Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification

Abstract

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.

Navigating Sustainability Embeddedness in Management Decision-Making

“…"Community" came across as a "catch-all" phrase for "other" stakeholders that were not a primary concern in practitioner decision-making. This was in accordance with literature that purports that the social dimensions of sustainability in general have not received the same prominence as the other two pillars [23,26,82]. This is made worse by the fact that the meaning and objectives of the social pillar of sustainability remain vague in practice [83].…”

“…Decision-making also emerged as being market-based, in that practitioners relied on "benchmarking" and "external factor analyses" (see Myopia). Findings also pointed to the manifestations of change or responsibility for sustainability in some departments and not in others-which we discussed in this Fog antecedent [10,16,26].…”

“…This arguably inhibits sustainability's practical realization. For instance, sustainability embeddedness calls for all practitioners to make a paradigmatic shift in their decision-making from prioritizing a single financial goal and shareholders (business case view) [2,3,5,26] towards focusing on a shared goal of financial, social, and environmental sustainability that considers multiple stakeholders and their needs (integrative view) [8,14,19,40]. As a result, sustainability-embedded decisions (used interchangeably with sustainable decisions) have been described as multi-dimensional, in that practitioners need to manage often competing stakeholder objectives, and deal with trade-off situations where there are various tensions [7,41,42].…”

“…Overall, Fog pointed to the existence of conflicting opinions around sustainability in practice, intra-organizational differences in how employees understand, interpret, and operationalize sustainability, and varying levels of awareness of sustainability information, initiatives, and practices [15,26,39,85]. Practitioners in the study experienced "fuzziness" and struggled to deal with many complexities and ambiguities associated with the making of sustainable decisions [42,43].…”

“…Even though some organizations develop to become proactive about social and environmental responsibility, many of these organizations still embrace an institutional view of sustainability, also called a "Friedmanesque view" or "business case" approach. This institutional view purports that the interests of society and the environment should only be considered when they contribute towards enhanced financial performance [2,3,26]. Most studies on sustainability adoption have focused on proactive organizations and the operational changes necessary to create a more socially and environmentally responsible organization [20,27].…”