Search results

Stakeholder capitalism has been proposed as an alternative way of thinking about business purpose and value creation. However, stakeholder capitalism can only work as an alternative model of business if all stakeholders and their interests are visible to and taken seriously by managers. The purpose of this paper is to untangle the challenges that invisible, marginalized and powerless stakeholders pose for theorizing about stakeholder capitalism.

This paper is conceptual. The authors first briefly outline the promise of stakeholder capitalism for addressing pressing questions about value creation and stakeholder welfare. The authors then conceptualize stakeholder invisibility as the outcome of a particular stakeholder being both powerless and marginal through the prism of moral intensity theory and one of its elements: proximity. This study discusses the ways in which managers can make invisible stakeholders more visible in their decision-making.

For managers truly to manage for stakeholders, as anticipated by stakeholder capitalism, all stakeholders and stakeholder interests must be visible to them. This study analyzes why sometimes they are not, how they can be made more visible and why stakeholder visibility matters for stakeholder capitalism. This study proffers three principles for business practice: ethical commitments to reduce stakeholder invisibility, analyses of business strategies to surface the contributions of marginalized and invisible stakeholders and taking rights seriously.

This study provides a new perspective on stakeholder capitalism by linking the challenge in operationalizing it to the problems of stakeholder invisibility and marginality.

The purpose of this paper is to advance a conceptualization of sustainable HRM that builds on scholarship focusing on the pluralistic nature of human resource management. The paper seeks to advance the promise of sustainable HRM as an alternative to HRM scholarship that adopts a unitarist frame of reference.

The paper draws on a variety of HRM-related literatures to offer new insights about what a pluralist perspective on sustainable HRM from the perspective of employees would look like and what it would accomplish, and in so doing allow sustainable HRM to become socially sustainable.

Taking a pluralistic perspective is essential for making the concept of sustainable HRM more distinct and robust. Sustainable HRM can offer a challenge to the dominant unitarist perspective on the employment relationship, focusing the attention of researchers on the extent to which employment practices benefit both employers and employees while contributing to social sustainability outside of the employment context.

This paper adds analyses of pluralism and unitarism to the current literature on sustainable HRM while also focusing attention on how sustainable HRM might be more robustly conceptualized and also more normative in its orientation.

The purpose of this study is to explore how business-only corporate responsibility coalitions (CRCs) help member firms manage sustainability issues.

This conceptual analysis of business-only CRCs, using the literature on sensemaking and social issues management, explores how participation in CRCs enhances firms’ capabilities for sustainability issues management by improving their sensemaking competencies, abilities to choose and adapt issue responses and efficiency in implementing issue responses through better issue response mechanisms.

Business-only CRCs help firms with high as well as low levels of sustainability orientation better manage sustainability issues by carrying out the exploratory aspects of issues management: scanning, identifying and evaluating issues and proposing responses to issues.

The widely applicable, nonbinding and scripted responses proposed by CRCs allow participating firms a high degree of autonomy to choose and adapt their responses. However, firms must approach their CRC memberships with collaborative intent and high transparency to achieve these benefits.

Participation in CRCs can help scale up firms’ responses to sustainability issues through more efficient issues management processes that allow them to customize issue responses to their needs.

Research on the management of sociopolitical issues can be enriched if these issues are understood as collective, multilevel challenges rather than purely strategic issues faced by individual firms. This study contributes to the business collective action and issues management literatures by emphasizing the importance of collective management of sustainability issues and how it may improve firms’ capabilities for sustainability issues management.

This study identified and analyzed the 29 empirical articles which created 65 new scales that were published from 1996–2004 within the Spirituality, Religion, and Work (SRW) domain. Utilizing Hinkin's (1995) methodology for evaluating questionnaire scale development as a model, this study reviewed: (1) item generation issues such as inductive vs. deductive approaches; (2) scale development issues such as sampling and validity/reliability assessment; and (3) scale evaluation issues such as convergent validity testing. The study found that the vast majority of studies (86%) reported detail on the item development process for the new scales used; the primary method for item development was deductive, based on existing theory. In the area of scale development, only 45% of the studies reported using factor analysis for evaluation of constructs; of those that did, less than 25% of those reported information regarding factor retention criteria, such as eigenvalues. With regard to the internal consistency, the coefficient alpha was reported in only 45% of the studies. However, in those cases where scale development practices were described, the information was generally quite detailed and reflected statistical rigor. Few studies (38%) reported any information related to scale evaluation. Similar to Hinkin's (1995) conclusions from his review of scales in the management field, this study found scale development practices within the SRW domain to be inconsistent. The article reports detailed findings using Hinkin ‘s (1995) detailed methods and discusses practical implications for editors, reviewers and SRW researchers.

The purpose of the paper is to propose that stakeholder scholarship should take its rightful role in the acknowledgement of stakeholder value production, the enhancement of stakeholder voice and public stakeholder advocacy. Its focus is on low‐wage workers particularly, although the analysis holds for dependent stakeholders generally.

This paper analyses and develops extant stakeholder theory with regard to employer treatment of low‐wage workers. A general point is made about the need for stakeholder research, writing and advocacy to take more explicit normative stances. This is achieved in three stages: by explaining why low‐wage workers are dependent stakeholders; by considering the strengths and weakness of stakeholder theory as an explanatory framework for low‐wage workers; and by identifying how stakeholder theory should be developed in order to provide an explicitly normative account of low‐wage workers that leads to pragmatic action.

Labour and industrial relations scholarship would benefit from the integration of stakeholder language and scholarship, as the stakeholder concept has gained currency and legitimacy among academics in a variety of fields. Stakeholder theory scholarship would benefit from explicit consideration of power, which is common to work in labour and industrial relations scholarship.

Stakeholder theory can benefit from labour and industrial relations scholarship and practice. Likewise, industrial relations can benefit from understanding and integration of the increasingly ubiquitous stakeholder concept. It is believed that the integration of stakeholder theory with insights from labour and industrial relations scholarship helps further work in both fields.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the proliferation of scientific management and then to consider its effect on business and society. Our examination begins with a brief survey of various management approaches that emerged in the early twentieth century. We focus on Frederick Taylor, the originator of scientific management, as the person with the greatest influence on management scholarship. We assert that the propagation of scientific management in all sectors of business and society is so pervasive that is it ubiquitous, making it exceedingly difficult to consciously detect or question. We examine how core ideas from scientific management have facilitated the dehumanization of stakeholders in management scholarship and practice. We then discuss how dehumanizing tendencies — informed by the hidden ubiquity of scientific management — have permeated research in corporate social responsibility and management theory. We conclude with suggestions for integrating humanity into management theory.

Purpose – This chapter presents a preliminary conceptualisation of the effects that unequal power relationships have on the integrity of social science research and the safety of researchers.Methodology/approach – We begin by presenting a review of the current literature on risk to research outputs and researcher safety. In this review, we offer a conceptual framework of the factors of safety and autonomy of researchers developed in conjunction with extent stakeholder theory scholarship.Findings – We argue that, in the event of a threat to researchers’ autonomy while complying with university ethics committee requirements, or when faced with uneven power differentials between the researcher and various stakeholders, one of two actions may occur: (1) the researcher may alter the project in order to comply or (2) the researcher may feel so compromised that the research project is abandoned. In both of these instances, research that addresses power/structural inequalities is avoided. In the event of a threat to the researcher’s physical and emotional safety, three actions can result if the researcher is harmed: (1) the incident may not be reported, which in turn may result in further harm to the researcher; (2) counselling may be undertaken to resolve and debrief emotional stress; or (3) a worker’s compensation claim may be lodged.Social implications – As academics, research is the core business of the organisations of which we are members. The issues introduced and discussed in this chapter are serious; however, our conceptualisation requires further research. We outline why this set of issues is significant and deserving of more study than it has previously received.Originality/value of  chapter – Previous research that links research in the area of protection for researchers and research autonomy is very limited in Australia, and therefore our conceptualisation provides value to the research agenda on this topic. We also propose that the issue of researcher safety and autonomy is common to most academic environments and merits further academic study.

This chapter suggests that there are at least five main challenges to the development of stakeholder theory as it currently stands. We need more research on understanding what counts as the total performance of a business; accounting for stakeholders rather than accounting only for investors; explaining real stakeholder behavior; formulating smart public policy given stakeholder theory; and rethinking the basics of ethical theory. The chapter explains the issues involved in each challenge and suggests ways to meet the challenge. It is a preliminary report of research in progress as well as a blueprint for how others may join the conversation to develop a more useful stakeholder theory.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Invisible stakeholders are often significantly affected by a firm but not heard or catered toward, and often consist of marginalized groups.

The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.