IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v144y2017i1d10.1007_s10551-015-2819-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Salience for Stakeholder Firms: An Attempt to Reframe an Important Heuristic Device

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad A. Ali

    (Penn State University)

Abstract

This work underscores the importance of answering the question: who are organizational stakeholders? It argues that stakeholder theory is a normative management theory, and there is a need to differentiate between stakeholder and non-stakeholder firms. It further argues that the overall organizational stakeholder orientation indicates how narrowly or broadly organizations define their stakeholders. Therefore, this work attempts to provide a stakeholder salience scheme for stakeholder organizations, i.e., organizations with accommodative and proactive stakeholder orientations. In the process, this work reviews key scholarly contributions and points out some potential weaknesses in these contributions with an aim to develop a new stakeholder typology. This work contributes to the existing literature by: introducing a contingent variable, i.e., organizational strategy, in a stakeholder typology scheme; reaffirming the normative aspect of stakeholder theory by placing normative considerations at the center of stakeholder salience typology; and improving the descriptive validity of stakeholder theory by adding a new stakeholder variable, i.e., organization, in the presented stakeholder salience typology scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad A. Ali, 2017. "Stakeholder Salience for Stakeholder Firms: An Attempt to Reframe an Important Heuristic Device," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 153-168, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:144:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2819-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2819-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-015-2819-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-015-2819-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    2. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    3. Jonathan P. Doh & Terrence R. Guay, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional‐Stakeholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 47-73, January.
    4. Benjamin Neville & Bulent Menguc, 2006. "Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 377-391, July.
    5. Carroll, Archie B., 1991. "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 39-48.
    6. Benjamin Neville & Simon Bell & Gregory Whitwell, 2011. "Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 357-378, September.
    7. Kristel Buysse & Alain Verbeke, 2003. "Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 453-470, May.
    8. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 51-66, January.
    9. Heckscher, Charles & Maccoby, Michael & Ramirez, Rafael & Tixier, Pierre-Eric, 2003. "Agents of Change: Crossing the Post-Industrial Divide," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199261758.
    10. Tashman, Pete & Raelin, Jonathan, 2013. "Who and What Really Matters to the Firm: Moving Stakeholder Salience beyond Managerial Perceptions," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 591-616, October.
    11. Gordon E. Greenley & Gordon R. Foxall, 1997. "Multiple Stakeholder Orientation in UK Companies and the Implications for Company Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 259-284, March.
    12. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    13. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michel Ferrary, 2019. "The structure and dynamics of the CEO's “small world” of stakeholders. An application to industrial downsizing," Post-Print hal-03214823, HAL.
    2. Kamran Shafique & Cle-Anne Gabriel, 2022. "Vulnerable Stakeholders’ Engagement: Advancing Stakeholder Theory with New Attribute and Salience Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Marta Cuesta-González & Julie Froud & Daniel Tischer, 2021. "Coalitions and Public Action in the Reshaping of Corporate Responsibility: The Case of the Retail Banking Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 539-558, October.
    4. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    5. Yakovleva, Natalia & Vazquez-Brust, Diego Alfonso, 2018. "Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 52-62.
    6. Michel Ferrary, 2019. "Dynamique des « petits mondes » de parties prenantes de l’entreprise. L’exemple des restructurations industrielles," Post-Print hal-03245590, HAL.
    7. Ferrary, Michel, 2019. "The structure and dynamics of the CEO's “small world” of stakeholders. An application to industrial downsizing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 147-159.
    8. Qiaowen Zhang & Annalien de Vries, 2022. "Seeking Moral Legitimacy through Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Multinationals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    9. Rashid Maqbool & Yahya Rashid & Saleha Ashfaq, 2022. "Renewable energy project success: Internal versus external stakeholders' satisfaction and influences of power‐interest matrix," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1542-1561, December.
    10. Josefina Fernández-Guadaño & Jesús H. Sarria-Pedroza, 2018. "Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Value Creation from a Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    2. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    3. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    4. Thomas Thijssens & Laury Bollen & Harold Hassink, 2015. "Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(4), pages 873-891, December.
    5. Silvana Signori & Yves Fassin, 2023. "Family Members’ Salience in Family Business: An Identity-Based Stakeholder Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 191-211, February.
    6. Boeddeling, Jann, 2011. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Fundamentalstellung für Kapitalismus und Wirtschaftssoziologie," Wittener Diskussionspapiere zu alten und neuen Fragen der Wirtschaftswissenschaft 17/2011, Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Management and Economics.
    7. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    8. Lyton Chithambo & Venancio Tauringana & Ishmael Tingbani & Laura Achiro, 2022. "Stakeholder pressure and greenhouses gas voluntary disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 159-172, January.
    9. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    10. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    11. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    12. Cristina Gianfelici & Andrea Casadei & Federica Cembali, 2018. "The Relevance of Nationality and Industry for Stakeholder Salience: An Investigation Through Integrated Reports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 541-558, June.
    13. Anne-Laure P. Winkler & Jill A. Brown & David L. Finegold, 2019. "Employees as Conduits for Effective Stakeholder Engagement: An Example from B Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 913-936, December.
    14. Claude Francoeur & Réal Labelle & Souha Balti & Saloua EL Bouzaidi, 2019. "To What Extent Do Gender Diverse Boards Enhance Corporate Social Performance?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 343-357, March.
    15. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    16. David Weitzner & Yuval Deutsch, 2023. "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 479-492, September.
    17. Mahoney, Joseph & Asher, Cheryl Carleton & Mahoney, James, 2004. "Towards a Property Rights Foundation for a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm," Working Papers 04-0116, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    18. Mollie Painter & Mar Pérezts & Ghislain Deslandes, 2021. "Understanding the human in stakeholder theory : a phenomenological approach to affect-based learning," Post-Print hal-03188192, HAL.
    19. Nicolas Dahan & Jonathan Doh & Jonathan Raelin, 2015. "Pivoting the Role of Government in the Business and Society Interface: A Stakeholder Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 665-680, October.
    20. Fabrizio Zerbini, 2017. "CSR Initiatives as Market Signals: A Review and Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 1-23, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:144:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2819-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.