Search results

Theories of management require normative justification; that is, they rely on some conception of what is morally good, right, and just. This chapter examines some of the normative reasons for adopting a stakeholder theory of management and for rejecting the once, and perhaps still, “dominant” shareholder-centric approach. This chapter then surveys some of the prominent “normative cores” that are used to ground stakeholder theory, that is, Kantian, contractarian, feminist ethics, and ethical pragmatism, and the moral obligations that each normative approach generates. Some pressing questions are raised with respect to each normative approach. To what extent ought we to recognize imperfect obligations to shareholders? Are contractarian hypernorms morally substantive? How exactly should we care about stakeholders, and is care even an appropriate attitudinal response? Without some commitment to objective ethical standards, how can pragmatists resolve stakeholder conflict?

This chapter examines the literature surrounding stakeholder theory. Section 2.2 outlines the nature of what is a stakeholder, whereas Section 2.3 overviews the literature on social accounting and reporting and details how it served as an antecedent to the specific literature on stakeholder management. Section 2.4 covers the mainstream literature on stakeholder management by examining the three distinct categories of stakeholder literature as outlined by Donaldson and Preston (1995): (1) descriptive; (2) instrumental; and (3) normative. The normative category includes a discussion on how the theory's fundamental aspects have been rejected outright by some authors, as a basis for a theory of the firm, due to the perceived paradox in relation to the firm's multi-fiduciary duty beyond the shareholder. Section 2.5 summarises the literature to date and outlines its main limitations, including the primary emphasis on seeking to normatively ground the theory. Section 2.6 then provides the conclusions with a table summarising the research objectives and outcomes.

The stakeholder theory encompasses instrumental and normative varieties whose mutual relationship remains unclear and exhibits a classic tension between rational self-interest and moral motivation. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy for navigating this tension.

Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is concerned with the limited ability of social systems to codify, and be receptive to, the complexity of the environment. Drawing on this theory, the paper juxtaposes the codification problems of two types of social systems: the for-profit firm and the economic function system.

This juxtaposition allows to identify four firm behavior patterns, two of which can be aligned with instrumental and normative stakeholder theories. If the codification capacity of the economic function system is assumed to be sufficient, the codification problems of the for-profit firm are shown to specify the range of applicability of the instrumental stakeholder theory. Dropping the above assumption is shown to specify the range of applicability of the normative stakeholder theory.

The argument offers a fresh way of understanding the institutional economics foundations of the stakeholder theory. Given that the systems-theoretic idea of codification reflects the functioning of the real-world institutions, the argument shows that both instrumental and normative stakeholder theories reflect the institutional texture of the modern society in distinct but equally legitimate ways.

This study aims at presenting a normative approach in adaptation of the ethics of care approach and stakeholder theory. Therefore, it seeks to present a point‐of‐view regarding the related issues.

The study focuses on a theory‐based integration process, since it is designed on a normative basis and the current studies dealing with “ethic of care theory” still have some problems in practical terms.

It is observed that ethics of care and stakeholder theory are getting more and more interrelated due to established networks and available common points. As a subfield of feminist ethic, ethics of care can be used to clarify moral principles lying behind these relationships. From another point of view, the discussion regarding the feminization of business enterprises focuses on the idea that such discussions involving the principles lying behind feminist ethics can provide an advantage for the companies in terms of competition. In addition, ethics of care is expected to contribute to stakeholder theory to a great extent.

The related literature includes a rather limited number of studies conducted on this research topic. The available research explains some relationships on a normative basis. Therefore, the current study is expected to contribute to the expansion of such research in the field.

Despite the presence of studies in the field, there is still a limitation in putting the findings of studies into practice. Since the country where the current study is conducted still suffers from ambiguities regarding the definitions of concepts and it is very difficult to find business enterprises appreciating feminist values, although they are taught to adopt philanthropy applications, the study is limited to a normative point‐of‐view regarding the issues.

The scope of the study is expected to contribute to a great extent to the integration of feminist ethic and stakeholder theory. Similarly, it will encourage further studies on the issue.

This article discusses the appeal of human rights as a normative basis for stakeholder claims in the context of international business. This appeal to human rights has proven to be an effective way to legitimize (in the sociological sense) the claims of stakeholders due to their proclaimed universal validity and the media interest in stories about human right violations. A problem for corporations that have to deal with claims based on human rights is that there seems to be little room to weigh these claims against the corporation’s interest and other stakeholder claims, since human rights are believed to override self‐interest. Furthermore, stakeholder theory as it stands, does not provide for a criterion to weigh human rights claims against the claims of (other) stakeholders. Following recent versions of stakeholder theory, claims based solely on human rights do not even qualify some person or group as a stakeholder. So the position of human rights‐based claims within organizational ethics remains unclear in stakeholder theory. The question this article tries to answer, is whether a corporation has a moral obligation to fulfil claims that are based solely on human rights and how this relates to the obligations a firm has to its stakeholders.

Stakeholder theory is a “weak” theory, which suffers from a number of flaws. This article is based on the intuition that many of these problems are linked together, and that they are fundamentally due to the fact that stakeholder theory fails to appreciate the place of civil society as a stakeholder. It starts with an examination of the confusing status of society in stakeholder theory, and suggests that civil society should be on top of the stakeholder list. It then underlines the emergence of a global society, distinct from national societies. An extended classification system is presented, which comprises a binary categorization, an intermediate taxonomy, and a developed typology; this system is illustrated in the form of a mapping. The article then addresses the issue of the theory’s normative underpinnings: the concept of social cohesion is proposed as an alternative justification. The meaning of this concept is specified, and its relevance as a normative foundation is justified. Eventually, this reinterpretation of stakeholder theory, which emphasizes the importance of civil society and social cohesion, provides some rationales for the connection of its empirical and normative streams – thus rendering it more consistent and more robust.

Those who use stakeholder theory as a reference are both underlining the correlation between facts and a certain conceptualization thereof, and trying to make the necessary shift from a “panoptic” analysis akin to a panoramic vision of texts and positions, to an “in‐depth” one geared towards an understanding of their foundations. As a “theory of organizations”, stakeholder theory helps to nourish a relational model of organizations by revisiting questions about “who” is actually working with (and in) the firm. Stakeholder theory is part of a comprehensive project that views the organization‐group relationship as both a foundation and a norm.

The paper aims to provide a rationale for stakeholder‐based management in developing countries. To implement the objectives, the paper contrasts the implications of agency and stakeholder theories as they apply to developing countries and highlight “total wealth creation” and “purposive adaptation” that support developmental goals of developing countries. This “purposive adaptation” also implicates the use of management accounting tools in a flexible way to meet the needs of the strategy.

The paper uses conceptual analysis and the case study approach

The Tata Steel case illustrates the normative stakeholder approach in the developing country context. Specifically, the case highlights strategy developed through “stakeholder engagement” and the application of the balanced scorecard to address stakeholder issues in implementing the strategy, illustrating the rationale underlying the stakeholder approach in addressing developmental concerns through more dispersed and larger wealth creation.

There is limited scope to use methods other than illustrating the theory using specific instances of its application, as in the case approach.

The paper illustrates long‐term implications on sustainable development.

Few papers consider contextualizing theoretical implications of management to developing countries. This is important as the theory has implications on development in such aspects as environmental costs, increasing inequality, and associated issues. The paper directs attention to the importance of identifying theory that addresses the unique management challenges in developing countries and can potentially enable further research to systematize and generalize management approaches in developing countries.

Mining is surrounded by controversy, in spite of corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects. This study aims to explore the theory on CSR and shared value (SV) and identified a gap in an approach to implementing CSR and SV. Perceptions of multi-stakeholder relationships in the South African mining context were elicited.

A qualitative research design included 17 semi-structured interviews with 3 stakeholder groups, including members of the community, government representatives and mining management and secondary data of company documents on CSR.

The qualitative research revealed important gaps between CSR and SV theoretical frameworks, normative ethical approaches and operationalizing of these at the mine to the detriment of effective multi-stakeholder relationships.

Mines have to engage with the community and government stakeholders proactively and build relationships.

Ethical normative approaches have to be considered. Government has to take note of this study’s findings with regards to negative consequences of institutionalized CSR for trust between mines and communities.

The literature review differentiates theoretically between normative and instrumental stakeholder theory, philanthropic and business case CSR, SV and their implicit normative ethical approaches. The semi-structured interviews revealed legacy issues and lack of engagement between mine and community as main barriers to multi-stakeholder relationships and raised important questions on normative ethical approaches to CSR and SV. The direct and indirect barriers by government, community and mine management are identified and differentiated.