Talk:Stakeholder theory/Archives/2013

Proposed Merger

The articles on Stakeholder (corporate) and Stakeholder theory pertain to precisely the same subject matter. They can easily be merged. I believe the appropriate method would be to combine all the material into the Stakeholder theory article and make Stakeholder (corporate) a redirect. There are some additional redirects currently out there, such as Stakeholder view, which might need adjustment. -- WikiPedant 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MERGE COMPLETED. -- WikiPedant 13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WHOA -- Changed my mind. After following links, I decided that Stakeholder (corporate) is a valid, distinct article. So I have reinstated it, but also rewritten it to keep the focus explicitly on the term "stakeholder." I have moved all material relating to Stakeholder theory to the article on Stakeholder theory. -- WikiPedant 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't totally follow the distinction between the two theories =/ Is the distinction that Stakeholder(Corporate) is a person/ organization and Stakeholder Theory is a theory involving stakeholders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.32.111 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Stakeholder theory is a distinct theory building on literature in the organizational behavior field that contends that corporate management of stakeholders can yield enhanced financial or organizational performance. It relies on literature defining stakeholders and stakeholder salience, but is not directly related otherwise. As a researcher studying stakeholder theory, I'd say separate topics.Schmittr (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A simple contribution...

Dear Colleagues,

About the origin of the concept of "Stakeholder", please see MITROFF, I. Stakeholders of The Organizational Mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1983. This concept might have appeared before 1984, since in Mitroff's text published in 1983, he states: " should students of organizations and those whom I call reflective managers be interested in such an approach and what does it promise to do for them? There are a number of responses to this question. The first is that whether or not it is liked, the modern large-scale corporation is buffeted by a growing disparate array of forces, many of which seem increasingly beyond its control. Along with many others, I call these forces stakeholders in contrast to the more limited term stockholder. stakeholders are all those interest groups, parties, actores, claimants, and institutions-both internal and external to the corporation-that exert a hold on it. That is, stakeholders are those parties who either affect or who are affected by a corporation's actions, behavior, and policies. Stakeholders typically comprise a much larger group than does the more limited class of claimants known as stockholders". This is a contribution offered for a reflexion.

Sicerely, ˜˜˜˜

The stakeholder concept dates back to the late 1700's, and can be traced through Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. Since that point, Adolf Berle, Gardiner Means, Chester Barnard and MANY others have worked to develop the idea of stakeholders and the underpinning theories (namely Strategic Management theory, Corporate Planning theory, Systems theory, Organization Theory, and Corporate Social Responsibility theory) into what Freeman used in Strategic Management, A Stakeholder Approach. From a temporal perspective, stakeholders and stakeholder theory are a lot older than we give them credit for! Schmittr (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Shareholder View?

This article says "In the traditional view of the firm, the shareholder view, the shareholders or stockholders are the owners of the company, and the firm has a binding fiduciary duty to put their needs first, to increase value for them." Is this a remark an attempt to reference stockholder theory? If so, can someone competent to do so please change the words "the shareholder view" to "stockholder theory" so that the intent is clear? I'm not a subject matter expert, just someone trying to untangle and understand this messy web of information. --Netsettler (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to understand and see a proper reference for the use of the word "traditional" in that same sentence, since a link to stockholder theory lands on the Friedman doctrine, and as far as I know (from Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr. in his book "The Betrayal of American Prosperity") that goes back only to 1970. He seems to imply something else prevailed before, which he attributes to Dean Edwin Gay of the Harvard Business School in 1908. I'm not sure if that was stakeholder theory or something else. But certainly it was not the Friedman doctrine. Alternatively, I'd think a word like "contemporary" rather than "traditional" might avoid a sense of it never having been otherwise, and at the same time acknowledge the status quo. Assuming I'm correct in understanding this to be the status quo. My lack of certainty on this is why I'm not editing the page itself. I'm hoping someone with more direct experience in this can address these confusions appropriately. I can mostly contribute questions here, not answers. Thanks. --Netsettler (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)