IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/284367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections

Author

Listed:
  • Valentinov, Vladislav
  • Roth, Steffen

Abstract

Modern stakeholder theory is premised on the ‘integration thesis’, according to which business and ethics constitute an inseparable unity. For many management scholars, this thesis raised the difficult question of how far business can pursue ethical goals without losing its functional autonomy. We address this question by interpreting the integration thesis as the Luhmannian ‘unity of difference’ of business and ethics. This interpretation allows business and ethics to remain conceptually distinct, yet takes their very distinction to constitute a logical and dialectical unity as envisioned by the integration thesis. To justify this interpretation, we draw on the Luhmannian systems theory which accentuates the precariousness of the environment faced by business corporations, and on process philosophy which underscores the unique human capacity to navigate this precariousness by following social norms of ethical behaviour. We argue that a key prerequisite of successful stakeholder management is the activation of this human capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentinov, Vladislav & Roth, Steffen, 2024. "Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 41(2), pages 301-315.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:284367
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/284367/1/Valentinov_2024_Stakeholder_theory.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2970?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    2. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    3. Jonathan Schad & Pratima Bansal, 2018. "Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(8), pages 1490-1506, December.
    4. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    5. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    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. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    2. Itziar Castelló & Michael Etter & Finn Årup Nielsen, 2016. "Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 402-432, May.
    3. Garrod, Brian & Fyall, Alan & Leask, Anna & Reid, Elaine, 2012. "Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1159-1173.
    4. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    5. Daniel G. Arce, 2007. "Is Agency Theory Self‐Activating?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 708-720, October.
    6. Andrew C. Inkpen & Anant K. Sundaram, 2022. "The Endurance of Shareholder Value Maximization as the Preferred Corporate Objective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 555-568, March.
    7. Mustafa Kavas & Paula Jarzabkowski & Amit Nigam, 2020. "Islamic Family Business: The Constitutive Role of Religion in Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 689-700, May.
    8. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    9. Lee Siew Tee & Ismail Nizam, 2020. "The Influence of Corporate Governance on Financial Performance Mediated by Gender Diversity," Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 61-79, January.
    10. Pies, Ingo & Beckmann, Markus & Hielscher, Stefan, 2012. "The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristoleian idea of individual citizenship," Discussion Papers 2012-1, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    11. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    12. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    13. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    14. Midtgård, Kenneth & Selart, Marcus, 2024. "The cognitive perspective in strategic choice," SocArXiv 4xpza, Center for Open Science.
    15. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    16. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    17. Suchanek Andreas, 2012. "Unternehmensverantwortung als Vermeidung relevanter Inkonsistenzen / Corporate Responsibility: The Avoidance of Relevant Inconsistencies," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 241-260, January.
    18. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Lorenzo Dorigo & Giuseppe Marcon, 2014. "A caring interpretation of stakeholder management for the social enterprise. Evidence from a regional survey of micro social cooperatives in the Italian welfare mix," Working Papers 01, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.

    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:zbw:espost:284367. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.