Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Stakeholder management has provided a linkage between ethics and management since Freeman (1984) broadened its remit beyond its previous confines of company shareholders. There has been increasing usage of the concept of stakeholders since that time with Fassin (2009) noting its popularity. There has also been considerable contention over what the term actually means (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Littau et al., 2010; Mainardes et al., 2011; Miles, 2012) and this contention remains unresolved. Resolving this contention would remove the need for future academic definitional effort and potentially result in clarity of use benefitting practitioners as well
This paper therefore sets out to propose a resolution using an approach that has not previously been applied to the stakeholder concept. It explores the concept from a purely definitional viewpoint. This is informed by previous definitions as well as by current trends in thinking around the concept and by accommodating the definitional aspects only of these different viewpoints without entering into any other debate concerning them. A method for defining conceptual terms is adopted to produce definitions that are refined, i.e. with unnecessary elements removed. The derived and previous definitions are then taken forward into a mapping of the stakeholder locus of interest, starting with a project management reference point and progressing to genericity.
This process highlights the previous dependency of stakeholder theory upon the joint-stock company model. Category and role definitions are proposed to resolve this.
Adoption of the definitions proposed can remove confusion surrounding the term and potentially result in clearer project governance arrangements, remove confusion and potentially achieve improved project, organisational, individual and research outcomes. The findings have implications for stakeholder theory and for project management as well as for government and private sector organisations that initiate projects.
Definitional confusion regarding stakeholders
The importance of definition of terms was recognised by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, as noted by Smith (2014, p. 316) who wrote “The definition was an important matter for Plato”, “Concern with answering the question ‘What is so-and-so?’ are at the centre of the majority of Plato’s dialogues” and “Aristotle himself traces the quest for definitions back to Socrates” (Smith, 2014). Nearly 2,000 years later, Hobbes (1996) wrote “To conclude, the light of humane minds is perspicuous words, but by...