Emerson 2011

Management DecisionStakeholder theory: issues to resolve Emerson Wagner Mainardes Helena Alves Mario Raposo Article information: Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) To cite this document: Emerson Wagner Mainardes Helena Alves Mario Raposo, (2011),"Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 2 pp. 226 - 252 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111109133 Downloaded on: 26 July 2015, At: 14:30 (PT) References: this document contains references to 145 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15544 times since 2011* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Helena Alves, Mário Raposo, (2012),"A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss 10 pp. 1861-1879 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648 Heiko Spitzeck, Erik G. Hansen, (2010),"Stakeholder governance: how stakeholders influence corporate decision making", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 378-391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720701011069623 Yvon Pesqueux, Salma Damak-Ayadi, (2005),"Stakeholder theory in perspective", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 5-21 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510562622 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:427150 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm MD 49,2 Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Helena Alves and Mario Raposo 226 Center for Studies in Management Science, Management and Economics Department, NECE, University of Beira Interior, Covilha˜, Portugal Abstract Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Purpose – The objective of this paper is to collate and debate the main issues driving the stakeholder theory academic debate. Design/methodology/approach – First, a discussion of the stakeholder concept is set out before moving on to the history and nature of stakeholder theory. The work proceeds with an attempt to bring together systematically the points of divergence among researchers interested in stakeholder theory, and, finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a proposed research agenda for the field. Findings – Based on the unification of the theoretically problematic issues, research agenda are put forward with the objective of clarifying doubts and resolving the controversies ongoing among academics. As regards the formulation of stakeholder theory, one question requiring resolution is that of the stakeholder concept itself. Additionally, further research should focus on the boundaries as to what constitutes a stakeholder group as well as defining the criteria for attributing individual membership of one or another group. In practical theoretical application, it is correspondingly necessary to target research on aspects such as conflicts of interest between stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives. Finally, there is a need for research that systematizes the knowledge produced with the objective of attaining the theoretical convergence necessary for the development of stakeholder theory. Originality/value – The main contribution of this paper derives from the systematization of the various shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of stakeholder theory and the identification of research agendas. Keywords Stakeholders, Research work Paper type Literature review 1. Introduction Stakeholder theory was put forward by Freeman (1984) as a proposal for the strategic management of organizations in the late twentieth century. Over time, this theory has gained in importance, with key works by Clarkson (1994, 1995), Donaldson and Preston (1995), Mitchell et al. (1997), Rowley (1997) and Frooman (1999) enabling both greater theoretical depth and development. From an initially strategic perspective, the theory evolved and was adopted as a means of management by many market-based organizations. Given it remains a relatively recent addition to the management field, stakeholder theory has not been fully developed. According to Fassin (2008), the success of Management Decision Vol. 49 No. 2, 2011 pp. 226-252 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 DOI 10.1108/00251741111109133 This research was supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation through Nu´cleo de Investigac¸a˜o em Cieˆncias Empresariais (Programa de Financiamento Plurianual das Unidades de I&D da Fundac¸a˜o para a Cieˆncia e Tecnologia, Ministe´rio da Cieˆncia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior/Portugal). Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) stakeholder theory, both in the management literature and in business practice, is due in large part to the simplicity inherent to the model. However, over the years, some academics have criticized the vagueness and ambiguity of this theory. The stakeholder model, backed as it is by its simplicity and clear visual presentation, has stirred debates in the academic literature. Indeed, very few management themes have generated as many published works in recent decades as the underlying concept, i.e. the model and theories around stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Gibson, 2000; Wolfe and Putler, 2002; Friedman and Miles, 2006). One of the most salient characteristics of this theory is the diversity in the points of view that have been expressed within its scope. Correspondingly, there is a low level of theoretical integration whether in terms of the normative, instrumental or descriptive dimensions as well as within the actual dimensions themselves (Le´pineux, 2005). Hence, the objective of this article is to bring together and discuss some of the questions driving stakeholder theory academic debate. This research was motivated by the sheer relevance of the theory to various different areas, especially strategic management, marketing, corporative governance, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, public management, among others. Similarly, the main contribution of this article derives primarily from the systematization of some of the shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of stakeholder theory. Based upon this unification of the theoretically problematic issues, we then set out research agendas aiming to clarify the doubts and resolve the controversies that have been ongoing among academics. In order to achieve this objective, this paper is structured as follows: firstly, there is discussion of the stakeholder concept before moving onto the history and nature of stakeholder theory and presenting the three approaches that explain the theory, the normative, instrumental and descriptive approaches. The next stage attempts to systematically bring together the points of divergence among researchers interested in stakeholder theory, and finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a suggested research agenda for the field. 2. The stakeholder concept The origin of the stakeholder concept lies in the business science literature (Freeman, 1984), and may be traced back even as far as Adam Smith and his The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Its modern utilization in management literature was brought about by the Stanford Research Institute, which introduced the term in 1963 to generalize and expand the notion of the shareholders as the only group that management needed to be sensitive towards ( Jongbloed et al., 2008). Within this perspective, Freeman (1984) argued that business organizations should be concerned about the interests of other stakeholders when taking strategic decisions. Although a relatively longstanding term, the development of stakeholder theory was set in motion by the work of Freeman (1984). The objective of his work was to delineate an alternative form of strategic management as a response to rising competitiveness, globalization and the growing complexity of company operations. As time went by, the stakeholder concept has taken on greater importance due to public interest, greater coverage by the media, concerns about corporative governance and its adoption as a policy within the scope of the “Third Way” (Hutton, 1999; Greenwood, 2008). Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 227 a large majority of studies adopt the definition idealized by Freeman (1984) that individuals or . the position of the stakeholder towards the company (e. they do as a rule reflect the same principle to a greater or lesser extent: the company should take into consideration the needs. . . the stakeholder concept contains three fundamental factors: (1) the organization. may guide the actions of a specific organization. Wicks et al. . the stakeholder as having a moral right over the company (according to Carroll. However. . 1994). . Mitchell et al. according to Clarkson (1995). or . these are understandings of the stakeholder concept as connected to organizations and which. the stakeholder as dependent on the company (as is the case in Langtry.g. the company as dependent upon stakeholders (see Freeman and Reed. Hence. including: . . . the relationship between the company and the stakeholders (as in Freeman. interests and influences of peoples and groups who either impact on or may be impacted by its policies and operations (Frederick et al.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 228 Meanwhile. The works of Bryson (2004). the stakeholder as holding a right on the company (see Evan and Freeman. (1997) propose that these concepts represent phenomena in themselves. 1988). countless definitions of “stakeholder” have been put forward without any of those suggested ever gaining consensus. The term is highly popular with businesses. . Starik. 1983). 1995). whether broader or more restrictive. the stakeholder wielding power over the company (according to Brenner. (1997). 2006). Pesqueux and Damak-Ayadi (2005). . which may result in distorted conceptual interpretations (Friedman and Miles. the company and the stakeholder as engaged in contractual relations (as in Hill and Jones. 1989). many who adopt the term neither define the concept nor provide any particularly clear understanding of what they mean as regards what a stakeholder actually is. 1994). (2) the other actors. 1993). despite the countless definitions and differing emphasizes. However. the company and stakeholder as mutually dependent (e.. the stakeholder as running some kind of risk (see Clarkson. Even in academic circles. 1994). governments.. 1994). the stakeholder as having an interest in the company (see Clarkson. the company as holding power over the stakeholder (see Carroll. non-governmental organizations and even with the media. In summary. . the term “stakeholder” has been deployed indiscriminately in the last two decades. Although each researcher defines the concept differently. Despite this widespread usage. and hence there is no single.g. Buchholz and Rosenthal (2005). in accordance with Friedman and Miles (2006). 1992).MD 49. Friedman and Miles (2006) and Beach (2008) contain a total of 66 different concepts for the term “stakeholder”. 1995). and (3) the nature of the company-actor relationships. 1994). according to Mitchell et al. definitive and generally accepted definition. 1992). 2004). Mitchell et al. systems theory. The ideas of Freeman (1984). To this end. In this model. (1997) state that the Freeman (1984) definition is so broad that it opens up an infinite scope for stakeholders as even climatic factors may play this role. Nevertheless. (2004). The model design was influenced by the traditional capitalist organizational production model in which the company is related only to four groups: the suppliers. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 229 . an informal group. the model proposed by Freeman (1984) may have been inspired by a tool drawn from sociology. the organization enters into relationships with many groups that influence or are influenced by the company. Freeman (1984). Freeman (1984) also added other groups influenced by company activities and saw the organization as the centre of a series of interdependent relationships (Crane and Matten. corporate social responsibility and organizational theory. defines how stakeholders with similar interests or rights form a group. as Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) had earlier observed. a person. generally accepted as launching the stakeholder theory concepts. the theory focuses on the nature of these relationships in terms of processes and results for the company and for stakeholders. “stakeholders” in accordance with Freeman’s (1984) terminology. History and nature of stakeholder theory The origins of stakeholder theory draw on four key academic fields – i. According to Jones and Wicks (1999) and Savage et al. there is a need to establish limits to the extent of stakeholders. 1999). which visualizes the frequency of interactions between individuals or groups. Freeman and Evan (1990) reduce the organizational environment to a multilateral agreement between an organization and its stakeholders. emerged out of an organizational context in which the company was perceived as not being self-sufficient and actually dependent on the external environment made up of groups external to the organization. . i. politics and ethics – and especially the literature on corporate planning. This situation was later handled by Frooman (1999) as resource dependency. Hence. employees and shareholders supplying the basic resources that the company transforms into products or services for the fourth group. the clients. The author set out his model as if a chart in which the company is positioned at the centre and is involved with stakeholders connected with the company. sociology. the sociogram. According to Fassin (2009). the basic premises of Stakeholder Theory are: . Within this concept. the interests of all legitimate stakeholder are of intrinsic value and it is assumed that there is no single prevailing set of interests as Clarkson (1995) and Donaldson and Preston (1995) pointed out. economics. which culminated in stakeholder theory.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) groups may influence or be influenced by the scope of organizational objectives. that is. an organization or an institution may all be stakeholders.e. These were the external groups that Freeman (1984) termed “stakeholders”. What Freeman (1984) was seeking to explain was the relationship between the company and its external environment and its behavior within this environment. over the course of his work entitled Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach.e. 3. the company-stakeholder relationships are dyadic and mutually independent (Frooman. . and (4) organizational theory: Within the strategic organizational planning line. Thus. the concept is that successful strategies correspond to the integration of all stakeholder interests (contrary to the maximization of one group’s position to the detriment of others). 1999). the concept of stakeholder management was developed so that organizations could recognize. Frooman. these should attempt to understand and balance the interests of the various participants. . Rowley (1997). 1996. On the other hand. The strategic literature emphasizes the active management of stakeholder interests while literature in the moral field is primarily interested in a balance between stakeholder interests. both among academics and among practitioners. as a new theory of the firm (Key. 2005). and as regards organizations. 1991. (2) systems theory. experience the effects of the relational experience with the organization.MD 49. Scott and Lane (2000) and Baldwin (2002). Post et al. stakeholder literature breaks down into two main branches – one strategic and one moral (Goodpaster. . strengthening or otherwise their ties with the company (Polonsky. Donaldson and Preston (1995). (3) corporate social responsibility. 1999). Freeman and McVea (2001) clarified how stakeholder theory was originally developed within a framework of four distinct lines of organizational management research. stakeholders define their expectations.2 . management is carried out over three levels: (1) the identification of stakeholders. . Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 230 the theory focuses upon management decision making. generalizing and testing the taking of strategic management decisions.. 2002. evaluate the results obtained and act in accordance with these evaluations. and according to Clarkson (1995). stakeholder theory earned its wings. the theory explains how stakeholders try and influence organizational decision making processes so as to be consistent with their needs and priorities. Both systems theory and organizational theory focus upon the idea that organizations are open systems that interact with diverse third parties and thus it is necessary to set out collective strategies that perfect the system as a whole beyond the actual recognition of all the relationships on which companies depend for their own survival. Taking these premises into consideration. Within this framework. analyze and examine the characteristics of individuals or groups influencing or being influenced by organizational behavior. While Freeman (1984) limited his own intentions to providing an approach to the subject. as demonstrated by Freeman (1984): (1) strategic organizational planning. Neville et al. and (3) the construction of relationships with the entire process structured around the organization’s respective objectives. (2) the development of processes identifying and interpreting their needs and interests.. the theory of Freeman (1984) came against a scenario of rising awareness as to the importance of business to society and along with the beginnings of the globalization of markets and the development of information technologies and means Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 231 . taking strategic decisions and allocating strategic resources in whatever form proves most coherent with the demands of the other stakeholders. across both the internal and external environments. Hill and Jones (1992) had already utilized agency theory. Radin (1999) affirmed that stakeholder theory means recognizing that organizations hold responsibilities towards people and entities beyond their stockholders. shareholders. for Le´pineux (2005). with the emergence and advance of stakeholder theory. 1998. suppliers. such as clients. such as government authorities or the local community. explicit or implicit. these groups may be subdivided into two: (1) the primary – those with formal or official contractual relationships with the company. Gibson (2000) proceeded to group stakeholders into institutional (involving laws. However. history now states it was Freeman (1984) who was the first researcher to clearly identify the strategic importance of other groups and individuals to the company. environmentalist and consumer defense organizations as well as government authorities. among others. we may configure a company as a set of relationships. which approaches the company as the nexus of contracts between stakeholders and managers as if some central node. 1997). he saw these groups as highly disparate. Gibson. Thus. For example. attention began to be paid to the interests of these distinct groups of individuals and not only to the shareholders or owners of the company (Argandon˜a. 2005). employees. internal stakeholders. According to Clarkson (1995). in accordance with Freeman and Liedtka (1997). Indeed. In this way. regulations). Stakeholder theory draws on analytical mechanisms from Systems Theory. Furthermore. for example. However. different to the traditional groups of clients. operational partners and community. Given there were so many stakeholder groups listed by Freeman (1984). over time the need to group them was encountered within the scope of efforts to reduce managerial complexity. these became shareholders. 2000). stakeholder theory was bound up with an already long-standing tradition that perceived business as an integral part of society and not as some separate and purely economic institution.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Corporate social responsibility is not considered a formalized theoretical group but rather a series of business case studies and empirical analyses seeking to demonstrate the importance of building up strong and trustworthy relationships and maintaining a good reputation with all groups external to the organization for its ongoing success. and (2) the secondary – those without such contracts. In fact. This operates as the means to explain how managers bear responsibility for conciliating divergent interests. suppliers. special interest groups and with even competitors and the media as legitimate stakeholders (Clement. regarding the interdependence and integration of actors making up a system and in seeking to explain the interrelationship between them (Campbell. it may be stated that diverse stakeholder groups interact with a company. Within the broad context of this theory. employees and shareholders. economic (actors in the marketplace) and ethical (environment and social pressure groups) categories. such as local community. 1998). 1993). 1999). Normative aspects of stakeholder theory As Donaldson and Preston (1995) affirmed. Hillman and Keim. Jones. 2005). in its presentation of a more collectivist vision of organizations as a social vehicle for human development. 4. given the greater level of pressures on organizations currently facing demands for responses from distinct groups of stakeholders. Kotter and Heskett. its involvement and relationship with the organization is now positioned as characteristic of most modern companies. the influence of stakeholders in organizational strategy requires responses on behalf of the company reflecting the potential power. an organization may be seen as a set of interdependent relationships between primary stakeholders. This theoretical set is divided into three approaches (Friedman and Miles. Without doubt. 1995.. (2002) explains that the stakeholder concept. 1992. political groups and communities in general. there has been a perceivable rise in the number of research publications dealing with the strategy and positioning of stakeholders in organizational decision-making (Asher et al. whether to threaten or to cooperate. Clarkson (1995) stated that the survival and sustainable profitability of organizations depended upon their capacity to comply with the economic and social purpose defined as creating and distributing sufficient wealth or value to ensure that each group of primary stakeholders continues to be a part of the company’s system. 1998. a perspective that has seen significant research in the field of organizational strategy (Evan and Freeman. Greenley and Foxall. Clarke. 1988. 2005). analyzing who the stakeholders are. of each stakeholder within a context of mutually exchanging interests and benefits. Correspondingly. Hence. 1997. Donaldson and Preston. 1994. and especially in terms of those stakeholders of greatest importance to organizational survival and being able to meet their respective needs (Hill and Jones. according to Clement (2005). As these stakeholders are in constant interaction with the company. the appearance of stakeholder theory proved a counterbalance to the key actor approach. Stakeholder theory arrived in time to explain and predict how organizations should act by taking into consideration the influences of stakeholders hitherto left out of the range of analysis. Given this situation. In the last two decades. Within this framework.MD 49. Harrison and St John. but rather a set of theories for the management of stakeholders. After the theory took shape and over time. the economic model of the company (Key. 1992. 2006): . based upon agency theory. The aforementioned theory seeks to set down attitudes and organizational practices for the company to survive and prosper (Brenner. stakeholder theory cannot be considered a single theory. among others. Many have already posited that the destiny of stakeholder theory is to topple the dominant paradigm. trade unions. Hill and Jones. they may provide them with contributions or important resources while each also represents interests needing to be satisfied. Various studies point to the utilization of stakeholder theory for analyzing the circumstances faced by contemporary organizations (Freeman and Liedtka. stakeholders slowly moved in from the periphery of organizational activities towards a more central position. Andriof et al. Metcalfe. 1996. identifying their interests and how they act is fundamental to contemporary organizations. 1995. such as the local community and the media. This emphasis may have come about. 2001).2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 232 of communication followed by the later heightening of social pressures applied by governments. Within this perspective. the feminist approach. 2004) making recourse to legal arguments. the normative aspect of stakeholder theory incorporates the following trends: Evan and Freeman (1983) and Bowie (1994) identify Kantian capitalism. Friedman and Miles (2006) draw an institutional vision of the organization defined as an arena of competing. according to Friedman and Miles (2006). 1998). Others deploy the Rawlsian construct of a social contract (Freeman and Evan. in accordance with Wicks et al. especially in relation to moral principles). Hansen et al. and on occasion conflicting. stakeholders should not be seen merely as the means of raising organizational performance. 1999) and moral reasoning (Gibson. (2) the instrumental (which demonstrates how to attain organizational objectives through stakeholder management). 2000). according to Freeman (1994) fair contracts. such as property rights (Donaldson and Preston. orienting its principles towards the application of theory as a proposed relationship between the company and its stakeholders within a fair. We now take up this third theme. The theories cited. According to Donaldson and Preston (1995). 1998). 2001. where interests are not purely economic (utilitarian principles). This social space sees stakeholders acting from different positions of power depending on the organizational sustainability of negotiations and the specific cooperative solutions agreed upon. 1999. Bowie. the right to be treated as an end (Evan and Freeman. multiple interests. also economic arguments that incorporate relationships of trust (Goodpaster.. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 233 . thereby justifying both the actions of management as well as the results obtained. these theories guide the thinking behind stakeholder theory. ethical and morally correct framework (deontological principles). 1988. Jones and Wicks (1999) propose stakeholder theory as a normative ethic that should approach which obligations from the stakeholder model rest upon the management. and (3) the normative (which defines how businesses should operate. 1999) or through recourse to the concept of the common good (Argandon˜a. (1994). There are. 2003) or agency theory (Shankman. Boatright. 1990. for Phillips (1997) justice. 1997. The normative approach is based upon moral premises about how actors and organizations should go about their activities. such as the equity principle (Phillips.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) (1) the descriptive (which sets out how the organization operates in terms of stakeholder management). act as influential inputs into stakeholder theory normative thinking. Marcoux. Child and Marcoux. In summary. Metcalfe. stakeholder-oriented policies are justifiable based upon the supposition that they do hold legitimate interests in the company activities that should be taken into consideration by managers as. while Freeman and Gilbert (1988) propose personal projects and. Some studies have explicitly justified this normative dimension to stakeholder theory (Freeman and McVea. 2003). Research within this framework evaluates relationships in accordance with ethical and philosophic principles. Kantian theory. Blair. however. Phillips. 1994. 1998). 1991. According to proponents of business ethics. and particularly the level of importance of obligations attributed to some stakeholders over other stakeholder groups. 1995. from Freeman’s (1998) perspective. MD 49. where certain results derive from enacting certain behaviors ( Jones and Wicks. (2) intermediary. 2001‘ Flak et al. More recent revisions of the normative facet of stakeholder theory suggest three categories for stakeholder participation: (1) moderate. it is important to compare the desirable with the real.e. hence with the full participation of such actors in corporate decision making processes (Hendry. According to Friedman and Miles (2006). McVea and Freeman (2005) propose that stakeholders should be understood as real. these perspectives should be centered on the organization. 5. (1999) proposed a strategic stakeholder management model based on the premise that companies address the concerns of stakeholders when believing this will boost company financial performance and is hence an instrumental approach. but also how the company responds to these influences. stakeholder theory needs to describe and predict how organizations are to operate under diverse and different conditions. In addition. decision-making processes and relationships with real individuals. 1999). and (2) the instrumental perspective. 1999). the original terminology (i. explores how the stakeholder model may be used to attain the performance objectives of an organization as a tool to be deployed in strategic decision making. Stakeholder theory should focus on the creation of value. This represents an individualization of the company-stakeholder relationship. Complementarily. the efforts of management need to be focused on grasping why the company needs to satisfy its stakeholders and how to achieve this as well as prescribing values for the undertaking of normative research projects (Freeman. 2008). proposed initially by Jones (1995) and later furthered by Donaldson and Preston (1995). For example. the normative facet to stakeholder theory may serve to generalize the understanding of how organizational behaviors may be shaped and fashioned. 1999. and not abstract. In other words. Berman et al. Despite this proposal.. on the organization-stakeholder relationship. Analytic aspects of stakeholder theory The analytical perspective to stakeholder theory covers two dimensions: (1) the descriptive perspective. The instrumental perspective. This relates primarily to the relational management of specific stakeholder groups (Freeman. 1984). The instrumental perspective of stakeholder theory is based upon organizational . or directly on the stakeholder. thus incorporating some stakeholder interests into organizational management. descriptive and instrumental) has prevailed in the literature. and (3) demanding. Both were discussed in the study by Donaldson and Preston (1995). Rowley (1997) explained that any understanding of this theory requires not only explaining the influences wielded by stakeholders.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 234 Therefore. that is dealing with parties with respect. Radin. individuals as only thus can managers gain awareness about the options they take and considering the moral and ethical aspects to each organizational decision. Many researchers involved in stakeholder theory agree that the normative dimension depends upon the other dimensions (descriptive and instrumental) and these should not be underestimated. When positing certain types of behavior. and later renamed by Reed (2002) as positive and strategic. the existing research points to management paying attention to stakeholders where these are deemed more important in terms of power. that which became the instrumental aspect enables organizations to personalize relationships with stakeholders. 1984. legitimacy and urgency. who researched manager perceptions on stakeholder characteristics and their relevance as regards facets such as power. given how stakeholder management is of particular importance to business projects taking place in institutionally demanding environments. the instrumental perspective has received greatest attention from researchers with its highlighting of stakeholder management as a factor for competitive advantage and better performance. especially agency theory. legitimacy and urgency. The question of stakeholder relevance and the extent Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 235 . neither is preferred and both approaches make significant contributions towards the development of stakeholder theory as both contain factors important for any understanding of organizational relationships with stakeholders. As regards the descriptive perspective. processes and policies. Research carried out under this approach is normally exploratory. From Starik’s (1994) perspective.. how managers act and what they think about the strategic components (Donaldson and Preston. The instrumental aspects of the Donaldson and Preston (1995) model were taken up especially by Mitchell et al. (2008). the effectiveness of stakeholder management is positively correlated with conventional performance indicators.. In general. 1990. According to Aaltonen et al.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) economics. Studies adopting the instrumental theory normally use statistical methodologies and focus principally upon the relationship between the pressures that stakeholders may apply and the process by which organizational strategy is formulated (e.. (1997). 1988. Cornell and Shapiro. 1985). 1991). 1995). 1999) and derive from the relationship between financial and social performance (as with the studies by Cochran and Wood. transaction cost theory and corporate behavioral ethics (Jones. the diffusion of social information (Ullman. Wood (1994) advocated that the descriptive theory of the stakeholder should extend over two facets: (1) describing the organizational reality. including the nature of firms (Brenner and Cochran. and (2) describing the company-stakeholder relationships. of these two modes. 1997). 1977). they explore causes and effects. This represents the difference between inductive and deductive visions. 2001). this seeks to describe and/or explain characteristics and organizational behaviors relative to stakeholders. Preston et al. 1991). Of these two approaches. 1989. Descriptive theory resulted out of the need to describe (and very often explain) specific characteristics and behaviors. 1991.g. According to Donaldson and Preston (1995).. According to this author. 1995).. how organizations are managed (Halal. and the meanings attributed to each stakeholder. particularize their interests and raise managerial awareness of organizational decisions. Kreiner and Bhambri. This perspective discusses issues relating to the nature of the firm. Weaver et al. Clarkson. McGuire et al. 1987. 1991). Barton et al. how managers perceive their companies (Brenner and Molander. the concept of target-stakeholders (Mitchell et al. varying in accordance with the phase reached in the respective company life cycle ( Jawahar and McLaughlin. (2) it is operational (qualifying the stakeholders). power is the most critical dimension to stakeholder management. (1997). (1997). In the perspective of Mitchell et al. 1997). With the objective of resolving this question. stakeholder salience suggests a dynamic model based on an identification typology enabling the explicit recognition of the uniqueness of situations and a management perception explaining how managers should prioritize relationships with stakeholders.. . normative (legislative. it was defined according to Friedman and Miles (2006) to bring about stakeholder powers of negotiation. organizational or social. Entitled “stakeholder salience”. determining the organizational response time when receiving requests from stakeholders. The model proposed suggests that the strategic behavior of an organization is subject to diverse groups located within its environment. urgency and legitimacy) by Mitchell et al. one of the basic tenets of stakeholder theory is that stakeholders are not equal with their importance also varying dependent on the prevailing context and organization. This model features three advantages: (1) it is political (considering the organization as the result of conflicting and unequal interests). the legitimacy of relationships with organizations.MD 49. (3) Urgency – The immediate need for action. the essence of the company is to manage the interests of different stakeholders and including changes in expectations and demands.. a three-factor model was put forward (power. Thus. (2) Legitimacy – The generalized perception that the actions of an entity are desirable or appropriate in accordance with the socially constructed context and may be individual. 1997): (1) Power – The ability to make someone do something that would not otherwise have been done. it is correspondingly necessary to theoretically grasp how stakeholder relevance may be able to explain where managers really should be applying their attentions (Mitchell et al. the media) or utilitarian (holding resources or information). which vary depending on the prevailing situation (Mitchell et al. The authors demonstrated how the identification typology enabled forecasts of managerial behavior as regards each class of stakeholder to be generated as well as predictions as to how stakeholders change from one class to another and what that actually means to the management.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 236 to which managers attribute priority to competing stakeholder requests stretches beyond the issue of stakeholder identification. This is defined by the following three factors. and urgency as regards meeting the needs present. with this factor rendering the model dynamic. the power of the stakeholder over the organization may be coercive (strength or threat). After all. given that its strategies should meet the needs of these groups in accordance with their respective importance. According to Wartick (1994). and (3) it is dynamic (contemplating changes of interests in social space-time). and hence he recommends great care in recognizing and monitoring relationships with those stakeholders holding greatest power. As Evan and Freeman (1983) detailed. should consider time sensitivity (the need for speed in the organizational response) and the criticality (the importance of the request or the company relationship with the stakeholder in question). the normative. which is essentially relatively vague (Jones and Wicks. does not pay enough attention to the system within which companies operate as well as those levels of analysis within the system. which was one of his intentions. “stakeholder models”. other studies stand out as important within the instrumental and descriptive perspectives according to Friedman and Miles (2006). (1997). focusing on identifying and evaluating the salience of stakeholders. (1997) that has proved to be of greatest influence to the stakeholder theory literature. it may be stated that the theory was commonly deployed but. The shortcomings of stakeholder theory Following its original proposition. and also inappropriately evaluates the environment. These questions make the stakeholder salience model fairly dynamic and subject to frequent change. but he did not provide a theoretical base that was appropriate for explaining either the behavior of the company or that of individual actors. Clarkson (1994) had earlier observed that terms such as “stakeholders”. as already mentioned above in relation to the stakeholder concept. However.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Mitchell et al. the application of theory to organizational realities and the development of the theoretical body of work. there was very little progress and the current reality of stakeholder theory demonstrates that little changed in the last decade. Furthermore. it is the work of Mitchell et al. that means a series of shortcomings still need resolution particularly regarding aspects involving the theoretical formulation in itself. in addition to the work of Mitchell et al. He then correctly asserts that the economic model does not describe company behavior with any precision and provides no alternative beyond rethinking the company as an entity converting resources influenced by and influencing both internal and external actors. “stakeholder management” and “stakeholder theory” were defined and used in different ways and in different approaches and correspondingly based on a diverse range of evidence and contradictory arguments. (1997) held that the model proposed is dynamic for three reasons: (1) the three attributes are variable (and neither static nor stationary). Stakeholders may hold only one attribute today and acquire another one or two attributes tomorrow. on the other hand. 6. 1999). and (3) not all stakeholders are aware that they possess one or more attributes. stakeholder theory does not adequately explain the process. According to Key (1999). whether internal or external. stakeholder theory underwent rapid growth in the 1990s with a lot of research ongoing and its adoption by researchers in the organizational field. Another relevant question for Key (1999) is that Freeman (1984) focused on the technical rather than the theoretical. some questions still remain. Throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century. In Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 237 . Finally. The presentation of identifiable actors provides a valuable strategic tool. makes an incomplete interlinking between the internal and external variables. in theoretical terms. descriptive and instrumental approaches. One of the main questions raising discussions around stakeholder theory is not criticism of the Theory in itself but rather targets the content of the term stakeholder. Nevertheless. These works looked at a series of facets and expanded the theory’s popularity among both academics and management practitioners. (2) the attributes are socially constructed (and not objective). Rowley (1997) suggested stakeholder networks. It may be the case that stakeholder groups cannot be clearly identified but the interests represented by the groups (internal versus external) are susceptible to due identification (Connelly. 1998). similar to the logic explaining the relationship between managers and shareholders within the scope of economics even if there has been little subsequent development to the work of the aforementioned authors. Freeman also describes relationships as if some kind of network. As regards the original proposal. latent or difficult to discern. parent or other community action entities (Hsueh et al. hence. However. focused upon the company and made up only of stakeholder groups. Mas-Verdu´ et al. the Freeman (1984) model suggests that stakeholder groups may be clearly identified as separate entities.. shareholders and employees. Within this line. an actor may be a member of a variety of groups. Considering that the system and processes sustaining the system are not totally overcome. To try and resolve this. an employee may be a member of internal interest groups. there is no provision for understanding how to manage change. simply left incomplete. . Another question posed by Key (1999) refers to the fact that stakeholder theory incorrectly approaches the environment as something static. the company image at any specific time is fixed. They proposed social contract theory as being at the core of relationships with stakeholders. The first steps to identify this logic were the work of Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) and Jones (1995). Despite failing to identify the internal and external interest groups. 2010. 2010). and external stakeholder groups. Hence. To this end. One contribution towards this thinking was made by Rowley (1998). he provided for unlimited connections between these groups and individual actors. Furthermore. the questions left open and the suggestions for refinements cover some ground. such as professional and consumer organizations. and not the interested parties in themselves. Wegner et al. suggesting an even still greater complexity (Rowley. 2010). 2010. stakeholder theory does not respond to the needs or demands of stakeholders given that these are dynamic.. Freeman (1984) included an incomplete connection between actors and between internalities and externalities. environmental activist associations. the element of change that takes place over time is not explainable through recourse to Freeman’s (1984) model with very few propositions for the resolution of this problem having been put forward thus far. there has been no empirical evaluation of this.MD 49. the interests may prove to be the critical variable. While part of the strategic management approach set out by this author includes evaluating the environment for the identification of stakeholder groups. who used network analysis to evaluate the environmental influence on the relationship between a company and its stakeholders. 1997).2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 238 the perspective of Voss et al. Therefore. which would lead to a loss of complexity in their real relationships (Rowley.. Donaldson and Preston (1995) have argued in favor of stakeholders being identified by their interests although this position has not gained any consensus in the literature. the work of Freeman (1984) is based on his own evaluation of climate change and how this impacted upon the company to such an extent that it became necessary to respond to groups other than shareholders. (2005). One question discussed within stakeholder theory is that Freeman (1984) put forward a new framework nevertheless lacking any logic of development or the causality that would serve to connect the variables and does not provide any form of testing or predicting the behavior of either the company or that of external actors. Curiously. 2003. They considered that the theory in question is based upon psychology and socialization and preaches more moral behavior to market organizations as a counterbalance to capitalism and the financial and economic objectives of firms. Kaler. 2002. strengthening the philosophical input. 1995.. 1999. in constant evolution. involving philosophical and theoretical points of view. 2008. Stieb (2009) complemented this in affirming that the pretensions of stakeholder theorists as to their theory evolving to replace capitalist theories were unfounded. Andriof et al. These two opposing visions of the stakeholder concept reflect totally different questions. This mixture. the managerial approach. The theory lacks the production of knowledge able to explain the complex and multi-faceted social relationships between the company and its stakeholders (Melia´ et al. On the other hand. overlapping and combining utilizations of both definitions (Kaler. sociology and psychology. 2010).. Antonacopoulou and Me´ric (2005) concluded that stakeholder theory is more of an ideological product than something scientific. Venkataraman. a juridical interpretation. 1994. more philosophical. we may thus perceive of the need to define stakeholder theory within the field of organizational management and avoid the theory spilling over into other fields such as philosophy. stemming from organizational theory and sociology.. 2010. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 239 . Given this. 1999. Rubalcaba et al. It is simply not possible to create value for all stakeholders in any equalitarian fashion (distributive justice). Stoney and Winstanley (2001) label stakeholder theory as in fact being a political pluralism theory. very limited in its explanation of the means by which different stakeholder group interests emerge and are generated by society. There have also been attempts to integrate the theory into research from different areas so as to advance the state of stakeholder theory (Jawahar and McLaughlin. Key. Stieb (2009) and Sanyang and Huang (2010).Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) From another line of rationale. Sternberg. Adopting a Marxist criticism of pluralism. Fassin. 2002. 1995. has boosted the perception of uncertainty surrounding the model and demanding theoreticians take up their positions as regards which problem they aim to resolve. This author holds that stakeholder theory has not proven a solution for the economic ills afflicting society. Sebora and Theerapatvong. 2001.. is more pragmatic and emphasizes the relational aspects between interested parties and the company. Weiss. these authors argue that this theory supplies an excessively simplistic conceptualization of power as a good that may be negotiated between the organization and the groups of stakeholder and. Gibson. 2010. These critical questions. were closely analyzed and broadly commented upon in the scientific literature (Donaldson and Dunfee. Without the capacity to distinguish between the divergent organizational stakeholder interests. They point to the lack of scientific thoroughness in the propositions set out by stakeholder theory researchers. and taking into consideration the positions of Stoney and Winstanley (2001). Moore. 2000. trusting in Kantian ideas and attributing intrinsic value to the stakeholder (Martin et al.. Much of the theory is presented in very utilitarian terms. Antonacopoulou and Me´ric (2005). 2003). 2010). Within the same context. Comeche and Loras. Donaldson and Preston. stakeholder theory may easily be subverted to a unitary concept (Bonet et al.. based upon rights and contracts means stakeholders have demands and companies have obligations and duties. 2010). Koelling et al. therefore. Nevertheless. 1996. 2010. According to Fassin (2009). 2010). Un and Montoro-Sanchez. 2010). much work still remains to be done. 2005) as well. 2003. Nevertheless. However. Perhaps.. this idea has also come in for critical analysis. one interpretation of stakeholder theory incorrectly perceives that a company should take into account the aspirations of all participants and that they should all be treated equally... the meaning and applicability of the stakeholder doctrine depends on what is involved in balancing out the benefits generated. 2003.. For any balance to be reached. as in a sociogram. Tihula and Huovinen. 1999. The stakeholder model graphically represents the relationship between the stakeholders and the company by means of a bi-directional arrow. Tortosa-Edo et al. 2004. independent of the fact that some clearly contribute more than others to the organization (Gioia. but also express dependence and reciprocity (Tortosa-Edo et al. 2004). the number or type of stakeholder would have to be restricted in some way or another (Ramı´rez et al. not all relationships are equal: the intensity of interaction in each direction might be quite different depending on the power and the sensitivity to influence (Post et al. The intensity may be seen as a point on a continuum and this may be expressed in different arrow widths. Marcoux. 2008). In the stakeholder categories. 2002. the management of stakeholders does not imply that executives have to focus equal quantities of attention on each of their components (Dentchev and Heene. However. These examples do demonstrate that the literature requires a new and more robust model. stakeholder theory does not provide any orientation as regards how to benefit all parties equally and justly. 2010). Also questioning the model. Le´pineux. 2010. a solution uncommon to studies on stakeholder theory. symbols of different sizes. Remaining with instrumental issues. Phillips. Phillips. 2010). 2010. 2003). from the instrumental perspective. However. for reasons of simplicity and clarity. 2003. the level of attention and obligation may vary (Mitchell et al. 1999. to better reflect reality. it is necessary to be aware that all representations. according to Sternberg (1999). 2010). First. Complementarily and as already observed. The recent literature on the theme puts forward an impressive range of perfections and improvements but there still lacks a clarification and thorough definition of the model’s nature ( Jones and Wicks. 1988). the stakeholder model structure visually illustrates the relationships between the different groups of actors surrounding a company. 2010). . However... Neville et al.. Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) highlight the reciprocal interaction between stakeholders and society. 1997.MD 49. with possible width differences in either direction. the original graphical representation of the stakeholder model may be at the root of this erroneous interpretation of equality among all stakeholders given how. Devlin. Phillips. Were all stakeholders able to affect or be affected by the organization. the number of groups whose benefits were to be included in the calculation would be infinite. The relationships between them are reciprocal given that each may impact on the other in terms of losses and gains as well as rights and duties (Evan and Freeman. 2005). models and layouts are social constructions that inevitably simplify and reduce reality.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 240 Specifically. each stakeholder category is attributed a symbol (oval or rectangular) of identical size. This observation naturally holds valid for stakeholder theory (Pesqueux and Damak-Ayadi. stakeholder theory at this stage does not provide any orientation as to the way in which stakeholder groups should be selected or defined. Chamberlin et al. These arrows depict not only a relationship. shapes and intensities are needed in accordance with the relative importance of the respective participant categories (Fassin. However. (1999) identified. they criticize studies calling for the needs of multiple stakeholders to be met with the objective of gaining competitive advantages as is the case. there is a lack of sufficient empirical evidence. stakeholder theory does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory. experience managerial confusion. . many authors doubt whether stakeholder theory justifies its status as a theory.. the normative and empirical flows are very commonly separated. Taking a similar line. and . These authors defend the purpose of the company being the maximization of shareholder value. unviable. inefficiencies and even a weakening of the corporation (Abreu et al. According to Trevin˜o and Weaver (1999). descriptive and normative perspectives even taking into account the efforts of research in this field. there is a lack of solid normative foundations. at the minimum. Furthermore. . This same position was used by Stieb (2009). the local community and clients as management and in control of the organization? This would seem. Baggio and Cooper (2010) maintain that stakeholder interests are frequently mutually incompatible. with the studies by Griffin and Mahon (1997). Considering these aspects. a position taken by Trevin˜o and Weaver (1999). 2010). and the impossibility of an organization attaining success when chasing multiple objectives as inherently attempting to achieve many objectives simultaneously corresponds to having no overall objective. they are: . more research on the relationship between stakeholder management and organizational performance is clearly needed. the application and usage of stakeholder theory also raises doubts. . in general. conflict. and Altman (1998) and Mathew (2010). according to Key (1999). Sundaram and Inkpen (2004) emphasized that the relationship between stakeholders and company performance is either refutable or inconclusive in various empirical works. stakeholder theory is affected by countless problems and imperfections. Martinez-Gomez et al. for example. For example.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) In addition to questioning of the model. the stakeholder spectrum and its classification is variable. In summary. the definition of its object of study remains controversial. (1999). 2008). the role and the positioning of civil society as a stakeholder is neither clear nor precise. Agle et al. among others. Finally. Hence. for example. with the works by Jones (1995). who criticized the power sharing defended by Freeman (2002. a fact necessarily preventing any clear decision by the management. such as that of Jones and Wicks (1999). as Le´pineux (2005) affirmed. Berman et al. Hence. Jensen (2002) calls into question the theory relating to two aspects: the non-specific Theory on how managers should handle conflictual interests. Trevin˜o and Weaver (1999) stressed that despite progress there has yet to be any theoretical convergence between the instrumental. 2010. . Companies adopting stakeholder theory. Dufrene and Wong (1996) question the validity of stakeholder theory for its failure to provide clear management objectives. with a lack of objective criteria for decision making and performance evaluation. Donaldson and Preston (1995).. Another doubt as to the practical application of stakeholder theory was posed by the work of Sundaram and Inkpen (2004). The author questioned just how you might face suppliers. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 241 . the balancing of their respective interests causes problems. it may be understood that stakeholder theory has spilled over into different fields. the real legitimacy of stakeholders. prior to embarking on stakeholder theory field research. Despite being a still relatively recent theory. it may safely be said that there is still much to do. financial management. Such empirical and descriptive research would enable the organizational reality to be cross-referenced with the theoretical assumptions. The profusion of definitions hinders understanding as to what the term actually represents. any attempt to converge around a justified and consistent theory remains premature. further research of an empirical nature is required. among others. such as stakeholder focused decision making processes (which to choose?). According to Friedman and Miles (2006). That is. These criticisms serve only to help in fostering the development of stakeholder theory. As regards the formulation of stakeholder theory. the theory holds relevance to strategic management. healthcare management. There are questions to resolve. Therefore. The sheer quantity of shortcomings presented here suggests that the theoretical approach remains within the domain of supposition with many of the assumptions underlying stakeholder theory never subject to testing. These are the questions worthy of the attention of researchers in this field. one question requiring resolution is that of the stakeholder term itself. the role of intermediaries in this relational interaction. as explained above. the theoretical approach referred to here would render conceptual clarity and an enhanced definition. especially descriptive approaches (Friedman and Miles. production. As a guideline for empirical research (or for practical applications). as presented above. Conclusion: a suggested research agenda Out of this analysis of the literature. it becomes important to seek out solutions (qualitative and quantitative) to the diverse questions raised by research into stakeholder theory. 7. the managerial structure appropriate to focusing on stakeholders. One of the . stakeholder theory provides a means of combining ethical questions with complex operational environments and encapsulating details within a general vision. 2006). the means of relating and interacting between the organization and each of its stakeholders. business performance. this is a theory that proves its relevance to organizations in general terms. academics should determine the individuals under analysis understand the term. generating important academic interpretations (and better focused research) and practices (better management understanding as to who their stakeholders actually are). Correspondingly one natural option involves systematizing issues critical to the theory and developing a research agenda that seeks to respond to the aforementioned imperfections.MD 49. organizational ethics. nevertheless. information technology system management. marketing. Although not the leading theory in any of these fields. human resource management. According to Carroll (1994).2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 242 Considering the questions and issues set out here. over time moving towards the status representing a new paradigm for the organizational field. Establishing boundaries to the concept would go a long way towards resolving a series of issued posed by researchers in this field. which has led researchers into raising doubts as to the validity of this theoretical approach. corporative governance. Might it prove feasible that company objectives serve to guide the definition of these boundaries? In accordance with a unified concept of the stakeholder term. research and development. it has gained in popularity and attracted the interest of researchers in countless areas. they have yet to stake their claim as the most robust stakeholder theory model. a specific individual might simultaneously be an organizational client and supplier. stakeholder theory needs defining as a theory and not as some aggregation of suppositions with diverse connotations. This clearly demonstrates the lack of demarcation to its theoretical borders and which results in the theory being misrepresented as a technique or even as a support tool for other theories. they have yet to be subject to empirical testing. Further research would focus on the boundaries as to what constitutes a group of stakeholders as well as defining the criteria for attributing individual membership to one or another group. nevertheless. 2008. Furthermore. in practice. Thus. This factor might yet prove the foundations for a new model. particularly in taking this approach as an organizational theory rather than as an ideological or political concept. especially through the empirical testing of new models. seem a feasible objective. Thus. descriptive research may prove able to ascertain the scope of the theory. 2009). Hence. 2009). stakeholder groups are collective individual interests and not specifically the individuals themselves. This definition should justify the logic binding the variables in addition to clarifying the criteria adopted for choosing one or another stakeholder as the main beneficiary of a specific organizational action in contrast to conceiving as to how to benefit all equally. from the organizational perspective. among other criticisms set out above. the main utilization of stakeholder theory by management professionals. after all. their respective independence. Clearly defining what makes up a stakeholder group may focus not only academic research but also its deployment within the business environment. In this case. The person remains the same even where his/her interests differ. the proposal put forward by Rowley (1997) emerges as the most logical with its interest based stakeholder groups rather than definitions around individuals. Furthermore. Staging focus groups may aid in unifying understandings as to the concept. and Fassin (2008. Complementarily. within the scope of the theory. After all. As regards the instrumental question. among others. Some proposals are already to be found in the literature (Fassin. Thus. Correspondingly. dynamism needs to be introduced into this external environment. which does not. researching and determining the actual extent of stakeholder theory.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) problems encountered by researchers in relation to this theory relates to the different (where not erroneous) perceptions of the term stakeholder. the main facet to the company and each of its stakeholders would appear to be the mutual influence ongoing between the parties. A more critical aspect of stakeholder theory is its theoretical mixture. Despite the discussions regarding the graphical representation of stakeholder theory. Any new stakeholder theory model would certainly bring progress towards resolving some of the weaknesses set out here. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 243 . the static conception of the surrounding environment also needs dealing with. especially should such a model derive from a unified definition of the stakeholder conceptual. For example. might result in an important contribution for academics and practitioners in this field. there is a shortage of proposed models dealing with aspects such as stakeholder homogeneity. new models need proposing and that are capable of answering the various challenges set out by Carroll and Buchholtz (2006). model focused research may also open up avenues for the resolution of many other critical theoretical issues. It is perfectly feasible that the model proves to have little practical utility.. Jaakko.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 244 For practical theoretical applications. Perhaps the most effective theoretical application might actually be in public or non-profit organizations rather than the private sector (Beach. conflicts of interest between stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives (decision making. Abreu. 37 No. Husted. research. “A critique of stake-holder theory: management science or a sophisticated ideology of control?”. more studies are necessary on how to relate good stakeholder management to organizational performance. intermediaries. J. Corporate Governance. and Tuomas.MD 49. pp. Mitchell. Vol. and CEO values”. and Sutherland-Rahman. E. it is necessary to attain consistency within the normative stakeholder theory perspective. International Journal of Project Management. S. 2. 99-118.. etc. 507-25. and Savona. we clearly need recommendations on how to attribute relevance to stakeholders. the need for research that systematizes the knowledge produced should be highlighted with the objective of attaining the theoretical convergence necessary for the development of stakeholder theory. However. The Service Industries Journal. Grinevich. 26 No. Research into how differing actors. Vol. as proven by Agle et al. 1. “Corporate community relations in the 1990s: a study in transformation”. “Who matters to CEOS? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience. References Aaltonen. 42 No. .. and Sonnenfeld. (1998).. 2009). 5. Finally. Vol. 1997). Academy of Management Journal.. Vol. Altman. and Me´ric. needs to focus on aspects such as the ongoing relationships. pp. structures. (1999) in their application of the stakeholder salience model where the results obtained registered divergences between the theoretical model and the organizational reality. B. In addition. There is clearly a very significant body of work across a range of areas but they have not yet been gathered and collectively analyzed in order to extract the conclusions and adjustments necessary for delimitating and advancing the theory.. M. 5 No. This holds particular relevance given the descriptive perspective may drive changes in the actual normative perspective itself. (2010). as it is highly difficult to deal with everyone. O. which does nevertheless prove a theoretically relevant approach both in organizational and in social terms. (1999). M. (Eds) (2002).. “Stakeholders’ salience in global projects”. Kitson. In summary. corporate performance. 30 No. B. Indeed. especially descriptive analysis. V.). “Policies to enhance the ‘hidden innovation’ in services: evidence and lessons from the UK”. Vol. reconcile their interests (which may be divergent) is essential. pp. 221-7. (2005). Antonacopoulou. S. We particularly need to focus efforts on definitively establishing the foundations of stakeholder theory. thereby contributing to the practical application of this theory despite the long standing lack of thorough empirical testing. overcoming its still incipient phase of development in terms of its descriptive capacities while validating and broadening the descriptive base supporting the normative perspective. Agle. pp. (2008). M. 1. there is much road ahead of us. J. 509-16. K. 2. K. R. B. Greenleaf Publishing. pp. Furthermore. Business & Society. when belonging to different groups. as is the case with the stakeholder salience model (Mitchell et al. Waddock. J. 22-33. Andriof. measuring power. legitimacy and urgency represents a challenging task and subject to doubts. Sheffield. Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking. UT. CA. (Eds). University of Virginia. Bonet. and Molander. Copenhagen Business School. L. T. (2004). Oxford. Public Management Review. “Stakeholder theory of the firm: its consistency with current management techniques”. S. 488-506. March. (1977). pp. Vol. Financial Management. A. 30 No. Sundance. S. J. Brisbane. paper presented at the 13th International Research Society for Public Management Conference (IRSPM XIII). 1093-102. Brenner. 10. S. (2008). The Service Industries Journal. “Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance”. “Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: the effects of a network structure”. PhD thesis. Brenner.. Baldwin. 1. and Cooper. “An empirical test of stakeholder theory predictions of capital structures”. paper presented at the Ruffin Lectures. S. 1-23. Journal of Management and Governance. pp. Proceedings of Contemporary Issues in Public Management: The 12th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM XII). Berman. pp. S. N. 42 No. C. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 245 . Bryson. pp. “What to do when stakeholders matter?”. “The stakeholder theory of the firm and organizational decision making: some propositions and a model”.). Harvard Business Review. 21-53. Vol. “Integrating transaction cost economics and the resource-based view in services and innovation”. “For whom should corporations be run? An economic rationale for stakeholder management”. S. 6 No. (1991). N. 30 No. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. 1. in Na¨si. “Is the ethics of business changing?”. J. R. The Darden School. 17 No. (1994). (1998). Vol. 1. “Sustainability of network governance: stakeholder influence”. 58 No. Barton. S. 54-65. Vol. 1. (1998). and Jones. A. (1999).Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Argandon˜a. UC San Diego Press. (1993).. Las Cruces. P. 5-32. (2002). pp. Vol. “Total quality management in higher education: the implications of internal and external stakeholders’ perceptions”. 5. Vol. July. S. 9 No. and Collins. Wicks.. “Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm”. M. Charlottesville. Baggio. F. pp. “Who or what decides how stakeholders are optimally engaged by governance networks delivering public outcomes?”. LSR-Julkaisut Oy. D. 1-15. Beach. NM. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. paper presented at the International Association of Business and Society. pp. Asher. 4 No. (2010). and Mahoney. (1989). (2010). 2. (1999). 18 No. Vol. Beach. “The stakeholder model of the firm: implications for business and society research”. VA. (1995). pp. I. pp. Fredericksberg. Helsinki. “The stakeholder theory and the common good”. Blackwell. Bowie. 36-44. 5. Long Range Planning. Mahoney. (2005). N. in Pasquero.. The Service Industries Journal. “Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: or what’s so special about shareholders?”. J. 205-10. (Ed. Brenner. pp. 75-96. Understanding Stakeholder Thinking. M. J. Hill. 701-12. Brenner. J. pp. and Gil-Pechuan. S.. C. Peris-Ortiz. Business Ethics Quarterly. J. pp. Kotha. Vol. Graduate School in Business Administration. Blair. “A Kantian theory of capitalism”. (1994). Boatright. Vol. Bowie. April. and Cochran. 1. Academy of Management Journal. Journal of Business Ethics. pp. and Sundaram. Vol. 195-200. 31 No. S. (2009). E. 1. San Diego. 393-408. New Mexico State University. April. Cochran. 23-38. Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics. B. A. J. Business & Society. pp. “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance”. 117-39. A. 137-48. pp. OH. R. evaluating and managing corporate social performance: the stakeholder management model”. Vol. T. (1997). 6 No. pp. (1994). (1995). pp. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Northampton. pp. D. Vol. Cornell. A. Academy of Management Journal. 2. 9 No. 16 No. A. Vol. The Service Industries Journal. (1994). (2010). 48 No. Edward Elgar. M. Clement. “Transnational entrepreneurs. 58 No. Thompson Learning. (1989). Clarkson. (Eds). Oxford. Connelly. 331-58. Clarkson. M. R. 92-117. R. International Journal of Strategic Management: Long Range Planning. (1999). Vol. 1. A. OH. Vol. Carroll. S. M. (2005). Business Horizons. and Rosenthal. pp. “Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance”. and ambassadors: a typology of the new breed of expatriates”. “A risk-based model of stakeholder theory”. Vol. (2010). world-changing entrepreneurs. Vol. and Heene. S. T. and Wood. 5-29. South-Western. (1984). in Sharma. OH. 1. “Defining. 1. and Starik. Dentchev. A. 33 No. “Business success factors and innovation in Canadian service sectors: an initial investigation of inter-sectoral differences”. Stakeholders. 6 No. 598-612. and Matten. P. 13 No. 30 No. “The lessons from stakeholder theory for US business leaders”. Vol. J. 183-206. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. (2005). 1. J. A.. (2004). (1987). pp. South-Western. Academy of Management Review. pp. “A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance”. Vol. Toronto. 1. (2003). 2. Vol. Vol. B. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Chamberlin. 1. “Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory”. pp. 2nd ed. and Loras. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. 5. (2010). 12 No. Proceedings of the 2nd Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. (1993). 20 No. Campbell. and Shapiro. Vol. A. 1. Journal of Business Ethics. “Social issues in management research”. (2005). Cincinnati. 39-53. Carroll. 30 No. pp. A. Corporate Governance: An International Review. and Marcoux. pp. pp. “The influence of variables of attitude on collective entrepreneurship”. Comeche. Business Ethics: A European Perspective. J. 446-9. 1. 27 No. A. Child. M. Carroll. “Accounting for Enron: shareholder value and stakeholder interests”. . pp.MD 49. Clarke. (1991). and Buchholtz. Financial Management. Vol. pp. 5-14. Vol. J. Oxford University Press. N. 6. 3. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. Clarkson. Cincinnati. Business Ethics Quarterly. and Hector. The Environment and Society: New Perspectives in Research on Corporate Responsibility. “Freeman and Evan: stakeholder theory in the original position”. Crane. University of Toronto. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. 42-56. Mason. Carroll. (2006). 255-64.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 246 Buchholz. “Stakeholders: the case in favour”. Doutriaux. “Toward stakeholder responsibility and stakeholder motivation: systemic and holistic perspectives on corporate responsibility”.. 1. 225-46. W. Freeman. and Wong. Vol. pp. “Stakeholder capitalism and the value chain”. Academy of Management Review. Englewood Cliffs. N. pp.E. Academy of Management Review. 4. (1983). The Service Industries Journal. “Divergent stakeholder theory”. in Beauchamp. “The stakeholder model refined”. and McVea. pp. “A stakeholder approach to strategic management”. The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. 62-70. (2008). L. M. and Bowie. Evan. Vol. (1995). T. R. Englewood Cliffs. “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts. pp. Public Policy. R. NY.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Devlin. McGraw-Hill. and Dunfee. Englewood Cliffs.. NJ. J. in Hartman. R. 39-53. Donaldson. Vol. Ethics. R. 7th ed. 233-6. pp. “A stakeholder’s theory of the modern corporation”. in Donaldson. R. T. “Stakeholders versus stockholders and financial ethics: ethics to whom?”. 567-82. NJ. and Munkvold. and Freeman. Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. “A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism”. (1990). pp. (1984). Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. Freeman. (2009). (2008). J. N. Prentice-Hall. L. “A stakeholder’s theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism”. L. 84 No. 286-96. 6 No. Ethical Theory and Business. in Hitt. (1996). Vol. 30 No. 4. (Eds). Post. Donaldson. W.. Y. T. European Management Journal. Englewood Cliffs. 4 No. 337-59. Y. E. Prentice-Hall. and Preston.. Journal of Business Ethics. and Bowie. New York. Freeman. Frederick. Pitman. R. 2nd ed. Business Ethics Quarterly. “The politics of stakeholders theory: some future directions”. (1998). 113-35. P. “Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contacts theory”. Freeman. J. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 247 . 879-88. evidence and implications”. P. 22 No.). D. 2. pp. pp. Nordheim. R. Fassin. 65-91. R. S. Freeman. R. 1. Business and Society: Corporate Strategy. 252-84. (1994). 189-207. and Werhane. 19 No. NJ. W. and Liedtka. T. 409-21. Vol. Dufrene. MA. (1997). and St Davis. pp. Oxford. Boston. 1. J. W. Freeman. Journal of Business Ethics. Managerial Finance. (1992). Jr (1988). A.. 3-23. R. 12-19. and Harrison. Freeman. 80 No. Fassin. (Eds). New York. pp. “The stakeholder product brand and decision making in retail financial services”. 20 No. pp. “Corporate governance: a stakeholder interpretation”. U. “Analyzing stakeholder diversity in G2G efforts: combining descriptive stakeholder theory and dialectic process theory”. 75-84. Vol. Vol. pp. Vol. and Werhane. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder’s Approach. 38-48. in Donaldson. Prentice-Hall. pp. (2008). Freeman. 15 No. in Beauchamp. 2. (2002). 3. and Gilbert.. R. 1. (1994). K. “Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation”. Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics. Freeman. NY. Vol. 1. Evan. e-Service Journal. J. 7th ed. and Evan. “Managing for stakeholders”. Ethical Theory and Business. McGraw-Hill.. 8th ed. and Freeman. (Eds). Prentice-Hall. Freeman. Flak. T. R. pp. (1999). (1988). 1-11. NJ. 4. NJ. T. pp. T.. “Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation”. Vol. 19 No. Freeman. Englewood Cliffs. B. Academy of Management Review. Vol. Perspectives in Business Ethics. pp. (Ed. pp. (2010). (Eds). 2. Prentice-Hall. Journal of Behavioral Economics. (Eds). 24 No. Blackwell Business. (2001). M. 35 No. 159-76. Vol. Hendry. and St John. paradigms. Harrison. Anaheim. Vol. Vol. Bode. and Reed. 1 No. “Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance”. pp. Business & Society. and Jones. 1. and Moosmayer. Vol. (1999). “Practicability. 29 No. Boston. U. pp.MD 49. Jawahar. . A. 3. (1994). “Shareholders value. 93-104. 36 No. “Toward a descriptive stakeholders theory: an organizational life cycle approach”. Greenwood. 206-21. (1998). Academy of Management Review. 1723-36. Greenley. J. 2. (2002). J. 41-54. Vol. E.D. 5 No. 1. pp. 10. “Business ethics and stakeholder analysis”. 5-31.und Unternehmensethik. (2000). 25 No. Hill. Frooman. “Stakeholder theory between general and contextual approaches: a German view”. 191-205. Vol. G. 105-16. p. Goodpaster. Vol. pp. pp. S. G. (1999). 12 No. West Publishing. 131-54. MN. (2004). pp. Academy of Management Review. J. R. 3. Hill. 2. and Foxall. California Management Review.. A. Journal of Business Research. Working Paper Series. 1. The Stakeholders Society. (1997). 397-414. C. and social issues: what’s the bottom line?”. 2. Vol. 2. 30 No. (2001). Houghton Mifflin. 3. Zeitschrift fu¨r Wirtschafts. Hutton. Business Ethics Quarterly. 235-56. pp. 2. Vol. stakeholder management. pp. pp. April 14. (1991). Working Paper 4/08. Monash University. Gibson.. and Wicks. pp. Hansen. D. (2001). Journal of Management Studies. St Paul. 125-39. pp. I. Jensen. Academy of Management Review. Department of Management. M. 26 No. (1983). G. D. “The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate”. (2010). Oxford University Press. Business in Contemporary World. 312-18. 22 No. “Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics”. Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. (2006). Oxford. 2 No. Vol. Strategic Management of Organizations and Stakeholders. Vol. (2001). Jones. CA. and the corporate objective function”. Hillman. 319-23. (2008). K. “Stakeholders-agency theory”. “Classifying employees as stakeholders”. Journal of Business Ethics. K. and Miles. MA. 1. “Missing the target: normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate”. T. Halal. Vol. 24 No. 2. “The effects of network embeddedness on service innovation performance”. 1. and Keim. M. pp. J. pp. G. x. (1996). (1990). (1999). and Jones. Vol. C. stakeholder theory. Griffin. Vol. pp. 26 No. and problems in stakeholder theorizing”. Friedman. pp. C. Hsueh. 245-57. “The management: business and social institutions in the information age”. Jones. Lin. H. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol. N. G. 228-32. 11 No. “The moral basis of stakeholder theory”. T. 24 No. “Consumer and non-consumer stakeholder orientation in UK companies”. J. T. Melbourne. London. Gioia. D. A. J. The Service Industries Journal. pp. and McLaughlin. (1995). Academy of Management Review. “Convergent stakeholder theory”. Strategic Management Journal. and Li. 1. Business Ethics Quarterly. J. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. 24 No. “Value maximization. Blackwell. (1992). Vol.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 248 Freeman. pp. “Stakeholders influence strategies”. 53-73. Business and Economics. (1999). and Mahon. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. . Academy of Management Journal. S. J. pp. Martin.. Kaler. Mas-Verdu´. “Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ‘theory’”. M. 303-24. 30 No. 633-41. NY. 2. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol. and Schneeweis. Marcoux. Agle. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 4. pp. 13 No.. JAI Press. pp. Vol. pp. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. (1998). 5. Vol. (2003). “The stakeholder corporation”. CT. 777-91. income distribution and economic growth”. pp. K. “Tinged shareholders theory: or what’s so special about stakeholders?”. Sundgren. pp. (1991). P. 6 No. 14 No. R. McGuire. pp. Mitchell. The Service Industries Journal. C. and Salerno. The Service Industries Journal. Vol. “A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management”. (2010). “Higher education and its communities: interconnections. “Differentiating stakeholder theories”. 37 No.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Jongbloed. and Mas-Verdu´. 609-20. M. Journal of Management Inquiry. V. “Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance”. 163-81. F. T. 99-110. (2010). Enders. “Strategies towards innovative services: findings from the German service landscape”. “Stakeholder theory. 1. A. 1. 117-27. Mathew. 5. A. A. “Innovation policy. 7 No. pp. (1992). (1999). V. Kotter. The Service Industries Journal. Vol. “Influence and information in organization: stakeholder relationships”. M. Pe´rez. 8 No. McVea. and Heskett. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. services and internationalisation: the role of technology centres”. “A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory”. Moore. and Bhambri. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 249 . “Entrepreneurship. Vol. Vol. Academy of Management Review. “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”. Kreiner. 22 No. G.). A. 71-83. Vol. 30 No. S. “Women entrepreneurship in Middle East: understanding barriers and use of ICT for entrepreneurship development”. 2. Vol. Vol. 131-41. J. 853-8. pp. 4. Vol.. 317-36. pp. A. “Regional development and innovation: the role of services”. Corporate Governance. Journal of Business Ethics. D. The Free Press. Neyer. 4. and Dobo´n. 2. J.. 43-54. “Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of business”. J. pp. 1-17. Melia´. and Moeslein. Greenwich. 1. (2003). B. (2010). Corporate Culture and Performance. C. Vol. (1988). Management Decision. “The influence of innovation orientation on the internationalization of SMEs in the service sector”. 1. J. Koelling. Vol. J. Baviera-Puig. Metcalfe. Picazo. 431-43. F. 69-85. Business Ethics Quarterly. J. 1. 4. M. society and social cohesion”. pp. 5 No. 854-72. pp. and Dobo´n. (2005).. The Service Industries Journal. Vol. 30-6. Higher Education. (2008). pp. Vol. S. (1994). 31 No. (Ed. 57-69. pp. 46 No. pp. Martinez-Gomez. and Wood. 56. 30 No. (1999). F. Journal of Business Ethics. 6 No.. R. A. pp. interdependencies and research agenda”. (2005). Soriano. Business Ethics: A European Review. B. 30 No. (2010). B. Vol. D. (2010).. Le´pineux. 4 No. (2010). and Navarro. New York. Key. and Freeman. in Posto. 1. Langtry. (1997). J. 2. pp. Vol. . S. Orejuela. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper. Phillips. 25-41. Business Ethics Quarterly. Gallego. and Miller. (1996). “A normative justification for stakeholder theory”. 1. (1999). Bell. S. (1997). 68 No. S. 22 No. S. S. pp.. and Whitwell. 163-86. R. University of Virginia. and Salancik.. pp. 51-66. pp. NY. B. Y. pp. Journal of Marketing-Focused Management. A. (2010). pp. Preston. (1978).. professional power and organizational governance in UK universities: a review and assessment”. The Service Industries Journal. Scott. Vol. B. Phillips. 203-19. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Preston. 250 Pesqueux. 149-65. Montreal. 6 No. 4.. 1184-98.. and Damak-Ayadi. M. L. Vol. Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. “Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: potential strategic marketing tools”. pp. 209-29. (1998). SIM D1-D5. Savage. Kluwer Academic. “Stakeholder legitimacy”. 6 No. “Stakeholder salience revisited: toward an action tool for the management of stakeholders”. 1. Bell. 1. 1. 317-29. pp. Harper & Row. “Stakeholders. (2005). (Eds). and Lane. D. 1. Vol. 4. 1. in Etzioni. R. pp. “Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness”. . G. Vol. T. PhD thesis. and Mengu¨c¸. 4. 887-910. 1 No. Academy of Management Review. “Ethics and a manager’s obligations under stakeholder theory”. L. Ramı´rez. pp. (2005). 2. (2004). 383-414. shareholders. G. pp. Vol. Vol. Charlottesville. M. 1. Vol. 105-7. Sanyang. A. Vol. T. V. 30 No. Sapienza.2 Neville. 6 No. “Responding to a crisis: a stakeholder analysis of community health organizations”. Academy of Management Review. 549-66. “New perspectives for the managerial entrepreneurship”. 3. 43-62. Rowley. P. S. 5 No. (2004). pp. New York. 5-22. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Rubalcaba. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Reed. R. Dordrecht. Radin. (2010). Business & Society. (2002). New York. 7 No. Sharpe. and Huang. Vol. “New managerialism. Vol. NY. and Lawrence. “Corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing. California Management Review. 13 No. pp. Corporate Governance. managers: who gains what from corporate performance?”. 39 Nos 9/10. Neville. pp. J. H. T. Polonsky. “Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view”.MD 49. Dunkin. “Stakeholder theory in perspective”. Post. (2000). B. (2010). 1-4. (2004). “Entrepreneurship and economic development: the EMPRETEC show-case”. pp. 25 No. L. (2003). Vol. “A stakeholder approach to organizational identity”. Ivey Business Journal. “The case of market and system failures in services innovation”. Vol. 37 No. (2002). July. 6-28. “Stakeholders theory and the law”. (1991). and Sachs. J. pp. and Ford. Business Ethics Quarterly. Colgate Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration. stakeholders and the social performance-financial performance relationship”. 45 No. 2.. Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Pfeffer. Phillips. and Hertog. and Vargas. Vol. J. “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences”. pp. R. A. (1997). G. Socio-economics: Toward a New Synthesis. G. P. J. W. Rowley. Vol. VA. 331-50. Trevin˜o. pp. D. (1994). Wegner. E. pp. (2001). V. 3. C. 1643-50. Business & Society. Vol. Weaver. “The stakeholder research tradition: converging theorists. and Weiler. Academy of Management Journal. G. E. 3. 1. The Service Industries Journal. T. Vol. 3-10. Z. Un. Tortosa-Edo.. “Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholders theories of the firm”. Ullman. A. Vol. Voss. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. “Important ‘ingredients’ for successful tourism/protected area partnerships: partners’ policy recommendations”. 401-14. Vol. The Ruffin Series: Special Issue. “Essay by Mark Starik”. Venkataraman. “Cracks in the foundations of stakeholder theory”. S. Vol. “Essay by Steve Wartick”. and Theerapatvong. Academy of Management Review. (2010). 5. (1995). (1994). and Montoro-Sanchez. Sternberg. social disclosure. pp. “Incidence of teams in the firms owned by serial. Gilbert. Vol. M. 8. Vol.. 2. Vol. “An empirical examination of the complex relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support”. pp. C. pp. 133-47. 319-34. pp. 245-62. (2005). Vol. 1. pp. Journal of Business Ethics. “Public funding for product. pp. “Stakeholder value equilibrium and the entrepreneurial process”. Tihula. Jr and Freeman. 33 No. “Stakeholding: confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain”. Vol. 4. Vol. Stieb. not convergent theory”. 110-17. Stoney. Shankman. M. 87 No. 2. D. (2004). J. “The stakeholder concept: a mistaken doctrine”. (1999). and Huovinen. 1. 10. 1 No. No. 350-63. 30 No. R. “The defects of stakeholder theory”. Sundaram. 1279-97... L. Business & Society. (2010). 30 No. Foundation for Business Responsibilities. Lee. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 475-97. pp. J. 1-12. Corporate Governance. 45-58. Vol. pp. 19 No. S. Business Ethics Quarterly. “Corporate entrepreneurship: a test of external and internal influences on managers’ idea generation. and Winstanley. pp. pp. Sa´nchez-Garcı´a. Vol. and Moorman. pp. 4. 3. and Weaver. Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve 251 . The Service Industries Journal. portfolio and first-time entrepreneurs”. (2010). 603-26. L. 1. (2010). 6 No. and Moliner-Tena. The Service Industries Journal. pp. and Inkpen.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) Sebora. pp. pp. Vol. Journal of Management Studies. S. Starik. 1-8. and economic performance of US firms”. J. (1996). (2002). 540-57. (1999). Sternberg. Organization Science. 15 No. 4 No. A. Wicks. Journal of Business Ethics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 1 No. Business Ethics Quarterly. 6 No. Academy of Management Review. 4. 222-7. 1. A. Trevin˜o. A. 249-60. risk taking. Vol. process and organisational innovation in service industries”. (1999). (2009). T. 3. 39 Nos 9/10. (1999). A. and Cochran. Vol. 24 No. “Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory”. pp. “The corporate objective revisited”. 24 No.. 1. (1994). D. P. Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational Theory. Weiss. 1132-50. (2010). 10 No. G. and proactiveness”. 3. “Internal market orientation and its influence on the satisfaction of contact personnel”. 38 No. 89-95. (1985). Voss. Vol. Wartick. N. pp. 33 No. November. B. “A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept”. G. A. A. “In press corporate ethics programs as control systems: influences of executive commitment and environment factors”. “Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance. pp. C. Vol. 30 No. pp. 33 No.com. and a degree in Electrical Engineering. and Putler.MD 49. Her areas of interest include educational marketing. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. He teaches subjects in the area of marketing. pp. services marketing and relationship marketing. Covilha˜. He has been the Chairman of international conferences and has coordinated studies with significant impact. Emerson Wagner Mainardes is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: emerson. Vol.2 Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 252 Wolfe. He is a teacher and researcher in management. with a specialization in Educational Management (FURB. (2002). 101-5. Organizational Science. Business & Society. He published several papers. 2007). strategy and entrepreneurship. D. Wood”. Total Quality Management and International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing. In the recent past he was Vice Rector of the University and Head of the Liaison Office. (1994). Portugal. where he is also Scientific Coordinator of the Research Unit in Business Science and of the PhD Programme in Marketing and Strategy. pp. as author or co-author. She is Managing Editor of International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing. Portugal. D. About the authors Emerson Wagner Mainardes is a PhD student at the University of Beira Interior (UBI). He is a Research Fellow at Nu´cleo de Estudos em Cieˆncias Empresariais (NECE).wm@sapo. “How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups?”.emeraldinsight.com/reprints . 1. Ma´rio Raposo is currently Portugal Vice President of the European Council of Small Business. Vol. Ma´rio Raposo has a PhD in Management and is a Full Professor in the Management and Economic Department at University of Beira Interior. 64-82.pt or emainardes@kesservice. She has published some articles on this topic in The Service Industries Journal. in several international journals and belongs to editorial boards.br Helena Alves is an Assistant Professor at the University of Beira Interior. R. 13 No. 1. His academic background includes a Master’s degree in Management. “Essay by Donna J. She has a PhD in Management and she has been doing research in the area of educational marketing. Wood.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. His areas of interest include Educational Management and Services Marketing. 2014. Contribution of stakeholder theory in the management of environmental quality of Algerian firms. 2015. 949-976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 15. [CrossRef] 8. The International Review of Retail. Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 14. 2014.v16. Achieving sustainability through strategically driven CSR in the South African retail sector. Yee Hooi Tang. Frank O'Connor. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9. External environment. Environmental Management Practices of Hotels in Malaysia: Stakeholder Perspective. Anské F. Mário L. Strategic alliances in a town centre: stakeholders' perceived importance of the property owners. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 13. What hampers innovation? External stakeholders. with an Application to California’s Cannabis/Marijuana Industry. The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 129. [CrossRef] 4. Distribution and Consumer Research 25. the organization. 335-351.1111/radm. Cristina I. Aviation planning policy in Australia: Identifying frames of reference to support public decision making. Robbert Kivits. Jayaraman. Edeltraud Guenther. [CrossRef] 12. Charles. Jan Endrikat. João J. [CrossRef] 11. Stakeholder Theory. 265-287. 557-580. [CrossRef] 3. Decision making in choosing information systems. Leila Boubaker. Public Relations Review 40. 2015. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 6:1. Management Review Quarterly 65. M. Anne-Karen Hueske. and its individuals: A multilevel model for identifying innovation barriers accounting for social uncertainties. Maura McAdam. K. Mirza Abdullah. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2013. Fernandes.44. Review of Managerial Science . Mebarek Djebabra. 2015. [CrossRef] 16. Gabriel Cepeda Carrión. Rodney McAdam. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management .Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) This article has been cited by: 1. Broto Rauth Bhardwaj. 2014. 2015. 2014. Francesco Perrini. Sharon Prendeville.1002/jtr. Grobler. Yen Nee Goh. [CrossRef] 7. 123-144. Material selection for eco-innovation: SPICE model. 2015. Johan Håkansson. Linda Tirapelle. Journal of Air Transport Management 47. 267-277. Musadaq Hanandi. the innovating organization. Michael B. Edeltraud Guenther. 2014. [CrossRef] 10. 705-720. 162-184. 2014. Neeltje du Plessis.6. Suhaiza Zailani. R&D Management 44:10. Drivers to firm innovation and their effects on performance: an international comparison. Mohammad Iranmanesh. Emanuele Teti. 2014. 586-595. Azlan Amran. [CrossRef] .2014. 38-52. The Service Industries Journal 34. Ramón Barrera Barrera. Livio Cricelli. [CrossRef] 6. Meet Communications Theory: Media Systems Dependency and Community Infrastructure Theory. 2014. [CrossRef] 5. Kristel Miller. Journal of Management Development 33:10. Competitive strategies and value creation: a twofold perspective analysis. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 9. 2014. Anne-Karen Hueske. [CrossRef] 2. 2014.issue-3. groups and individuals: a systematic review of empirical barrier research. 145-161. Raposo. Ferreira. Simultaneous measurement of quality in different online services. Impact of education and training on performance of women entrepreneurs. Saadia Saadi. Karen Paul. 102-111. Madelen Lagin. Michele Grimaldi. International Journal of Tourism Research 16:10. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 25:3. 113-148. VINE 44:2. Luke Palmer. 2013. 619-630. Assessment of Medical Tourism Development in Korea for the Achievement of Competitive Advantages. [CrossRef] 26. The Service Industries Journal 33. Kevin Kelly. Pilar Moreno. Patterns of innovation in tourism ‘Small and Medium-size Enterprises’. 2013. The Good. The impact of service innovation on firm performance. 424-443. the Bad. Adoption and use of technology in small business environments. Promoting the quality of hospital service for children with developmental delays. The Service Industries Journal 33. Survival of new firms in the Brazilian franchising segment: an empirical study. The Service Industries Journal 33. The Service Industries Journal 33. Vega Vázquez. 2013. Jinsoo Lee. The Service Industries Journal 33. Jane Ross. 2013. Luis Otávio Façanha. Jose Luis Galdon. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 3:1. corporate social responsibility and green management?. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 27. Keith McAllister. Delgado-Márquez. [CrossRef] 28. Barbara Krumay. The Service Industries Journal 33. [CrossRef] 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] . [CrossRef] 24. and the Successful – How Corporate Social Responsibility Leads to Competitive Advantage and Organizational Transformation. and satisfaction in hospitality. Co-creation and innovation in public services. A framework for stakeholder management and corporate culture. [CrossRef] 32. 1514-1526. [CrossRef] 30. Wen-Shiung Lee. 749-758. 2013. Josep Llach. 603-618. Shu-Fang Lee. Comparing trade areas of technology centres using ‘Geographical Information Systems’. 421-445. Cossío Silva. The Service Industries Journal 33. Revilla Camacho. Lukumon Oyedele. 2013. 2013. M. Jason von Meding. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 18. Lei Lin. [CrossRef] 22. 1473-1494. 2013. [CrossRef] 25. Amparo Baviera-Puig. Helena Alves. André Martinuzzi. [CrossRef] 31. 2013. Jishim Jung. 1089-1102. 1599-1632. Ignacio Gil-Pechuan. The Service Industries Journal 33. M. [CrossRef] 20. Jesús C. The Service Industries Journal 33. [CrossRef] 18. 759-773. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9. The Service Industries Journal 33. 2013. [CrossRef] 19. 671-682. [CrossRef] 29. Jack Ross. A. Blanca L. Masood Nawaz Kalyar. 2013. Marcelo Resende. Are entrepreneurial foreign activities of Peruvian SMNEs influenced by international certifications. Wen-Shiung Lee. [CrossRef] 21. Pilar Tejada. J. Maria del Mar Alonso-Almeida. 2013. Peña-Vinces. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 9. entrepreneurship. Seongseop Kim. 2013. 1456-1472. Merger and acquisition evaluation and decision making model. Fernando Garrigos. A qualitative and longitudinal analysis of market orientation. Norat Roig-Tierno. [CrossRef] 33. 2013. 1135-1147. Andrew CreedCorporate Ethics and Values: Guiding Business out of the Maelstrom 223-243. Juan Buitrago-Vera. Journal of Change Management 13. María Ángeles Revilla Camacho. Heterogeneity of customers of personal image services: a segmentation based on value co-creation. ‘Organizational learning culture’: an ingenious device for promoting firm's innovativeness. 24-41. 694-704. F. Francisco Mas-Verdu. Vicente Cardoso. 2013. Leakage.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 17. 2013. The Service Industries Journal 33. Bruno Henrique Schröder. 789-801. Nosheen Rafi. Lourdes Cauzo Bottala. Online value creation in small service businesses: the importance of experience valence and personal values. Jan Windebank. Colin C. M. Carmen Guzmán‐Alfonso. Santos. Social capital as a distinctive feature of Social Economy firms. Enrique Bernal. Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano. Bauer. 2399-2420. [CrossRef] 49. Kun-Huang Huarng. Miguel-Ángel Galindo-Martín. Sara Nadin. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24. The business plan as a project: an evaluation of its predictive capability for business success. Raquel Puentes. 2012. The Service Industries Journal 32. 437-448. Sara Nadin. Rafael Fernández-Guerrero. Caring for older people: an analysis of the small business sector. The Service Industries Journal 32. Tackling the hidden enterprise culture: Government policies to support the formalization of informal entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8. Virginia Simón-Moya. Joaquín Guzmán‐Cuevas. Entrepreneurial intention models as applied to Latin America.Downloaded by Universidad de Los Andes Colombia At 14:30 26 July 2015 (PT) 34. [CrossRef] 45. Pedro Carmona. Lorenzo Revuelto-Taboada. E‐corporate social responsibility in small non‐profit organisations: the case of Spanish ‘Non Government Organisations’. Barriers to outsourcing household services to small business. The Service Industries Journal 32. Factors affecting the success of women entrepreneurs. 865-877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] . Alicia Mas‐Tur. Lorenzo Revuelto-Taboada. Williams. [CrossRef] 44. Governance. 2489-2505. María-Teresa Méndez-Picazo. Luís Francisco. [CrossRef] 40. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8. [CrossRef] 41. [CrossRef] 36. Alexandre Momparler. 2347-2363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 39. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25:5. Women entrepreneurship in small service firms: motivations. Are success and survival factors the same for social and business ventures?. Adoración Mozas. [CrossRef] 35. [CrossRef] 42. Mª Ángeles Tortosa. Ramon Sala-Garrido. 2012. barriers and performance. 2379-2398. The Service Industries Journal 32. Amadeo Fuenmayor. 487-497. 2012. 2012. [CrossRef] 46. 219-242. Mário Raposo. The Service Industries Journal 32. Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano. Amparo Medal-Bartual. 1861-1879. 2012. A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24. Emerson Wagner Mainardes. Clara Gieure. 2012. Angeles Iniesta-Bonillo. 2012. Carrie M. 2012. Virginia Simón-Moya. Efficiency analysis of small franchise enterprises through a DEA metafrontier model. [CrossRef] 38. 2012. 2012. 895-915. Gary Akehurst. Tiffany Hui-Kuang Yu. Rafael Granell. [CrossRef] 37. Helena Alves. Raquel Sánchez-Fernandez. 2012. 2463-2487. Alicia Mas-Tur. entrepreneurship and economic growth. The Service Industries Journal 32. Rafael Chaves. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 48. 2012. Service Business 6. Enrique Simarro. Management Decision 50:10. Williams. The Service Industries Journal 32. The Service Industries Journal 32. 2445-2462. 2365-2377. Constantino-Jose Garcia-Martin. 2012. Maria-Ceu AlvesAccounting Information and Performance Measurement in a Nonprofit Organization 465-487. [CrossRef] 47. [CrossRef] 43. The performance of entrepreneurial small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises. Colin C. 2012. 721-735. 2421-2434. Francisco J. 2012. Carmen Guzmán. Amparo Cervera-Taulet.