Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach

Abstract

Stakeholder theory has grown into one of the most frequent approaches to organizational sustainability. Stakeholder research has provided considerable insight on organization–nature relations, and advanced approaches that consider the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature. However, nonhuman nature is typically approached as an ambiguous, unified entity. Taking nonhumans adequately into account requires greater detail for both grounding the status of nonhumans and particularizing nonhuman entities as a set of potential organizational stakeholders with different characteristics, vulnerabilities, and needs. We utilize the philosophical concept of ‘recognition’ to provide a normative underpinning for stakeholder theorizing on nonhuman nature in both universal and difference-sensitive terms. We discuss how the status model of recognition helps identify relevant nonhumans as organizational stakeholders, establish respect, and particularize nonhumans in their distinctiveness and in partner-like ways. The implications of the recognition approach for stakeholder research are explicated with an illustrative case that exemplifies the recognition and particularization of nonhuman nature. We contribute to stakeholder research on nonhuman nature by suggesting that recognition provides a conceptual tool for theorizing the stakeholder status and particularization of nonhuman nature. Thereby, this article reduces anthropocentric bias and increases the capacity of stakeholder theorizing to confront the challenges of the ecological crisis.

Interpreting stakeholder ecosystems through relational stakeholder theory: The case of a highly contested megaproject

“…Second, according to the relational perspective of stakeholder theory (Cots, 2011; Rowley, 1997, 2017), the adoption of an ecosystem approach is also crucial to understanding the pivotal role that nature and the natural environment play (Laine, 2010), especially when dealing with megaprojects. The view of nature as a stakeholder (Heikkinen et al, 2013; Kortetmäki et al, 2022; Kujala et al, 2012, 2018; Kujala, Heikkinen, et al, 2019) does not emerge from the interviews; however, eventually, the ecological issues are pointed out as a concern for specific stakeholders, as in the case of the NO TAV movement. It must also be noted that, over the years, much of the resistance to the Turin–Lyon HSR was sparked by environmental concerns related to the impacts that the megaproject would have on the natural landscape and resources of the Susa Valley, which then led to an irreconcilable ideological fight.…”

“…Although the dimension of urgency includes dynamism, the classification still lies on a quite static interpretation of stakeholders; thus, as suggested by Rowley (2017), it should be empowered by the use of social network analysis (SNA) techniques and the analysis of the relationships between stakeholders and managers. More recently, novel relational perspectives have emerged, which go as far as considering the environment-and nature itself-as a stakeholder (Heikkinen et al, 2013;Kortetmäki et al, 2022;Kujala et al, 2012Kujala et al, , 2018Kujala, Heikkinen, et al, 2019). Within this paper, the implementation of SNA is seen as a complementary technique that is useful for assessing the dynamic evolution of a project's stakeholder ecosystem (Rowley, 2017) and graphically representing the social and relational capital of a project in its geographical and social setting (Cots, 2011).…”

When consumers lose power: An examination of the stakeholder dynamics in the pharmaceutical industry

“…For policymakers, our study provides empirical evidence of a significantly weakened consumer position: consumers assume the resource‐providing burden without the corresponding direct power. To a degree, consumers are treated by big pharma as nonhuman stakeholders that can be taken for granted (Kortetmäki et al, 2022). Hence, policymakers should consider if this situation is morally justifiable and whether policies should be implemented to restore consumers' primary stakeholder status.…”

“…For policymakers, our study provides empirical evidence of a significantly weakened consumer position: consumers assume the resourceproviding burden without the corresponding direct power. To a degree, consumers are treated by big pharma as nonhuman stakeholders that can be taken for granted (Kortetmäki et al, 2022).…”

SDG commentary: services that sustainably manage resources for all humans-the regenerative service economy framework

“…One reason for this may be the Abrahamic religion’s belief that the earth and its natural resources were created to address human needs (Polonsky et al , 2014). Most business research takes a very anthropocentric perspective where humans are the centre of all things (Kortetmäki et al , 2022). Anthropocentrism is a Western/Northern perspective of human supremacism or human exceptionalism.…”