IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v42y2013icp127-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder theory: Some revisionist suggestions

Author

Listed:
  • Tullberg, Jan

Abstract

The article argues for the use of a narrow stakeholder definition. It also adds one group – managers – that generally is not considered as being a stakeholder group. Here it is suggested that control of this stakeholder group holding the executive power should be a central topic for stakeholder theory. The article supports the common idea that the business discourse and the moral discourse should be integrated in stakeholder theory, not treated as separate tracks. The issue is then how to mold the substance for such integration. This article argues that the priority of stakeholders implies a distancing from general altruistic philosophy that argues against – not for – giving special consideration to the company's stakeholders. Both the moral substance and the business potential lie in the special and close relationship with these partners. Stakeholder theory needs a more compatible ethical theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Tullberg, Jan, 2013. "Stakeholder theory: Some revisionist suggestions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 127-135.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:42:y:2013:i:c:p:127-135
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2012.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535712001266
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2012.11.014?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. Agle, Bradley R. & Donaldson, Thomas & Freeman, R. Edward & Jensen, Michael C. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Wood, Donna J., 2008. "Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 153-190, April.
    2. Akerlof, George A, 1984. "Gift Exchange and Efficiency-Wage Theory: Four Views," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 79-83, May.
    3. Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
    4. Marcoux, Alexei M., 2003. "A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 2001. "The Influence of the Financial Revolution on the Nature of Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 206-211, May.
    6. Tullberg, Jan, 2008. "Trust--The importance of trustfulness versus trustworthiness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2059-2071, October.
    7. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 25-41, January.
    8. Heath, Joseph, 2006. "Business Ethics without Stakeholders," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 533-557, October.
    9. Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1990. "Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(2), pages 225-264, April.
    10. Power, Michael, 1999. "The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296034, Decembrie.
    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. Li Cui & Min Zhang & Kuo-Jui Wu & Ming-Lang Tseng, 2018. "Constructing a Hierarchical Agribusiness Framework in Chinese Belt and Road Initiatives under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Liang Wang & Kwame Awuah-Offei & Sisi Que & Wei Yang, 2016. "Eliciting Drivers of Community Perceptions of Mining Projects through Effective Community Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Guido Migliaccio, 2019. "Disabled People in the Stakeholder Theory: a Literature Analysis," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1657-1678, December.
    4. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.
    5. Imaduddin Murdifin & Muhammad Faisal AR Pelu & Aditya Aditya Halim Putra & A. Muara Arumbarkah & Muslim Muslim & Aulia Rahmah, 2019. "Environmental Disclosure as Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from the Biggest Nickel Mining in Indonesia," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(1), pages 115-122.
    6. Kesting, Peter & Günzel-Jensen, Franziska, 2015. "SMEs and new ventures need business model sophistication," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 285-293.
    7. A.M. Chernopiatov & L.A. Akhmetov & D.M. Djuraev, 2018. "Peculiarities Of State Property In The Economy Of Russia," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 18(2), pages 43-52.
    8. Youness Frichi & Fouad Jawab & Said Boutahari, 2019. "The Mixed-Method 5W2D Approach for Health System Stakeholders Analysis in Quality of Care: An Application to the Moroccan Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-25, August.
    9. Kreiling, Laura & Serval, Sarah & Peres, Raphaële & Bounfour, Ahmed, 2020. "University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their regional innovation system stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 218-229.
    10. Pantano, Eleonora & Priporas, Constantinos-Vasilios & Viassone, Milena & Migliano, Giuseppe, 2020. "Does the stakeholder engagement result in new drinks? Evidence from family owned SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 185-194.
    11. Lars Moratis & Satu Brandt, 2017. "Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI‐based stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 312-325, July.
    12. Vedlūga, Tomas & Mikulskienė, Birutė, 2017. "Stakeholder driven indicators for eHealth performance management," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 82-92.

    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. Tiantian Gu & Anand Venkateswaran, 2018. "Firm-supplier relations and managerial compensation," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 621-649, October.
    2. Christian Grund & Niels Westergaard-Nielsen, 2008. "The Dispersion of Employees' Wage Increases and Firm Performance," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 61(4), pages 485-501, July.
    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. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    5. Matthew Rabin., 1997. "Bargaining Structure, Fairness and Efficiency," Economics Working Papers E00-280, University of California at Berkeley.
    6. Ursino Giovanni, 2015. "Supply Chain Control: A Theory of Vertical Integration," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1831-1866, October.
    7. Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    8. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    9. Bongani Munkuli & Renee Horne, 2018. "Financial Markets Value Reputation for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – A Study of the South African Mining Sector," Africagrowth Agenda, Africagrowth Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 17-22.
    10. Nakamura, Masao & Hubler, Olaf, 1998. "The bonus share of flexible pay in Germany, Japan and the US: Some empirical regularities," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 221-232, 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. Mani, Venkatesh & Gunasekaran, Angappa, 2018. "Four forces of supply chain social sustainability adoption in emerging economies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 150-161.
    13. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    14. Michael Carney & Eric Gedajlovic & Sujit Sur, 2011. "Corporate governance and stakeholder conflict," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 483-507, August.
    15. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    16. Eric Brown, 2013. "Vulnerability and the Basis of Business Ethics: From Fiduciary Duties to Professionalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 489-504, March.
    17. Lawrence Debrock & Wallace Hendricks & Roger Koenker, 2004. "Pay and Performance," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 5(3), pages 243-261, August.
    18. Bradley W. Benson & Wallace N. Davidson, 2010. "The Relation between Stakeholder Management, Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 929-964, September.
    19. Wayne Norman, 2011. "Business Ethics as Self-Regulation: Why Principles that Ground Regulations Should Be Used to Ground Beyond-Compliance Norms as Well," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 43-57, March.
    20. B. James Deaton & Getu Hailu & Xiaoye Zhou, 2014. "Poverty in Canada: Does Manufacturing Matter?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 362-376, June.

    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:eee:soceco:v:42:y:2013:i:c:p:127-135. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.