IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i1p83-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Yves Fassin

    ()

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:83-96
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Langtry, Bruce, 1994. "Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibilities of Business," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 431-443, October.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Phillips, Robert, 2003. "Stakeholder Legitimacy," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(01), pages 25-41, January.
    13. Phillips, Robert A., 1997. "Stakeholder Theory and A Principle of Fairness," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 51-66, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Venkiteswaran N, 1997. "Ethics, Values and Corporate Governance," IIMA Working Papers WP1997-08-01_01459, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    16. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    17. 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.
    18. Sirkku Hellsten & Chris Mallin, 2006. "Are ‘Ethical’ or ‘Socially Responsible’ Investments Socially Responsible?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 393-406, July.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    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. 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.
    2. Vincent C. Ma & John S. Liu, 2016. "Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 33-52, October.
    3. repec:kap:jbuset:v:143:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2795-x is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Peter Seele & Irina Lock, 2015. "Instrumental and/or Deliberative? A Typology of CSR Communication Tools," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 401-414, October.
    5. Dina Tomsic, 2013. "Towards A Relational View Of Corporate Governance," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 9(2), pages 71-88.
    6. repec:kap:jbuset:v:146:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3652-x is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:kap:jbuset:v:144:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2819-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Andrew Crane & Cameron Graham & Darlene Himick, 2015. "Financializing Stakeholder Claims," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 878-906, November.
    9. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Shawn L. Berman, 2016. "Corporate Social Performance and Economic Cycles," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 279-294, October.
    10. repec:kap:jbuset:v:145:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2870-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Susan Castro, 2014. "The Morality of Unequal Autonomy: Reviving Kant’s Concept of Status for Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 593-606, June.
    13. Carl Rhodes & Robert Westwood, 2016. "The Limits of Generosity: Lessons on Ethics, Economy, and Reciprocity in Kafka’s The Metamorphosis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 235-248, January.

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.