Stakeholder theory: Revisiting the origins

Abstract

The stakeholder theory was proposed as a holistic way of managing organizations that acknowledged stakeholders' roles and the firm's fiduciary duty towards them. Despite the theory being firmly rooted in organizational management, trends of published research showcase and stakeholder scholars' rue that the adoption of stakeholder theory in strategic management research has been limited. This study aims to extend our understanding of the constrained endorsement of stakeholder theory in strategic management research by revisiting the theory's origins. We review some of the significant theoretical studies contributing to the theory's growth and development and identify theoretical issues related to considerable debate amongst academicians. Lending legitimacy to our arguments, we also identify and discuss a few recent strategic management studies that still have been developing and building on the initial debates related to the stakeholder theory. The authors believe that addressing these persistent gaps in the theory might further the theory's adoption in strategic management research and practice.

Disclosure of liquidity and cash flow statements by Australian superannuation funds before Covid‐19

“…These results support the assertion of stakeholder theory that organisations balance the conflicting claims of the various stakeholders' strategies (Gamache et al, 2020; Herremans et al, 2016; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2015). Managerial stakeholder theory proposes that organisations focus on the most powerful stakeholders (Goyal, 2020; Kent & Zunker, 2017; Ullmann, 1985) and we identify members/assets and union membership on the board as key primary stakeholders in our superannuation context.…”

“…Managerial stakeholder theory as a subset of stakeholder theory suggests RSEs strategise their business decisions by meeting the demands of the most powerful stakeholders (Goyal, 2020; Kent & Zunker, 2017; Ullmann, 1985). Identifying the key stakeholders to manage in a specific context provides a tractable technique to measure differences in disclosures of ORFR ratios and cash flow reporting (Freeman et al, 2010; Sinclair, 1993).…”

The Impact and Value of a Tourism Product: A Hybrid Sustainability Model

“…The inclusion of stakeholders in the economic equation has ethical implications. Over the last few years, many authors have addressed the stakeholder issue [29][30][31], including from the perspective of a systematic review of the Stakeholder Theory [32]. The first of these was Freeman [33], who claimed that companies were obliged to protect all those stakeholders with an interest and involvement in these businesses' goals, not just their shareholders.…”

Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective

“…Although this impression is probably not wrong, Freeman et al (2020) speak of persisting tensions between stakeholder theory and strategic management (cf. also Goyal, 2020) and identify as many as 12 of them as the most important ones keeping stakeholder theory "at the crossroads" (Barney & Harrison, 2020) between the two. Freeman et al (2020, p. 213) further "argue that many of these tensions are more apparent than real, representing different narratives about stakeholder theory, [strategic management], business, and ethics."…”

“…Although this impression is probably not wrong, Freeman et al (2020) speak of persisting tensions between stakeholder theory and strategic management (cf. also Goyal, 2020) and identify as many as 12 of them as the most important ones keeping stakeholder theory “at the crossroads” (Barney & Harrison, 2020) between the two. Freeman et al (2020, p. 213) further “argue that many of these tensions are more apparent than real, representing different narratives about stakeholder theory, [strategic management], business, and ethics.” He and his collaborators point out that “most of the apparent tensions in stakeholder theory are a result of the detour into a narrow form of economic theorizing” in the span style="font‐family:'Times New Roman'; color:#ff0000">business strategy and policy literature that persists “into the present” (Freeman et al, 2020, p. 216).…”