wildlifeprotection.info Art Stakeholder Theory The State Of The Art Pdf


Friday, April 26, 2019

Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Article (PDF Available) in The Academy of Management Annals 3(1) · June with 18, Stakeholder Theory. The State of the Art. R. Edward Freeman. Jeffrey S. Harrison. Andrew C. Wicks. Bidhan Parmar. Simone de Colle. The purpose of this chapter is to examine an approach to both business and business ethics that has come to be called “stakeholder theory.

Stakeholder Theory The State Of The Art Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, Dutch
Country:South Sudan
Genre:Health & Fitness
Published (Last):11.01.2016
ePub File Size:15.75 MB
PDF File Size:15.60 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: PARTHENIA

wildlifeprotection.info Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. BIDHAN L . PARMAR*. The Darden School of Business Administration, The University of. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Bidhan L. Parmar;,; R. Edward Freeman;,; Jeffrey S. Harrison;,; Andrew C. Wicks;,; Lauren Purnell;,; Simone de Colle. Cambridge Core - Strategic Management - Stakeholder Theory - by R. Edward Freeman. Stakeholder Theory. The State of the Art . PDF; Export citation.

Editorial team. General Editors: Jones , A. Edward Freeman. In Norman E. Bowie ed. Stakeholder Theory in Applied Ethics. Edit this record. Mark as duplicate. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. This entry has no external links. Add one. Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.

Configure custom resolver. A Communication View.

Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: Edward Freeman - - Journal of Business Ethics 1: Business Ethics as Self-Regulation: This involves asking two fundamental questions: first, what is the purpose of gene sequencing; second, for whose benefit was the sequencing undertaken. Saunders et al. Specifically, the aim of sequencing is to improve clinical outcomes for some newborns and to do so in a timely and cost-effective manner.

It is a necessary step to allow such testing to meet its primary goals in a timely and cost-effective way. The aim of this research is also deeply humanistic: by trying to find better ways to treat a critically ill newborn, researchers are providing a glimmer of hope in an otherwise desperate situation.

Navigation menu

But, the storage of sequences is done for more than just this primary goal and may aid in other research goals. Stakeholders must buy into and support those other goals or else they may become alienated from the entire project.

A next step in stakeholder management is to identify the individuals and groups who stand to benefit from WGS. There are numerous stakeholders for this rapid WGS research and include regulators, lab personal and hospital staff, public health authorities, device manufacturers and others.

But the key stakeholders, in the case of Soden et al. These researchers have a direct duty or moral obligation toward each of these primary stakeholders because these stakeholders are intimately tied with the diagnostic and clinical aims of rapid WGS research. Because the gene sequences are being retained, these primary stakeholders continue to have a vested interest in the way the sequences are used even after the original obligations have been met.

Research funders, such as the NIH, may or may not be included in these key stakeholders depending on the stipulations of the research protocol and grant. As such, the analysis of stored sequences is supererogatory and may not be funded by the original grant. In such instances the parents themselves are going to likely pay for the additional analysis without the aid of third parties. Researchers could, of course, amend their existing grants or seek new funding to pay for the analysis of stored genomes in which case they should ensure that the requirements of an external funder do not overwhelm the needs of other key stakeholders.

After articulating the purpose of the research and identifying primary stakeholders, researchers need to establish certain procedures that can guide transactions between these primary stakeholders and themselves. Researchers need to be clear about the answers to a number of questions.

How they will interact with these primary stakeholders on an ongoing basis? Minoja ; Freeman Answers to these questions will allow researchers to build a strategy that will allow research to continue toward its stated purposes while still allowing them to respond to new requests made by certain primary research stakeholders. After such an exercise, researchers should be better equipped to address the scenarios presented earlier.

For the rapid WGS, researchers may be justified in dismissing a request made by solely by parents e. Though parents are primary stakeholders, rapid WGS is being investigated as a clinical tool, not as a direct-to-consumer product. Researchers have yet to establish procedures for working directly with parents, making this type of expansion premature and inappropriate. Since the protocol for rapid WGS was built around using the treating physician as a liaison between the researchers and the parents, researchers are better suited to follow a similar format to address requests for further analysis.

In addition, since rapid WGS is specifically being investigated as an aid in diagnosis, physician requests that exceed this aim e. Similar to requests coming directly from parents, the research protocols for rapid WGS are simply not suited for returning such a wide range of genomic results.

Therefore, requests for further analysis made by a treating physician for a diagnostic purpose e. In deciding to fulfill some requests while ignoring others, researchers should not pit the desires of one group of stakeholders over those of other groups.

For example, they might encourage parents to enlist the help of a physician to act as a liaison between them and the researchers.

Stakeholder theory: The state of the art

In addition, researchers may not be able to fulfill certain requests right now, such as using WGS for family planning; however, researchers can still work with primary stakeholders to determine a timetable in which their request for family planning analysis could be addressed.

Finally, researchers need to be transparent as possible regarding why certain requests are being honors while other are not. Openly discussing how these decisions are made can help to build trust and avoid alienation.

The criteria for deciding which requests for further analysis ought to be considered should grow organically and pragmatically from current research practice. In this way, researchers and research stakeholders work together toward the benefit of all. Conclusions Drawing from stakeholder theory, this paper developed a series of questions that researchers can ask when determining whether to fulfill the request of a primary research stakeholder. While this paper applied these questions specifically to rapid WGS research, they can assist researchers conducting a variety of different research protocols address the changing needs of stakeholders.

Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Google Scholar Cornell B. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management , 16 1: Google Scholar Daft R. Organization theory and design , 7th ed. Google Scholar Davis K.

Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review , 2: Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the businessman owe to society?

The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Unrequited profits: The relationship of economic and stakeholder values to leadership and performance.

Google Scholar Dermer J. The strategic agenda: Accounting for issues and support. Google Scholar Dey P. Measuring the operational performance of intensive care units using the analytic hierarchy process approach. Google Scholar Dill W. Public participation in corporate planning: Long Range Planning , 8 1: Google Scholar DiMaggio P.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review , Google Scholar Dipboye R. Eight outrageous statements about HR science. Human Resource Management Review , Google Scholar Donaldson T. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics , Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review , Enhancing stakeholder practice: A particularized exploration of community. Business Ethics Quarterly , 16 1: Google Scholar Dyer J. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Google Scholar Elkington J. Cannibals with forks: Google Scholar Epstein E. The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness.

California Management Review , Google Scholar Evan W. In Ethical theory and business , Edited by: Beauchamp T. Bowie N. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar Fama E. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance , Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy , 88 2: Google Scholar Fischer E.

Stakeholder Theory as a Basis for Capitalism

The good, the bad and the unfamiliar: The challenges of reputation facing new firms. Google Scholar Fombrun C. Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal , 33 2: The role of stakeholders in integrating business into society. Managerial Auditing Journal , Google Scholar Frederick W. Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. Working Paper no. In Business and society: Dimensions of conflict and cooperation , Edited by: Sethi S.

Falbe C. Lexington, MA: Moving to CSR4: What to pack for the trip. Google Scholar Fredricksen H. Engineering Management , 52 3: Google Scholar Freeman R. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach , Boston: The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Divergent stakeholder theory. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics , 19 4: Corporate strategy and the search for ethics , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense.

Business Ethics Quarterly , 12 3: Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review , 25 3: Managing for stakeholders: Business in the 21st century , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. The state of the art , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar Friedman M. Capitalism and freedom , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Friedman S. Four ways to choose a CEO: Human Resource Management , 34 1: Google Scholar Frooman J. Stakeholder influence strategies. Balancing minerals development and environmental protection. Long Range Planning , 24 4: Google Scholar Garavan T. Stakeholders and strategic human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training , Google Scholar Ghonkrokta S.

Identification of role of social audit by stakeholders as accountability tool in good governance. Journal of Management Research , 7 1: Google Scholar Ghosal S. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.

Google Scholar Gibson K. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics , 26 3: Google Scholar Gioia D. Practicability, paradigms and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly , 1: Google Scholar Graves S.

Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Google Scholar Gray R. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Google Scholar Greening D.

Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Google Scholar Greenley G. Consumer and nonconsumer stakeholder orientation in U. Journal of Business Research , Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies , 34 2: Google Scholar Gregory A. Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: The communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management , Google Scholar Gregory R.

Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Google Scholar Guild WL.

Relative importance of stakeholders: Analyzing speech acts in layoff. Journal of Organizational Behavior , Google Scholar Harrison J.

[P.D.F] Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art by R. Edward Freeman

Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal , 31 1: John C.

Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders: Concepts and cases , St. Paul, MN: Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive , 10 2: Concepts and cases , 2nd ed. Google Scholar Hartman E. Organizational ethics and the good life , New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar Heller F. Leadership and power in a stakeholder setting. Google Scholar Hellriegel D. Organizational behavior , 9th ed. Google Scholar Hendry J. Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly , 11 1: Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review , 10 3: Google Scholar Hill C.

Journal of Management Studies , Google Scholar Humber J. Beyond stockholder and stakeholders: A plea for corporate moral autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics , 36 3: Google Scholar Hussain Z.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , Google Scholar Hutton W. Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar Ilinitch A. Measuring corporate environmental performance.

Google Scholar Istaitieh A. A literature review. Review of Financial Economics , Google Scholar Jackson J.

Prioritising customers and other stakeholders using the AHP. European Journal of Marketing , Google Scholar Jensen M. The evidence speaks loud and clear.

Harvard Business Review , 67 6: In Breaking the code of change , Edited by: Beer M. Nohria N. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.

Business Ethics Quarterly 12 2 , — Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics , 3: Google Scholar Jones R.

Managing the political context in PMS organizations. European Journal of Operational Research , Google Scholar Jones T. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined.

Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Convergent stakeholder theory. Implications of a stakeholder view on corporate reporting. Google Scholar Kale J. Corporate leverage and specialized investments by customers and suppliers. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance , Google Scholar Kaptien M. Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Google Scholar Karlsen J. Project stakeholder management.

Engineering Management Journal , Google Scholar Keasey K. Issues in corporate accountability and governance: An editorial. Google Scholar Keeney R.

Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Operations Research , 36 3: Google Scholar Khurana R. From higher aims to hired hands: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar Kochan T.Google Scholar Lamberg J. Google Scholar Kochan, T.

In Norman E. Forgot your username? Edward Freeman originally detailed the Stakeholder Theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization.

Jeffrey S. Beer M. This project extends across the spectrum of business ventures, including those involved in healthcare Gilmartin and Freeman Management Communication Quarterly ,

NATHANAEL from Irvine
I love reading novels kiddingly. Look over my other articles. One of my extra-curricular activities is arm wrestling.