Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:29:49.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing Stakeholder Practice: A Particularized Exploration of Community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Laura Dunham,
R. Edward Freeman and
Jeanne Liedtka
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Lack of specificity around stakeholder identity remains a serious obstacle to the further development of stakeholder theory and its adoption in actual practice by business managers. Nowhere is this shortcoming more evident than in stakeholder theory’s treatment of the constituency known as “community.”

In this paper we attempt to set forth what we call “the Problem of Community” as indicative of the definitional problems of stakeholder theory. We then begin the process of gaining greater specificity around our notions of community and the role of community in stakeholder theory and management. In doing so, we identify the emergence of two fairly new forms of community that we believe are particularly relevant to the stakeholder theorist and practicing manager. These two new variants of community—the virtual advocacy group and the community of practice—extend the notion of community in new directions, which have strikingly different implications for stakeholder theory and practice.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2006, pp. 23 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackoff, R 1974. Redesigning the Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Altman, B. W. 1998. “Transformed Corporate Community Relations: A Management Tool for Achieving Corporate Citizenship.” Business and Society Review 102/103: 43–51.Google Scholar
Bell, C., and Newby, H.. 1971. Community Studies: An Introduction to the Sociology of the Local Community. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Bernard, E. 1999. “The Battle in Seattle: What Was That All About?” New York Times (December 5): B1, B5.Google Scholar
Blair, M. 1995. Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Boatright, J. 1994. “Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: Or, What’s So Special about Shareholders?” Business Ethics Quarterly 3: 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P.. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. 1989. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Cincinnati: South-Western.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. 1995. “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance.” Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., and Preston, L.. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 20: 65–91.Google Scholar
Evan, W., and Freeman, E.. 1993. “A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism.” In Ethical Theory And Business, 5th edition, edited by Beauchamp, T. and Bowie, N.. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.. 1994. “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory.” Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409–21.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., and Liedtka, J.. 1997. “Stakeholder Capitalism and the Value Chain,” European Management Journal 15(3): 286–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, J. H., and Harris, C. C.. 1989. “Community and Community Studies: Studying Local Social Life.” In Investigating Society, ed. Burgess, R.. London: Longman Group UK Ltd.Google Scholar
Godwin, R. K. 1992. “Money, Technology and Political Interests: The Direct Marketing of Politics. In The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed, ed. Petracca, M.. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K. 1991. “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.” Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J., and John, C. H. St.. 1994. Strategic Management of Organizations and Stakeholders: Theory and Cases. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hill, C. W. L., and Jones, T. M.. 1992. “Stakeholder-Agency Theory.” Journal of Management Studies 29(2): 131–55.Google Scholar
Hillery, G. A. 1955. “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement.” Rural Sociology 20: 194–204.Google Scholar
Lave, J., and Wenger, E.. 1993. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, D., and Newby, H.. 1983. The Problem of Sociology: An Introduction to the Discipline. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Liedtka, J. 1999. “Competitive Advantage and Communities of Practice.” The Journal of Management Inquiry 8(1): 5–16.Google Scholar
Liedtka, J.. 2000. “Stakeholders in Seattle,” presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Social Issues in Management Division, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Loomis, B. A., and Cigler, A. J., eds. 1998. Interest Group Politics, 5th edition. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
McVea, J., and Freeman, R. E.. 2005. “A ‘Names and Faces’ Approach to Stakeholder Management: How Focusing on Stakeholders as Individuals Can Bring Ethics and Entrepreneurial Strategy Together.” Journal of Management Inquiry 14(1): 57–69.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., and Wood, D.. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of Management Review 22: 853–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, J. 2004. “Auto Plant vs. Neighborhood: The Poletown Battle.” Detroit News website: http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=18&category=business.Google Scholar
Petracca, E. 1992. The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. 1997. “Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness.” Business Ethics Quarterly 7: 51–66.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. 1972. “On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations.” Bedrift Sokonomen 8: 309–96.Google Scholar
Ryan, L., and Schneider, M.. 2002. “The Antecedents of Institutional Investor Activism.” Academy of Management Review 27(4): 554–73.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R. H. 1969. “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 8: 1–32.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F. 2001. Community and Civil Society, ed. Harris, Jose; trans. Harris, Jose and Hollis, Margaret. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. A., and Graves, S.. 1997. “The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link.” Strategic Management Journal 18: 303–17.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. L. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” The American Political Science Review 77: 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, M. 1963. “Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity.” In Cities and Space, ed. Wingo, L.. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J., and Jones, R. E.. 1995. “Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research in Corporate Social Performance.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3: 229–67.Google Scholar