IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/261079.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Valentinov, Vladislav
  • Chia, Robert

Abstract

Advocates of stakeholder theory have long known that grasping its key insights requires a specific worldview that is, unfortunately, still not prevalent within the community of strategic management scholars. We argue that this worldview encompasses a process ontology that is radically different from the substance-ontological outlook typical of the mainstream approaches to strategic management. The unquestioned commitment of strategic management scholarship to a substance ontology leads to the viewing of corporations as macro-entities comprising aggregations of discrete autonomous actors each relying on individual choice and instrumental rationality. In contrast, within a process-ontological worldview, corporations and their stakeholders are seen to be sustained and attenuated through social practices and relationships involving interlocking chains of coping actions taken in everyday interactions. We show that adopting a process-ontological worldview presents a much-needed step that may help strategic management scholars reach a better understanding of how stakeholder theory deals with three problems of today's capitalism, those value creation and trade, ethics of capitalism, and managerial mindsets. On this basis, we discuss how to process ontology may lead stakeholder theory to further refine its understanding of business strategy, corporate social responsibility, and the common ground between the firm and stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentinov, Vladislav & Chia, Robert, 2022. "Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 762-776.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:261079
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/261079/1/Valentinov_2022_stakeholder_theory_process_ontology.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12441?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphanie Missonier & Sabrina Loufrani-Fedida, 2014. "Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: from stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology," Post-Print halshs-01057834, HAL.
    2. Kroszner,Randall S. & Putterman,Louis (ed.), 2009. "The Economic Nature of the Firm," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521141772.
    3. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    4. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    5. Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 1998. "Competence and contract in the theory of the firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 179-201, April.
    6. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    7. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    8. Jonathan Bundy & Ryan M. Vogel & Miles A. Zachary, 2018. "Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 476-501, February.
    9. Julie A. Nelson, 2003. "Confronting the science-value split: notes on feminist economics, institutionalism, pragmatism and process thought," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(1), pages 49-64, January.
    10. Ermanno C. Tortia, 2018. "The Firm as a Common. Non-Divided Ownership, Patrimonial Stability and Longevity of Co-Operative Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Tommy Jensen & Johan Sandström, 2013. "In Defence of Stakeholder Pragmatism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 225-237, May.
    12. Kroszner,Randall S. & Putterman,Louis (ed.), 2009. "The Economic Nature of the Firm," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521193948.
    13. Burton, Brian K. & Dunn, Craig P., 1996. "Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory 1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 133-147, April.
    14. Foss, Nicolai Juul, 1993. "Theories of the Firm: Contractual and Competence Perspectives," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 127-144, May.
    15. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    16. Julie Nelson, 2007. "Economics for Humans:," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 17-25.
    17. Spencer Thompson & Vladislav Valentinov, 2017. "The neglect of society in the theory of the firm: a systems-theory perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(4), pages 1061-1085.
    18. 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.
    19. Jay B. Barney, 2018. "Why resource‐based theory's model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(13), pages 3305-3325, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vladislav Valentinov, 2023. "Stakeholder Theory: Toward a Classical Institutional Economics Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88, November.
    2. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2023. "Stakeholder theory: Toward a classical institutional economics perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88.
    3. Vladislav Valentinov, 2022. "System or Process? A Meta-theoretical Reflection on the Nature of the Firm," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Roth, Steffen & Schwede, Peter & Valentinov, Vladislav & Pérez-Valls, Miguel & Kaivo-oja, Jari, 2020. "Harnessing big data for a multifunctional theory of the firm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 54-61.
    5. 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.
    6. Foss, Nicolai J., 2003. "Bounded rationality in the economics of organization: "Much cited and little used"," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 245-264, April.
    7. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhang, Shemei & Sun, Zhanli & Ma, Wanglin & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2020. "The effect of cooperative membership on agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Pascual Berrone & Jordi Surroca & Josep Tribó, 2007. "Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 35-53, November.
    11. Heidi Weltzien Hoivik & Domènec Melé, 2009. "Can an SME Become a Global Corporate Citizen? Evidence from a Case Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 551-563, September.
    12. Julie A. Nelson, 2013. "Gender and caring," Chapters, in: Deborah M. Figart & Tonia L. Warnecke (ed.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life, chapter 5, pages 62-76, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Tortia, Ermanno C., 2021. "Employment protection regimes and dismissal of members in worker cooperatives," MPRA Paper 109214, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Camisón, César & Forés, Beatriz, 2011. "Knowledge creation and absorptive capacity: The effect of intra-district shared competences," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 66-86, March.
    15. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2010. "Limits of Transaction Cost Analysis," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 28, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Kate Grosser & Jeremy Moon, 2019. "CSR and Feminist Organization Studies: Towards an Integrated Theorization for the Analysis of Gender Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 321-342, March.
    17. Giuseppe Marzo, 2013. "Some Unintended Consequences of Metaphors: The Case of Capital in Intellectual Capital Research," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(3-4), pages 111-140.
    18. Hsu, Kuang-Chung & Wright, Michael & Zhu, Zhen, 2017. "What motivates merger and acquisition activities in the upstream oil & gas sectors in the U.S.?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 240-250.
    19. Vítor Gaspar, 2010. "Financial Stability and Policy Cooperation," Working Papers o201001, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    20. Alex Eapen & Rekha Krishnan, 2019. "Transferring Tacit Know-How: Do Opportunism Safeguards Matter for Firm Boundary Decisions?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 715-734, July.

    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:zbw:espost:261079. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.