Managing Stakeholder Demands: Governance Decisions and Stakeholder Standing

Authors

  • Daniel C. Evans University of Montana
  • Gerald Evans University of Montana
  • Michael V. Harrington University of Montana

Keywords:

stakeholder ethics, stakeholder standing, stakeholder legitimacy, fairness, governance, social responsibility

Abstract

In an empirical study, this paper used John Rawls’ idea (1971) of justice as fairness to rank competing stakeholder interests in governance decisions. Undergraduate students were asked to rank the power or responsibility of six stakeholder groups on twelve governance decisions. The results indicate that the participants meaningfully ranked the various stakeholder groups on the governance decisions as evidenced by t-tests.  These results indicate that using the Rawlsian mind experiment of a veil of ignorance and an original position was an effective means of unraveling competing stakeholder interests in governance decisions.  The implications of the results were discussed for stakeholder legitimacy and ethical decision-making.

References

Buffett, W. E. & Cunningham, L. A. (2019). The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America (4th ed.). Carolina Academic Press, Durham NC.

Cragg, W., (2000). Human rights and business ethics: Fashioning a new social contract. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 205-214.

Cragg, W. (2002). Business ethics and stakeholder theory, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 113-142 https://doi.org/10.2307/3857807

Dawkins, C. E. (2014). The principle of good faith: Toward substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1697-z

Enyinna, O. (2013). Is stakeholder theory really ethical? African Journal of Business Ethics, 7(2), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.15249/7-2-38

Evans, D.C. & Evans, G. E. (2014). Stakeholder interests from behind the veil: A Rawlsian approach to ethical corporate governance. Management and Organizational Studies, 1(2) 148-154.

Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 409-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston.

Friedman, L. M. (2019). A History of American Law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives-a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 755-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9591-1

Grandori, A. (2010). A rational heuristic model of economic decision making. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 477-504. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1043463110383972

Hendry, J. (2001). Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857875

Jensen, T., & Sandström, J. (2013). In defense of stakeholder pragmatism. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1338-y

Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2013). Stakeholder happiness enhancement: A neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 349-379. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323325

Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2019). Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 6-27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0459

Lee, E. T., & Ellis, J. M. (2012). The Standing Doctrine's dirty little secret. 107 Northwestern University Law Review, 169.

Levillain, K. & Segrestin, B. (2019). From primary to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues. European Management Journal, 37, 637-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.07.002

Mansell, S. (2013). Shareholder Theory and Kant’s “Duty of Beneficence.” Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 583-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1542-9

Mendelow, A. (1991). Stakeholder Mapping, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems. Cambridge, MA, 5(2), 61.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4) 853-856.

Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0015-4

Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324322

Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857232

Phillips, R. A. & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006041929249

Raelin, J. D., & Bondy, K. (2013). Putting the good back in good corporate governance: The presence and problems of double-layered agency theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12038

Rajan, R. G. & Zingales, L. (1998). Power in a theory of the firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 387-432. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555630

Rawls, J. (1964). Legal obligation and the duty of fair play, In S. Hook (ed), Law and Philosophy. New York University Press, New York.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Renouard, C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism, and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0536-8

Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9573-3

Rousseau, J. J. (1950). The social contract and discourses, G. D. H Cole (trans.). EP Dutton and Co, New York, 1950.

Santana, A. (2012). Three elements of stakeholder legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 257-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0966-y

Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholders model of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013856421897

Smith, A. (1776). Wealth of nations, C.J. Bullock (ed.). Vol. X. The Harvard Classics. PF Collier & Son, New York, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001.

Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881435

Stead, J. G., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(4), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006188725928

Winter, S. L. (1988). The metaphor of standing and the problem of self-governance. Stanford Law Review, 40(6), 1371-1516.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-26

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2021)

Section

ABR Journal Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).