Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory

Orts, Eric W.; Strudler, Alan

doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0310-y

Cited by 68 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It contributes to our understanding of the relational component of a firm (Buchholz and Rosenthal 2005) and provides a framework for recognizing relevant constituencies and several logics for prioritizing and integrating their interests into decision making (Mitchell et al 1997, p. 857). However, the actual identification of stakeholder groups has remained vague and superficial, limiting the theory's use (see Dunfee 2008;Dunham et al 2006;Orts and Strudler 2009) and running the risk that ''stakeholder'' will become a meaningless term (Freeman et al 2010). Despite more than two decades of refinement and integration of stakeholder thinking into multiple disciplines, stakeholders are predominantly defined solely by their generic economic function-to consume, invest, supply, and so on.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we propose an adaption to stakeholder theory whereby stakeholders are conceptualized on the basis of their social identity. We begin by offering a critical review of both traditional and more recent developments in stakeholder theory, focusing in particular on the way in which stakeholder categories are identified. By identifying critical weaknesses in the existing approach, as well as important points of strength, we outline an alternative approach that refines our understanding of stakeholders in important ways. To do so, we draw on notions of social identity as the fundamental basis for group cohesion, mobilization, and action. A new form of cross-mapping as a basis for stakeholder identification is advanced and key research questions are set out.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I think this objection is right, but it only calls attention to the fact that integrity is a virtue that has other virtues as its object. 7 For an argument that business ethics and the corporate-objective debate have been too closely tied, see Orts and Strudler (2009). 8 For a persuasive alternative to the two main contenders, see Keay (2008).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity: the virtue of compromise

Schwartz

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I develop a novel interpretation of integrity that I believe ought to be of special interest to business ethicists. According to a traditional understanding, integrity is the virtue of holding fast to one's principles in the face of temptations. Against this, I suggest that integrity is the virtue that governs rather than forbids compromise. In other words, integrity does not just forbid compromise; it sometimes demands it. This virtue will sound paradoxical to some, and I spend much of the essay arguing for its plausibility and locating it within the larger philosophical tradition. In the second half of the essay, I try to connect this virtue to the essential aims of business as understood by shareholder theorists. If my argument is correct, it may explain why integrity is of such central concern for business ethicists. This article is published as part of a collection on integrity and its counterfeits.

show abstract

“…And yet their proposals for reform almost invariably slip into the deep, well-worn rut of multifiduciary stakeholder theory. This approach is subject to a number of powerful objections (Heath 2006a;Orts and Strudler 2009). Many of these objections, however, concern the motivational and incentive problems that such a governance structure would create.…”

Section: Lessons For Business Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%