waterman: 1982, In Search of Excellence
(Harper & Rowe, New York).
Phillips, R.: 1997, Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of
Fairness, Business Ethics Quarterly 7, 5167.
Phillips, R.: 1999, On Stakeholder Delimitation, Busi-
ness & Society 38(1), 3234.
Phillips, R.: 2003a, Stakeholder Theory and Organization
Ethics (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco).
Phillips, R.: 2003b, Stakeholder Legitimacy, Business
Ethics Quarterly 13(1), 2541.
Phillips, R., E. Freeman and A. Wicks: 2003, What
Stakeholder Theory is not, Business Ethics Quarterly
13(4), 479502.
Phillips, R. and J. Reichart: 2000, The Environment as a
Stakeholder? A Fairness-Based Approach, Journal of
Business Ethics 23(2), 185197.
Porter, M.: 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors (The Free Press, New York).
Post, J., L. Preston and S. Sachs: 2002a, Managing the
Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View,
California Management Review 45(1), 628.
Post, J., L. Preston and S. Sachs: 2002b, Redening the
Corporation Stakeholder Management and Organizational
Wealth (Stanford Business Books).
Preston, L. and T. Donaldson: 1999, Stakeholder Man-
agement and Organizational Wealth, Academy of
Management Review 24(4), 619620.
Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Rowley, T.: 1997, Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A
Network Theory of Stakeholder Inuences, Academy
of Management Review 22(4), 887910.
Savage, G., T. Nix, J. Whitehead and J. Blair: 1991,
Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational
Stakeholders, Academy of Management Review 5(2),
6175.
Shankman, N.: 1999, Reframing the Debate Between
Agency and Stakeholder Theories of the Firm, Journal
of Business Ethics 19(4-1), 319334.
Spence, L., A.-M. Coles and L. Harris: 2001, The For-
gotten Stakeholder? Ethics and Social Responsibility in
Relation to Competitors, Business and Society Review
106(4), 331352.
Sternberg, E.: 1996, The Defects of Stakeholder The-
ory, Corporate Governance 1, 310.
Stoney, C. and D. Winstanley: 2001, Stakeholding:
Confusion or Utopia? Mapping the Conceptual Ter-
rain, Journal of Management Studies 38(6), 600623.
Valor, C.: 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Account-
ability, Business & Society Review 110(2), 191212.
Van den Berghe, L.: 2002, Corporate Governance in a
Globalising World: Convergence or Divergence?: A Euro-
pean Perspective (Kluwer, Dordrecht).
Venkataraman, S.: 2002, Stakeholder Value Equilibrium
and the Entrepreneurial Process, Business Ethics
Quarterly, The Rufn series: Special Issue 3, 4558.
Waxenberger, B. and L. Spence: 2003, Reinterpretation
of a Metaphor: From Stakes to Claims, Strategic
Change 12, 239249.
Weaver, G. and L. Trevino: 1994, Normative and
Empirical Business Ethics: Separation, Marriage of
Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity?, Business
Ethics Quarterly 4(2), 129143.
Weiss, A.: 1995, Cracks in the Foundations of Stakeholder
Theory, Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational The-
ory, http://www.mgnt.waikato.ac.nz/research/ejrot:
Vol1_1/weiss.pdf.
Werhane, P. and E. Freeman (eds.): 1997, The Blackwell
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics (Blackwell
Publishers Ltd., Oxford), pp. 460462.
Wheeler, D. and M. Silampaa: 1997, The Stakeholder
Corporation, a Blueprint for Maximizing Stakeholder Value
(Pitman, London).
134 Yves Fassin
Wicks, A.: 1996, Overcoming the Separation Thesis:
The Need for a Reconsideration of Business and
Society Research, Business & Society 35(1), 89118.
Williamson, O.: 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capi-
talism (The Free Press, New York).
Winn, M.: 2001, Building Stakeholder Theory with a
Decision Modelling Methodology, Business & Society
40(2), 133166.
Wolfe, R. A. and D. S. Putler: 2002, How Tight are the
Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?, Organizational
Science 13(1), 6482.
Worren, N., K. Moore and R. Elliott: 2002, When
Theories Become Tools: Toward a Framework for
Pragmatic Validity, Human Relations 55(10), 1227
1249.
Ghent University,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Department of Management, Innovation
and Entrepreneurship,
Tweekerkenstraat, 22, B 9000 Gent, Belgium
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School,
Reep 1, B 9000 Gent, Belgium
E-mail: y.fassin@skynet.be
The Stakeholder Model Rened 135