IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v180y2022i1d10.1007_s10551-021-04840-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Human–Animal Relations in Business and Society: Advancing the Feminist Interpretation of Stakeholder Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Tallberg

    (Hanken School of Economics)

  • José-Carlos García-Rosell

    (University of Lapland)

  • Minni Haanpää

    (University of Lapland)

Abstract

Stakeholder theory has largely been anthropocentric in its focus on human actors and interests, failing to recognise the impact of nonhumans in business and organisations. This leads to an incomplete understanding of organisational contexts that include key relationships with nonhuman animals. In addition, the limited scholarly attention paid to nonhumans as stakeholders has mostly been conceptual to date. Therefore, we develop a stakeholder theory with animals illustrated through two ethnographic case studies: an animal shelter and Nordic husky businesses. We focus our feminist reading of Driscoll and Starik’s (J Bus Ethics 49:55–73, 2004) stakeholder attributes for nonhumans and extend this to include affective salience built on embodied affectivity and knowledge, memories, action and care. Findings reveal that nonhuman animals are important actors in practice, affecting organisational operations through human–animal care relationships. In addition to confirming animals are stakeholders, we further contribute to stakeholder theory by offering ways to better listen to nontraditional actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Tallberg & José-Carlos García-Rosell & Minni Haanpää, 2022. "Human–Animal Relations in Business and Society: Advancing the Feminist Interpretation of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:180:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04840-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04840-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-021-04840-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-021-04840-1?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. Valtonen, Anu & Salmela, Tarja & Rantala, Outi, 2020. "Living with mosquitoes," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    2. Caroline Clarke & David Knights, 2019. "Who's a good boy then? Anthropocentric masculinities in veterinary practice," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 267-287, April.
    3. Janet Sayers & Lindsay Hamilton & Kate Sang, 2019. "Organizing animals: Species, gender and power at work," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 239-245, April.
    4. Eimear McLoughlin, 2019. "Knowing cows: Transformative mobilizations of human and non‐human bodies in an emotionography of the slaughterhouse," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 322-342, April.
    5. Matias Laine, 2010. "The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 73-78, August.
    6. Merja Lähdesmäki & Marjo Siltaoja & Laura J. Spence, 2019. "Stakeholder Salience for Small Businesses: A Social Proximity Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 373-385, August.
    7. Chellie Spiller & Ljiljana Erakovic & Manuka Henare & Edwina Pio, 2011. "Relational Well-Being and Wealth: Māori Businesses and an Ethic of Care," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 153-169, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. Roya Derakhshan, 2022. "Building Projects on the Local Communities’ Planet: Studying Organizations’ Care-Giving Approaches," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 721-740, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Wee Chan Au & Siân Stephens, 2023. "I Am Not Just a Nurse: The Need for a Boundaried Ethic of Care in the Context of Prolific Relationality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 493-510, September.
    6. Heidi Reed, 2023. "“When money is more valuable than people…”: The pandemic as a call for business to care," Post-Print hal-04461114, HAL.
    7. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    8. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    9. Sibel Hoştut & Seçil Deren het Hof & Hediye Aydoğan & Gülten Adalı, 2023. "Who’s in and who’s out? Reading stakeholders and priority issues from sustainability reports in Turkey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Hensher, D. A. & Brewer, A. M., 2001. "Developing a freight strategy: the use of a collaborative learning process to secure stakeholder input," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, January.
    11. Teresa Heath & Lisa O’Malley & Matthew Heath & Vicky Story, 2016. "Caring and Conflicted: Mothers’ Ethical Judgments about Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 237-250, June.
    12. Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2017. "Sex Differences Through a Neuroscience Lens: Implications for Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 771-782, September.
    13. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    14. repec:eme:srjpps:v:6:y:2010:i:2:p:381-392 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Domènec Melé, 2014. "“Human Quality Treatment”: Five Organizational Levels," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 457-471, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Dillard, Jesse & Reynolds, MaryAnn, 2011. "Re-stor(y)ing social change," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 492-499.
    18. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    19. Muel Kaptein, 2022. "The Moral Duty to Love One’s Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 813-827, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Kevin André & Anne-Claire Pache, 2016. "From Caring Entrepreneur to Caring Enterprise: Addressing the Ethical Challenges of Scaling up Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 659-675, February.

    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:180:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04840-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.