Search

Stakeholder scholars have long explored how stakeholder relationships differ from economic transactions. We contribute to this ongoing inquiry by developing a conceptual framework of relationality in stakeholder theory that encompasses a stakeholder‐theoretic extension of Williamson's contracting schema and a new typology of stakeholder relationships. Premised on understanding relationality as the need for informal human relationships beyond formal governance, our framework locates the key difference between transaction cost economics and stakeholder theory in their treatment of informal relationships. While transaction cost economics perceives informal relationships to be shaped by formal governance structures and enforced by contractual safeguards, stakeholder theory is open to the possibility that some informal relationships between stakeholders may be genuinely moral and thus irreducible to formal governance and contractual safeguards. These stakeholder relationships may lead to unique economic effects described by instrumental stakeholder theory. The difference that we identified between the two literatures shows how stakeholder theory's embrace of relationality surpasses that of transaction cost economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This conceptual paper explores the surprising impact exerted by third elements on the escalation and de‐escalation of conflicts in business families. To this end, we draw on core concepts of Batesonian cybernetic theory to perform a reconceptualisation of pertinent literature on changing conflict dynamics gathered in family business research and consultancy. Based on this reconceptualisation, we identify explanations and key mechanisms for the impact of third elements on conflict dynamics. Our study thus contributes to research at the interface of family business research, conflict research and cybernetic theory development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern stakeholder theory is premised on the 'integration thesis', according to which business and ethics constitute an inseparable unity. For many management scholars, this thesis raised the difficult question of how far business can pursue ethical goals without losing its functional autonomy. We address this question by interpreting the integration thesis as the Luhmannian 'unity of difference' of business and ethics. This interpretation allows business and ethics to remain conceptually distinct, yet takes their very distinction to constitute a logical and dialectical unity as envisioned by the integration thesis. To justify this interpretation, we draw on the Luhmannian systems theory which accentuates the precariousness of the environment faced by business corporations, and on process philosophy which underscores the unique human capacity to navigate this precariousness by following social norms of ethical behaviour. We argue that a key prerequisite of successful stakeholder management is the activation of this human capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]