Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation

The success of the stakeholder theory in management literature as well as in current business practices is largely due to the inherent simplicity of the stakeholder model––and to the clarity of Freeman’s powerful synthesised visual conceptualisation. However, over the years, critics have attacked the vagueness and ambiguity of stakeholder theory. In this article, rather than building on the discussion from a theoretical point of view, a radically different and innovative approach is chosen: the graphical framework is used as the central perspective. The major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are systematically confronted with the graphical scheme to illustrate their visual impact. The graphical illustrations of the imperfections help explain the sometimes-oversimplified generalisation inherent to every graphical model. They also make some interrelationships easier to understand. The analysis demonstrates that, with the tacit but implicit acceptance of simplification of the discussed explanatory elements, Freeman’s framework remains a rather good approximation of reality. Only a few minor changes to the stakeholder model are consequently proposed.

[1]  L. Preston,et al.  Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View , 2002 .

[2]  S. Waddock,et al.  Unfolding stakeholder thinking , 2003 .

[3]  François Lépineux,et al.  Stakeholder theory, society and social cohesion , 2005 .

[4]  Alexei M. Marcoux.  A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory , 2003 .

[5]  I. Jawahar,et al.  Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: an Organizational Life Cycle Approach , 2001 .

[6]  Ann Buchholtz,et al.  Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management , 2005 .

[7]  John Argenti,et al.  Stakeholders: the case against , 1997 .

[8]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[9]  S. Key.  Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder “theory” , 1999 .

[10]  Tim Rowley.  Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences , 1997 .

[11]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Practicability, Paradigms, and Problems in Stakeholder Theorizing , 1999 .

[12]  L. Spence,et al.  Reinterpretation of a metaphor: from stakes to claims , 2003 .

[13]  E. Jansson,et al.  The Stakeholder Model: The Influence of the Ownership and Governance Structures , 2005 .

[14]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Response: Practicability, Paradigms, and Problems in Stakeholder Theorizing , 1999 .

[15]  Saul A. Rubinstein,et al.  Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership , 2000 .

[16]  J. Kaler.  Differentiating Stakeholder Theories , 2003 .

[17]  A. Friedman,et al.  Stakeholders: Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[18]  Richard A. Wolfe,et al.  How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups? , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[19]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[20]  Nicolay Worren,et al.  When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity , 2002 .

[21]  Geoff Moore,et al.  Tinged shareholder theory: or what’s so special about stakeholders? , 1999 .

[22]  M. Clarkson.  A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance , 1995 .

[23]  Daniel Sullivan,et al.  Cognitive Tendencies in International Business Research: Implications of a “Narrow Vision” , 1998 .

[24]  Cary L. Cooper,et al.  The concise Blackwell encyclopedia of management , 1998 .

[25]  Elaine Sternberg.  The Defects of Stakeholder Theory , 1997 .

[26]  Yvon Pesqueux,et al.  Stakeholder theory in perspective , 2005 .

[27]  A. Wicks,et al.  Convergent Stakeholder Theory , 1999 .

[28]  Kevin Gibson,et al.  The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory , 2000 .

[29]  K. Goodpaster.  Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis , 1991, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[30]  Monika I. Winn.  Building Stakeholder Theory with a Decision Modeling Methodology , 2001 .

[31]  W. Dugger.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[32]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[33]  Magoroh Maruyama,et al.  Futures dossier: Toward picture-coded information systems , 1986 .

[34]  Alan D. Meyer,et al.  Visual Data in Organizational Research , 1991 .

[35]  S. Venkataraman.  Ethics and Entrepreneurship: Stakeholder Value Equilibration and the Entrepreneurial Process , 2002 .

[36]  J. Harrison,et al.  STAKEHOLDERS, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND PERFORMANCE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES , 1999 .

[37]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[38]  D. Crowther,et al.  Corporate social responsibility in Portugal: empirical evidence of corporate behaviour , 2005 .

[39]  T. Beauchamp,et al.  Ethical Theory and Business , 2019 .

[40]  A. Friedman,et al.  Developing Stakeholder Theory , 2002 .

[41]  Thomas W. Dunfee,et al.  Toward A Unified Conception Of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory , 1994 .

[42]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[43]  T. Jones,et al.  Stakeholder‐Agency Theory , 1992 .

[44]  S. Bell,et al.  STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE REVISITED: TOWARD AN ACTIONABLE TOOL FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS. , 2004 .