Search

With its normative underpinnings, stakeholder theory can be thought of as a philosophy of corporate or business ethics. Indeed, if we go back to its Scandinavian origins, to Rhenman and others in the 1960s, we find that the concept of the stakeholder has been subject to a constellation of normative and ethical questions. During this period, the idea developed that the notion of the stakeholder should be used to democratize business ethics, as the foundation stone of a more just and responsible corporate world. In the same way, the interest in corporate social responsibility mirrored the vision of the German unions of 1970–1980, with stakeholders participating in the management of the firm. Basically, business ethics has always been linked to the philosophy of stakeholder theory.

The term stakeholder (“partie prenante” in French) is used in different ways by specialists and members of the public. For the wider public, it is a generic term, equivalent to “citizen,” to anyone taking part in public life. For specialists, it refers to people who are not shareholders. In fact, “partie prenante” is an imperfect translation of the English stakeholder, literally the “holder” of a “stake.” Less literally, stakeholder means he, or she, who has a stake in something. More broadly, it means someone who participates or “takes part” in something (“prendre partie,” hence “partie prenante”). In English, the term stakeholder is a neologism which plays on the term stockholder (designating those who share the profits, including the shareholders). The term indicates that parties other than stockholders can have a say and that their stakes and interests in the activities of the firm should be recognized (Freeman and Reed 1983). It defines individuals and groups of individuals indispensible to the survival of the firm and who are either consulted or participate directly in decision-making processes or arbitrage. But from which point of view is the question of survival to be considered: from that of the firm or that of the stakeholder? It is for this reason that some Francophone authors prefer the term “partie interessee” (“interested party”) (Benseddik 2006) or “ayant droit” (“rights holder”) (Mercier 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, for the Swedish administrative research school of the 1960s, represented by Rhenman and Stymne (1965), the notion of the stakeholder is seen as reciprocal relationship in which a stakeholder is a group which depends on the firm in order to achieve its own objectives and on which the firm depends for its survival.

There have been so many studies on organization between the 1980s and 2010, borrowing from so many different sources, that it would be vain to attempt to demonstrate how stakeholder theory has attempted to appropriate or influence any given model. Nevertheless, 30 years were needed to jettison the evolutionist notion of the “one best way” in organization studies, a notion that can be traced from Max Weber to Henry Mintzberg. Stakeholder theory has contributed to this process of deconstruction. In effect, systemic approaches (other than Gestalt theory and theories related to Michel Crozier’s “concrete action system”) have cast the organization, and particularly the corporation, as an ensemble of independent parties articulated with a single objective in mind. Thus, the vast majority of studies produced in the field of organization studies have promoted an essentialist view of an entity focused on its own mode of functioning, describing a structure centered on determinants (Mintzberg 1979, 1983; Mintzberg et al. 1998). In this regard, the objectifiable and finite character of the organization suggests “a coordinating entity with identifiable frontiers functioning in a sustainable manner while at the same time attempting to achieve one or more objectives shared by the participants” (Robbins 1987). But structure is not appropriate to a fluid (and fundamentally plastic) conception of the organization based on stakeholders. Far from being a fortress founded on structural determinants, the organization is porous. And stakeholder theory dispenses with the biological and engineering foundations of systemic analysis, reconstructing the approach on properly managerial and political bases. With stakeholder theory, the study of organizations turns its attention to the notions of interest, the negotiation of issues, and the management of more or less stable relations both within and outside the organization. In this sense, the organization is a kind of “collectivity sharing one or more common interests and engaging in shared activities.” It is thus “a coalition of groups with variable interests which elaborates objectives by means of negotiation” (Scott 1987).

Strategy consists in making choices and taking decisions involving an organization while being aware of the interactions between the corporation, its environment, and its existing or potential resources. Linked to corporate policy, it is an activity which requires reflection and action. As practice, it “gradually constructs ensembles of opportunities and imagines trajectories of development in a rapidly changing and partially unpredictable environment” (Desreumeaux et al. 2009). As reflection, it “renders the world comprehensible, simplifying it with a view to facilitating action” (Desreumeaux et al. 2009). As such, it is praxeological reflection because it seeks efficacy and efficiency (yields and the relationship between assets and results) (Martinet et al. 1990). From the outset, stakeholder theory has cast itself as a practical and useful theory associated with strategy, as is demonstrated by both the oldest and most recent publications on the subject, those of Freeman and his co-authors: Stakeholder Theory, written by Phillipps and Freeman (2010); Stakeholder Theory: A State of the Art, coordinated by Freeman et al. (2010); The Handbook of Strategic Management, edited by Hitt et al. (2001); Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984); “Manager les parties prenantes” (1982); and Manager pour les parties prenantes: survie, reputation et succes (2007). To this list can be added the recent book by Wicks, Freeman and Werhane: Business Ethics: A Managerial Approach (2009). For the advocates of the theory, the managerial or strategic management approach encompasses planning, systems theory, corporate social responsibility, and organization theory.

Associating the concept of civil society with stakeholder theory has become a common practice. The point of view put forward here attribute paternity of the stakeholder theory essentially to Freeman as a strategic framework for business studies and practices (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 2001, 2004), as a strong framework for political and moral philosophy (1988, 1994, 1998), as an inescapable framework for business ethics (2000). In order to take into account the advancement bringing by Freeman, the intention of this article is to demonstrate the degree to which stakeholder theory can be considered as a theory of civil society, which in turn is a theory of business. The argument will be based on the following points: Stakeholder theory occupies an intermediate position between strategic management and political philosophy in that it presents a new form of sovereignty, the sovereignty of big business; Stakeholder theory is a strategic theory; whether it legitimises, relativises or neutralises the sovereignty of the firm, it conceptualises and situates it in relation to other models; Stakeholder theory can be understood as a theory of civil society for the 21st century but it cannot be a substitute for a civil society theory devised in the 19th century; Stakeholder theory can thus be considered as affording a strategic perspective that, although somewhat unfamiliar, serves as the foundation of business ethics.

Since Powell's work in 1966, it has generally been accepted that interfirm links between large drug companies and biotechnology SMEs have a positive impact on the RD while members of the second type base their approach on a clear division of labour between SMEs and large companies and are relatively favourable to normative constraints.

Talking about an ‘Anglo-American' model of CSR is akin to saying that one should aver that: 1° this is an organizational model, the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility being both a structuring question pertaining to the nature and circumstances that firm must contend with, and also a sign of their starting to shift their management focus from tasks to people. 2° at the very least it can be viewed as a culturalist interpretation, raising questions about comparative benchmarks (are we dealing with a ‘European' model here?) and about a form of censorship, seeing as the term ‘Anglo-American' (N. Trans. – a translation of the adjective ‘anglo-saxon' in the original French text) in fact highlights the American side.; Parler de modèle “ américain ” de la RSE, c'est donc indiquer que l'on doive penser : 1° qu'il s'agisse d'un modèle organisationnel, la question de la responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise étant à la fois une question structurante relative à la nature et aux circonstances auxquelles se trouvent confrontées les entreprises mais aussi le signe du passage de la focalisation de leur management sur les tâches à la focalisation sur les personnes. 2° qu'il puisse a minima entrer dans un cadre d'interprétation culturaliste et ce qui pose donc la question du référentiel comparatif, celui d'un modèle “ européen ” ici.