Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Concept of stakeholder theory
The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Concept of stakeholder theory
which fosters socially responsible companies committed to the development of society (Kemp, 2011; Kemp & Vanclay, 2013; Wettstein, 2009).
Despite the volumes of documents from the United Nations discussing the responsibilities of states, international organizations, and global corporations; traditionally international law has played a very weak role in protecting human rights (Graham & Ngaire, 2006; Wheeler, 2015). Although governments have agreed to enforce international law by holding corporations accountable for human rights abuses, they have had difficulties because of the complex structure of the international legal system. Specifically, government officials have faced challenges pursuing remedies over the objection of states who argue
…show more content…
One most common application, as evidenced in the literature, is treating stakeholder theory as a social contract; a framework for defining business ethics and social responsibility (Bernaz, 2013; Orts & Strudler, 2010). Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997, 2015) were the first to divide stakeholders into classes; as power, legitimacy, and urgency. In Mitchell et al.’s (1997, 2015) view power is a stakeholder’s ability to influence the behavior of others. Legitimacy is described as the perceived validity of a stakeholder’s rightful claim in the organization. Urgency is the degree to which a stakeholder’s position in the organization commands immediate attention. Using the three classes of stakeholders, Mitchell et al. defined seven categories of stakeholders and one non-stakeholder based on a combination of classes. For instance, a non-stakeholder is one who does not possess power, legitimacy, or urgency. A dormant stakeholder is unable to impose change on the corporation due to lack of legitimacy or
Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9 (3): 225-256.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
The current century has witnessed immense improvement and re-conceptualization of standards and sovereignty of human rights in Latin America. With the endemic repression and violations of human rights throughout Latin American in the mid to late 20th century, the International human rights regime, an amalgam of international and intergovernmental organizations and bodies, expanded exponentially. By conducting investigations within certain countries, or simply monitoring overt violations of human rights, the international human rights regime stimulated global awareness of violations of human rights in different countries; soon to follow was change in domestic policy in response to international policy. This also led to increased opposition by domestic NGOs against repressive governments or dictatorships largely responsible for human rights violations. Just as well, a number of organizations and groups aided domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their growing efforts to establish judicial practices that better protected human rights. Declarations, conventions, and charters, established a number of values that served as the credo for the organizations that constituted the international human rights regime. Over time, more and more countries were pressured and held accountable for these values, which developed into universal standards for human rights practices. Thus the International Human right regime and the pressure they imposed upon governments ultimately resulted in widespread positive changes in human rights.
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
Hence, the stakeholders which are described as those who are affected by the organisation performance ,actions and duties and those actions includes employees, clients, local community and investors as well. The theory of stakeholders also suggests that it is the responsibility of firm to make sure no rights of stakeholders are dishonoured and make decisions in the interest of stakeholders which is also the purpose of stakeholder theory to make more profit and balancing it while considering its stakeholders (Freeman 2008 pp. 162-165). In the other words organisation must also operates in a more socially accountable approach by carrying out corporate social responsibility as (CSR) activities.
Ciulla, J. B., Martin, C. W., & Solomon, R. C. (2007). Is "The Social Responsibility of Business... to Increase Its Profits"? Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory. Honest work: a business ethics reader (pp. 217-253). New York: Oxford University Press.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian
...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) “calls for corporations to be more accountable to the multiple groups who constitute them and/or are directly impacted by their actions,” which aligns with Freeman 's view that managers are responsible to all groups that affect or are affected by the company 's actions (Menser, p60). There are three ways of being socially responsible: the stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility (ST CSR), the civil society model of corporate social responsibility (CS CSR) and the solidarity economic view (SE). Although all these models will achieve CSR in different ways, the SE model will benefit more stakeholders than the other two, while the ST CSR fails in comparison to the other two.
Stakeholders are individuals, groups, and organisations with the power to influence the delivery of an organisation’s strategy and thus the organisation’s performance and/or a significant interest in an organisation’s strategy and thus the organisation’s performance (Wisniewski, 2001; Ackermann & Eden, 2011). In the context of the draft BSC to be developed, however, the analysis shall focus on relatively aggregated stakeholder groups. Firstly, the aim of this stakeholder analysis is not to pinpoint individual persons as stakeholders who may then be managed more easily than large organisations, but to identify rather broad stakeholder groups interested in Zara’s performance. Secondly, addressing
Stakeholders are those groups or individual in society that have a direct interest in the performance and activities of business. The main stakeholders are employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, financiers and the local community. Stakeholders may not hold any formal authority over the organization, but theorists such as Professor Charles Handy believe that a firm’s best long-term interests are served by paying close attention to the needs of each of these stakeholders. The modern view is that a firm has responsibilities to all its stakeholders i.e. everyone with a legitimate interest in the company. These include shareholders, competitors, government, employees, directors, distributors, customers, sub-contractors, pressure groups and local community. Although a company’s directors owes a legal duty to the shareholders, they also have moral responsibilities to other stakeholder group’s objectives in their entirely. As a firm can’t meet all stakeholders’ objectives in their entirety, they have to compromise. A company should try to serve the needs of these groups or individuals, but whilst some needs are common, other needs conflict. By the development of this second runway, the public and stakeholders are affected in one or other way and it can be positive and negative.
The next, major international business issue is human rights. In many nations today basic human rights are not respected. In much of the developed world are basics rights are taken for granted such as freedom of speech, or freedom of movement. It is often questioned by the international business world if we should...
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the discourse of international human rights and its importance has increasingly become indoctrinated in the international community. In the context of political and economic development, there have been debates on how and which rights should be ordered and protected throughout different cultures and communities. Though there is a general acceptance of international human rights around the globe, there is an approach that divides them into civil and political rights and social and economic rights, which puts emphasis where it need not be.
Social sustainability is “identifying and managing business impact, both positive and negative, on people.” The quality of a company’s relationships and engagement will directly or indirectly “affect what happens to employees, workers in the value chain, customers and local communities” (Wynhoven). This definition focuses on the importance of sustainable relationships. It focuses on the social aspect, which can be good helping to determine what social sustainability looks like. The UN definition makes it clear that it is important to manage the corporation’s impact proactively so that employees, customers, and local communities all benefit from a corporation’s presence. BMW is an excellent example of a corporation that focuses on social sustainability. BMW promotes exchange between refugees, local youth, and BMW employees through a neighborhood project called “Lifetalk” which aims “to give young people a better idea of possible career paths” (BMW). These actions come from the company’s beliefs and goals. BMW states that “taking social and environmental responsibility for everything we do is an integral part of how we perceive ourselves as a company. We are convinced that the lasting economic success of any enterprise these days is based increasingly on acting responsibly and ensuring social acceptance” (BMW). BMW believes that sustainability is an