نظریه ذینفعان: برخی از پیشنهادات تجدیدنظرطلب
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|12802||2013||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9210 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 42, February 2013, Pages 127–135
The article argues for the use of a narrow stakeholder definition. It also adds one group – managers – that generally is not considered as being a stakeholder group. Here it is suggested that control of this stakeholder group holding the executive power should be a central topic for stakeholder theory. The article supports the common idea that the business discourse and the moral discourse should be integrated in stakeholder theory, not treated as separate tracks. The issue is then how to mold the substance for such integration. This article argues that the priority of stakeholders implies a distancing from general altruistic philosophy that argues against – not for – giving special consideration to the company's stakeholders. Both the moral substance and the business potential lie in the special and close relationship with these partners. Stakeholder theory needs a more compatible ethical theory.
A starting point for this paper is an article named “Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory” (Agle et al., 2008) written by some of the most distinguished researchers in this field. I have taken two positions in that paper to heart. One is Edward Freeman's inclusion of shareholder protagonists such as Milton Friedman, Oliver Williamson and Michael Jensen as stakeholder theorists. A discourse can hardly thrive by excluding one position in what is perhaps the most discussed issue, so it seems wise to consider the ‘Primus stakeholder’ model as one stakeholder theory, not only multi-fiduciary stakeholder models. The second position is Jensen's claim in a similar inclusive spirit: “Enlightened value maximization is equivalent to enlightened stakeholder theory” (2008, p. 168). This statement might be a correct judgment, but it includes crucial demands for going from theoretical potential to reality. It seems to me that there is a real potential in this enlightened merger, but that presently there are also some serious problems with constructing a satisfactory model. This article will address such problems and it will also, in this process, suggest some remedies. Each of these problems might deserve an article of their own, but they are also connected to each other and need to be seen together. A central part of the theory concept is that a theory is not just a number of separate issues brought together, as say a party platform, but rather a chain where the links are most dependent on the strength of the other links. This article brings up some important issues each one in need of improvement in order to bring the stakeholder theory closer to the ambitions of an enlightened level. The article continues with the issue of deciding which groups should be included in the stakeholder concept. The third section discusses the business case for stakeholder theory: the loyalty strategy. The forth issue is the governance issue, how should the stakeholder be brought into the decision process? The fifth section discusses the philosophical case; which philosophical positions are compatible with stakeholder theory. The discussion of these four issues is followed by sixth section connecting the shareholder perspective with other economic approaches. Then the article concludes in a summary section.