The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Stakeholder Theory is Not
Open accessAbstract
The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations – critical and friendly – of the theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing theory as a starting place for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits
Friedman, M. (2007) · Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14 · Cited by 11,529
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Cited by
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2010.495581 · Cited by 2,755
Self-citationCorporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link
Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.001 · Cited by 683
Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management
Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.091 · Cited by 521
Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.5840/beq200717230 · Cited by 270
Re-Imagining the Morality of Management: A Modern Virtue Ethics Approach
Moore, G. (2008) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.5840/beq200818435 · Cited by 189
An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication
Lewis, L. K. (2007) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00291.x · Cited by 128
Stakeholder Theory: Seeing the Field Through the Forest
Berman, S. L., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2019) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650316680039 · Cited by 46
Why the Time Has Come to Retire Instrumental Stakeholder Theory
Weitzner, D., & Deutsch, Y. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0342 · Cited by 40
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Self-citationApplequist, J., Miller-Day, M., Cronholm, P. F., Gabbay, R. A., & Bowen, D. S. (2017) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732316680601 · Cited by 15
Baldo, M. D. (2013) · European J. of International Management · doi:10.1504/ejim.2013.052835 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C.
- Venue
- Business Ethics Quarterly
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 479-502
- ISSN
- 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
- 2153-3326
- OpenAlex
- W2024960229
- Cited by
- 1,444
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 65.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
