Corporate Stakeholding and Globalism: A Need for Revision of the Stakeholder Concept Using the RESIST-Model against ‘Business-As-Usual’

Abstract

Most corporations consider their stakeholders to be those, who can be defined in a relatively narrow periphery. Customers, workers, investors, authorities, neighbours, suppliers and various interest groups, for instance NGOs. However, during the last decades, phenomena such as the financial crisis, the global warming, the disasters of global consumerism in terms of the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in the fashion industry, are examples of how the stakeholder concept cannot continue to be defined as narrow as corporations usually does. The butterfly effect of globalism has shown to be – yes, global. Even the smallest company, the single consumer and the tiniest decision made by anyone may in the future – perhaps even tomorrow – affect stakeholders, we didn’t know existed. The future generation is also to be considered as stakeholders, which decisions made today may affect. Companies, consumers, everyday people including children already know this even from the first day at school if not before. What we need is not knowledge about these phenomena – it is how to think globally when we decide locally: in companies, in daily households, in education of our future generations.

This chapter discusses how to revise the stakeholder concept according to corporate responsibility, company stakeholding and globalism. It points to shortcomings in various global trade systems such as banking, fashion and IT markets, and through these it suggests and discusses a new way of defining the stakeholder concept in a globalised and future perspective considering using the RESIST-model against ‘business-as-usual’ based on the butterfly effect of the smallest decision.

Citation

Lauesen, L.M. (2016), "Corporate Stakeholding and Globalism: A Need for Revision of the Stakeholder Concept Using the RESIST-Model against ‘Business-As-Usual’", Corporate Responsibility and Stakeholding (Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility, Vol. 10), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-052320160000010006