IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v15y2005i01p93-111_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Organizational Field Approach to Corporate Rationality: The Role of Stakeholder Activism

Author

Listed:
  • O’Connell, Lenahan L.
  • Stephens, Carroll U.
  • Betz, Michael
  • Shepard, Jon M.
  • Hendry, Jamie R.

Abstract

This paper contends that rationality is more properly evaluated as a property of an organization’s relationships with its stakeholders than of the organization itself. We predicate our approach on the observation that stakeholders can hold goals quite distinct from those of owners and top managers, and these too can be rationally pursued. We build upon stakeholder theory and Weber’s classic distinction between wertrationalitat and zweckrationalitat, adding to them the “new institutionalist” concept of the organization field (1983, 1991). Stakeholders employ a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms to rationalize relations with the firm. We discuss four: internal subunits, legislated stakeholder participation, legislated access to information, and direct stakeholder activism. These developments are blurring the distinction between the environment and the organization by importing the values and goals of external stakeholders into the internal organization. They are also precipitating a more structured set of relationships among the actors who comprise the field. To the extent that the zweckrationalitat values of managers and owners as well as the wertrationalitat concerns of stakeholders are met, the firm is more rational.

Suggested Citation

  • O’Connell, Lenahan L. & Stephens, Carroll U. & Betz, Michael & Shepard, Jon M. & Hendry, Jamie R., 2005. "An Organizational Field Approach to Corporate Rationality: The Role of Stakeholder Activism," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 93-111, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:15:y:2005:i:01:p:93-111_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00007363/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    2. Veronica Devenin & Constanza Bianchi, 2018. "Soccer fields? What for? Effectiveness of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the mining industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 866-879, September.
    3. Sefa Hayibor, 2017. "Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 43-64, January.
    4. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Jiwon Yang & Jay Hyuk Rhee, 2020. "CSR disclosure against boycotts: evidence from Korea," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 311-343, July.
    6. Jerry Calton, 2006. "Social Contracting in a Pluralist Process of Moral Sense Making: A Dialogic Twist on the ISCT," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 329-346, October.
    7. Elise Perrault, 2015. "Why Does Board Gender Diversity Matter and How Do We Get There? The Role of Shareholder Activism in Deinstitutionalizing Old Boys’ Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 149-165, April.
    8. Jerry Calton & Patricia Werhane & Laura Hartman & David Bevan, 2013. "Building Partnerships to Create Social and Economic Value at the Base of the Global Development Pyramid," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 721-733, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:buetqu:v:15:y:2005:i:01:p:93-111_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    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.