Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Stakeholder theory, today a mainstream concept, is an integral part of literature on topics such as strategic management, business ethics and corporate social responsibility (Parmar et al ., 2010). The theory was popularised by Freeman in his landmark book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984) , which defines stakeholder as: "[...] any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives" (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). However, the concept dates further back in time (Freeman and Reed, 1983; Post et al ., 2002; Rowley, 1997). The term "stakeholder" appeared, for instance, in work by the Stanford Research Institute in the 1960s, and recent research has highlighted the Scandinavian roots of the term (Strand and Freeman, 2013).
While the precise meaning of a stakeholder remains debated, the graphical representation of stakeholder theory has remained fairly constant. While variations of the model arguably exist, the firm typically remains at the centre of the universe with two-directional relationships with a varying number of generic stakeholder groups visualised by similarly sized boxes or circles, usually equidistant to the focal organisation. While this representation of stakeholder theory has recently been criticised, the conclusion is still that the conventional stakeholder model: "[...] remains a rather good approximation of reality" (Fassin, 2008, p. 879). We address three key limitations in existing stakeholder models: the lack of dynamism, the difficulty of mapping different types of relationships and the strong emphasis of multinational firms.
The overarching aim of this paper is to empirically test to what extent the graphical representation of stakeholder theory does in fact reflect the reality perceived by real-life managers. Of course, all models are simplifications but if the graphical representation of the stakeholder model diverges radically from how managers think of stakeholder relationships, reflecting on the causes and envisioning possible alternatives, then it becomes relevant. Our empirical analysis indicates that there is a discrepancy and is therefore used as a springboard for developing an alternative graphical representation of stakeholder theory that we propose is more in line with the theory and practice of stakeholder thinking.
This paper makes several contributions to the existing body of stakeholder literature. From a conceptual perspective, the paper challenges the view that the conventional stakeholder model provides a...