IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility

  • Yves Fassin


Registered author(s):

    Stakeholder theory advocates that firms bear responsibility for the implications of their actions. However, while a firm affects or can affect stakeholders, stakeholders can also affect the corporation. Previous stakeholder theorising has neglected the reciprocal nature of responsibility. The question can be asked whether—in a spirit of reciprocity, loyalty and fairness—stakeholders should treat the corporation in a fair and responsible way. This study based on different definitions of stakeholders argues that various stakeholder attributes differ for different categories of stakeholders. This analysis presumes that the attribute of stakeholder reciprocity can probably be restricted to real stakeholders, labelled stakeowners: genuine stakeholders with a legitimate stake, the loyal partners who strive for mutual benefits. Stakeowners own and deserve a stake in the firm. Stakeholder reciprocity could be an innovative criterion in the corporate governance debate as to who should be accorded representation on the board. Corporate social responsibility should imply corporate stakeholder responsibility. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Business Ethics.

    Volume (Year): 109 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 (August)
    Pages: 83-96

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:83-96
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    2. 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.
    3. Sirkku Hellsten & Chris Mallin, 2006. "Are ‘Ethical’ or ‘Socially Responsible’ Investments Socially Responsible?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 393-406, 07.
    4. Goodwin, Cathy & Ross, Ivan, 1992. "Consumer responses to service failures: Influence of procedural and interactional fairness perceptions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 149-163, September.
    5. Jensen, Michael C., 2002. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(02), pages 235-256, April.
    6. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    7. Samuel Mercier & Jean-Pascal Gond, 2005. "La théorie des parties prenantes," Working Papers CREGO 1050502, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    8. Goodstein, Jerry D. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2007. "Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility: Making Business Ethics A Two-Way Conversation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(03), pages 375-398, July.
    9. Peter Southwood, 2003. "Shareholder engagement: prospects for improving corporate social responsibility," International Journal of Business Performance Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(2/3), pages 223-236.
    10. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(04), pages 479-502, October.
    11. Jan Jonker & André Nijhof, 2006. "Looking Through the Eyes of Others: assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 456-466, 09.
    12. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    13. Orts, Eric W. & Strudler, Alan, 2002. "The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(02), pages 215-233, April.
    14. Galai, Dan & Wiener, Zvi, 2008. "Stakeholders and the composition of the voting rights of the board of directors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 107-117, April.
    15. Elms, Heather & Phillips, Robert A., 2009. "Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(03), pages 403-432, July.
    16. Venkiteswaran N, . "Ethics, Values and Corporate Governance," IIMA Working Papers WP1997-08-01_01459, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    17. Hosmer, LaRue Tone & Kiewitz, Christian, 2005. "Organizational Justice: A Behavioral Science Concept with Critical Implications for Business Ethics and Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(01), pages 67-91, January.
    18. Langtry, Bruce, 1994. "Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 431-443, October.
    19. Doh, Jonathan P. & Teegen, Hildy, 2002. "Nongovernmental organizations as institutional actors in international business: theory and implications," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 665-684, December.
    20. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 409-421, October.
    21. Rauyruen, Papassapa & Miller, Kenneth E., 2007. "Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-31, January.
    22. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 51-66, January.
    23. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(01), pages 25-41, January.
    24. 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, 01.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:83-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.