J Bus Ethics (2017) 142:437–459
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical
Evaluation of Definitions
Samantha Miles1
Received: 3 December 2014 / Accepted: 26 June 2015 / Published online: 8 July 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Stakeholder theory is widely accepted but ele-
mentary aspects remain indeterminate as the term ‘stake-
holder’ is an essentially contested concept (Miles, J Bus Ethics
108:285–298, 2012; Mitchell, Organ Stud 33:1407–1411,
2012), being variously describable, internally complex and
open in character (Gallie, Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198,
1956). Such contestability is highly problematic for theory
development and empirical testing. The extent of essential
contestability, previously unknown, is demonstrated in this
paper through a bounded systematic review of 593 different
stakeholder theory definitions. As an essentially contested
concept, the solution does not lie in a universal stakeholder
definition, but in debating the boundaries of stakeholder
identification. To this end, this paper presents the first major
attempt at sorting, filtering and ordering stakeholder theory
and stakeholder definitions to produce a comprehensive,
multi-dimensional classification of stakeholder theory. The
constructs of the classification model juxtapose existing
stakeholder theories and contributions from across the multi-
contextual applications of stakeholder theory, thereby pro-
viding an invaluable overview of what we know about
stakeholder theory in one model. The classification model is
then tested with positive results. The paper concludes with a
comprehensive discussion of the implications of classification
stakeholder theory definitions, which has for future research.
Keywords Classification
Essentially contested
concepts
Stakeholder classification
Stakeholder
definitions
Stakeholder identification
Stakeholder theory
& Samantha Miles
svmiles@brookes.ac.uk
1
The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley
Campus, Oxford OX33 1HX, UK
Introduction
Stakeholder theory is not a single theory per se but an
amalgamation of eclectic narratives (Gilbert and Rasche
2008) which has emerged from, and is subject to, multiple
interpretations and applications from business ethics and
corporate social responsibility to strategic management,
corporate governance and finance. Within, and between,
these narratives, widely different conceptualisations of
‘what is a stakeholder?’ have emerged as different defi-
nitions are generated to serve different purposes (Freeman
et al. 2010), each focusing on attributes that are relevant to
context. Whilst this profusion of stakeholder definitions is
indicative of the richness of stakeholder theory and its
widespread appeal resulting in multi-contextual applica-
tions, theorists recognise that this is also highly problem-
atic. Stoney and Winstanley (2001, pp. 605–606), for
example, argued that ‘‘…there is considerable confusion
arising from the multitude of conflicting views [and]…
failure to recognize and map this diversity has weakened
rather than strengthened the stakeholder concept’’. A
decade later, Crane and Ruebottom (2011, p. 77) main-
tained that the concept ‘‘has remained vague and superfi-
cial, limiting the theory’s use …and running the risk that
‘‘stakeholder’’ will become a meaningless term’’. In a
similar vein, Fassin (2009, pp. 116–117) advocated that
‘‘The stakeholder model is seen as suffering from vague-
ness in scope and ambiguity due to the possible interpre-
tations of the basic stakeholder concept’’.
In short, the richness of stakeholder theory is also a
central weakness: Conceptual confusion detracts from
theory development (Freeman et al. 2010; Kaler 2002) and
hinders practical application and uptake (Thomasson
2009). The problem of conceptual confusion has been used
to discredit stakeholder theory across the multifarious
123
438
disciplines that have embraced it: for corporate gover-
nance, Sternberg (1997) identified conceptual confusion as
a core defect; for business ethics, Orts and Strudler (2009,
p. 606) found substantive weaknesses relating to ‘‘identi-
fication and definition’’ and ‘‘vagueness and overbreadth’’
and; as an economic theory of the firm due to criticisms of
‘‘the explanatory logic for the relationships under obser-
vation’’ (Key 1999, p. 321).
Numerous calls (e.g. Friedman and Miles 2006;
Greenwood and De Cieri 2006; Kaler 2003; Starik 1995)
have been made by academics wishing to advance stake-
holder theory to address this conceptual contestability, ‘‘to
pare down and refine what we mean by stakeholders if the
term is to prove helpful at a conceptual level or at a
practical level’’ (Freeman et al. 2010, p. 208). This is an
important endeavour, as it is by defining what is and what
is not a stakeholder that we create the reality of whose
interests are, and are not, attended to and, in turn, dis-
criminate what is, and is not, empirically tested by aca-
demics, attended to by managers or regulated in practice.
Stakeholder theory is now entering maturity (Laplume
et al. 2008): It is over 30 years since Freeman (1984)
published his seminal text and thousands of academic
articles have since contributed to this field. Whilst this
profusion is testimony to the appeal of stakeholder theory it
is time to take stock of how stakeholder theory has
developed and how it should develop in future for both
business ethics and strategic management. This paper aims
to provide structure and order to this confusion through an
in-depth conceptual enquiry into the central stakeholder
concept that will distinguish between multi-contextual
narratives: to develop and test, using empirical data, a
classification of stakeholder theory definitions.
A classification system will aid scientific thought,
analysis and practical application. By providing the much
needed clarification, it will reduce extant contestability
through sorting, filtering and ordering this complex field of
enquiry. This will sharpen description and analysis for
future researchers by providing guidance on definitional
boundaries within genres of definitions.
This paper presents a systematic, multi-dimensional
classification of stakeholder theory definitions. The pro-
posed classification is based on the theory of classification
and is informed by a comprehensive bounded systematic
review of stakeholder theory and stakeholder definitions to
extract, collate and analyse the attributes that are
acknowledged by the literature to be sufficient or necessary
conditions for stakeholder identification. Overwhelming
593 different instantiations, evident from 885 published
stakeholder definitions, were identified from the systematic
review, indicating that the extent of contestability has been
significantly understated. The proposed classification
model is tested with positive effect, using empirical data
123
S. Miles
derived through the analysis of 9201 data points, generated
from the 885 definitions1.
Stakeholder theory and the stakeholder concept are
acknowledged to be not just ambiguous or confused but
Essentially Contested Concepts (Miles 2012; Mitchell
2012) according to the philosophy of Gallie (1956). This
has significant implications for the classification approach
to be adopted so this paper starts with an overview of
essentially contested concepts. Classification categories
should be created a priori to application as the filters used
in the construct should, first and foremost, be informed by
theory. This includes the theory of classification as well as
stakeholder theory, so this paper proceeds with a brief
review of classification theory, types of classification sys-
tems and an examination of existing stakeholder schema-
tisations. This is followed by an overview of the methods
adopted for the conceptual enquiry, based on a bounded
systematic review. The research involved analysing the
constructs of stakeholder definitions, so that differentiating
variables are identified from a consideration of recognised,
acknowledged and disputed factors impacting the nature
and form of the stakeholder–organisation relationship. The
determinants and attributes of stakeholder identification
that emerged from the data are discussed, filtered and
sorted according to the focus of analysis adopted by the
originator of the definition.
Stakeholder–organisation relationships can be analysed
from the perception of management, the stakeholder or
both (Sachs and Maurer 2009), with each perspective
giving rise to an array of necessary or sufficient conditions
for stakeholder status, or characteristics associated with
organisation–stakeholder relationships. These variables
form the classification sorting framework. Next, four pro-
posed hyponyms of a stakeholder (Claimants, Influencers,
Recipients and Collaborators) and 16 sub-classes are pre-
sented and discussed. The resulting typology is tested with
positive results. The paper concludes with implications of
this classification for future stakeholder theory research.
‘Stakeholder’ as an Essentially Contested Concept
Stakeholder theory and the stakeholder concept are con-
sidered to be essentially contested concepts according to
the philosophy of Gallie (1956) (Choi and Majumdar 2014;
1
The focus of this paper is on the creation and presentation of a new
classification model of stakeholder definitions, based on an essen-
tialist approach to classification derived from empirical observation
and tested with empirical data. Due to the nature of essentialism such
empirical investigation cannot take the form of a pure statistical
enquiry as precise factor coefficients are unfeasible and inappropriate.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
Lehmann 2013; Miles 2012; Mitchell 2012; Teklemariama
et al. 2015). Essential contestability is not the same as
ambiguity or conceptual confusion. Essentially contested
concepts have two levels of meaning (Jacobs 2006). At the
first level of meaning the essence of the concept, or the
‘common core’ (Swanton 1985) is agreed upon as ‘‘even
people holding widely different views agree what the sub-
ject is when using a certain term, as there are no other
terms expressing the same set of core ideas’’ (Miles 2012,
p. 286). Contestability occurs at the second level of
meaning concerning the detailed specification or interpre-
tation of how the concept should be interpreted in practice.
Contestability exists at this second level because of the
different ‘‘weightings given to various components of a
concept, according to the ideology and social positioning
of the definer’’ (Miles 2012, p. 288).
An essentially contested concept must meet five neces-
sary conditions (Gallie 1956): it must be (1) appraisive in
nature; (2) internally complex in character; (3) variously
describable; (4) open in character in that it is subject to
considerable modification in the light of changing cir-
cumstances and (5) used aggressively and defensively as
each party contest the instantiations of others and, in turn,
recognise that their instantiations are similarly contested.
Miles (2012) clearly outlines the areas of dispute, provid-
ing a plethora of examples in relation to all necessary and
sufficient conditions of stakeholder recognition.
Such disputes are not semantic disputations but sub-
stantive political arguments (Jacobs 2006). With respect to
‘who are the stakeholders?’ Starik (1995), for example,
advocated a far left perspective, ‘any naturally occurring
entity’, in a political attempt to promote the environment as
a corporate stakeholder. This is wider than a typical busi-
ness ethics perspective which restricts stakeholders to those
‘‘to whom the organization has a moral obligation’’ (Phil-
lips 2003, p. 30) and contrasts sharply with the perspective
of stakeholder management as a strategic endeavour, such
as ‘‘those groups without whose support the organization
would cease to exist’’ (SRI, 1963). Likewise, it is clear that
a different set of stakeholders will result if the form of the
stake in the definition adopted is restricted to a contract
(Cornell and Shapiro 1987), a risk (Clarkson 1994) or a
claim (Evan and Freeman 1988) as opposed to an interest
(Carroll 1989) which may even be implicit (Donaldson and
Preston 1995) or moral (Langtry 1994).
Gallie (1956) also proposed two justifying conditions to
differentiate essentially contested concepts from those that
are ‘radically confused’. Firstly, that the concept has
derived from an original exemplar whose authority is
acknowledged. This condition is met by stakeholder theory
which has a recognised and sustained original exemplar in
Freeman (1984). The second justifying condition is that
‘‘The probability or plausibility, in appropriate senses of
439
these terms, of the claim that the continuous competition
for acknowledgement as between contestant users of the
concept, enables the original exemplar’s achievement to be
sustained and/or developed in optimum fashion’’ (Gallie
1956, p. 180). Optimal development relates to the ability to
sharpen the analytic framework over time.
Recognition of stakeholder theory and the stakeholder
concept as essentially contested is the first step required
for optimal development. The stakeholder concept is, and
will remain, subject to continued debate because stake-
holder theory is an amalgamation of eclectic narratives
(Gilbert and Rasche 2008), but unlike uncontested con-
cepts, further debate will not necessarily lead to greater
clarity unless there is a demarcation of boundaries that
delineate different genres of definitions stemming from
these narratives. For an essentially contested concept,
arguments about the best instantiation of the construct can
be perfected but never resolved. Universal conceptual
consensus is not achievable (Miles 2012) as different
political values and interests stemming from the differ-
ences in ideology and social positioning associated with
particular narratives prevent agreement beyond the first
level of meaning of the concept. For an essentially con-
tested concept refinement can neither be resolved by
‘‘appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the
canons of logic alone’’ (Gray 1977, p. 344), but must be
sought through refinement of the analytical, theoretical
and conceptual framework, working towards improve-
ments in the quality of arguments with a greater aware-
ness and understanding of one’s arguments and how these
relate to the narratives of others. It is important that
divergent voices with their varying interests are identifi-
able (Miles 2012), for contributors to acknowledge their
conceptual foundations and for contributors with similar
interests to be consistently aligned, so that they ‘‘can
work towards creating a similar voice’’ (Miles 2012,
p. 294).
In summary, stakeholder theory has suffered from the
essential contestability of its central concept (Miles 2012;
Mitchell 2012), but, unlike ambiguous or confused con-
cepts, further debate will not ensure agreement of a uni-
versally accepted stakeholder definition. Improvements are,
nonetheless, achievable and will ensure that the theory
develops in an optimal fashion to enable a deeper under-
standing of organisations in stakeholder terms (Freeman
et al. 2010). Optimal development can be achieved through
further clarification enabling demarcation of boundaries of
genres of definitions stemming from the diverse narratives
involved. The recognition of the stakeholder concept as an
essentially contested concept has important implications
for the type of classification system adopted and subse-
quently developed, and such implications are considered
next with reference to the theory of classification systems.
123
440
Classification Systems
Classification systems aid scientific enquiry and sharpen
description and analysis (Nobes 1983) by providing clari-
fication from sorting a complex field of enquiry. Based on
an ordering and grouping of similarities, classification
systems should provide guidance on definitional bound-
aries, reduce diversity into manageable classes, provide
explanations for all aspects of diversity, offer insight into
the development of the field and encourage debate about
the ‘correct’ form of classification.
The Nature and Form of Classification
There are a number of classification approaches, with
‘essentialism’ and ‘overall similarity’ at the extremes.
‘Overall similarity’ typically involves factor analysis of
similarities through the construction of a matrix of corre-
lation coefficients (see morphological structuring as used in
the classification of economic (Adelman and Morris 1965)
and accounting (Nair and Frank 1980) systems). The
assignation of precise factor coefficients implies that cat-
egories are mutually exclusive, as the boundaries become,
by virtue, immutable and decisive. This is not so with
stakeholder definitions. A widely held stakeholder attribute
is legitimacy, but the notion of legitimacy is debated, with
widely different views promoted which could be ordered
along a continuum. It is, however, impossible to derive a
linear scale for legitimacy given that: (1) The extremes of
the continuum are debated (e.g. implicit–explicit, moral-
contractual, objective–perceived, or direct–indirect); (2)
The taxonomic distance between factors is indeterminate
(e.g. contractual legitimacy, derivative legitimacy (Phillips
2003) and moral legitimacy are unlikely to be equidistance
along a scale) and (3) Weighting of factors is subjective:
should weightings be proportionally assigned to the level
of acceptance or degree of contentiousness of a factor?
Should a higher score be attributed to normative or to
derivative legitimacy? ‘Overall similarity’ approach is
rejected for these reasons.
At the other extreme is essentialism, attributed to Aris-
totle (384–322 BC), and applied to accounting (Nobes
1983) and politics (Almond 1956). Essentialism requires
conceptualisation of ‘what it is to be an object’: the core
function of the object (Roberts 1995). As an essentially
contested concept, there is agreement at the first, or core
level, that the essence of a stakeholder is the organization-
stakeholder relationship (Jones and Wicks 1999).2 Phillips
2
Jones and Wicks stressed that the core assumptions of stakeholder
theory are that it is a managerial (not ethical) theory which recognises
that organisations engage in relationships with many groups and, that
stakeholder theory focuses on these relationships in terms of
processes and results for the organisation and the stakeholder.
123
S. Miles
(2003, p. 32) argued that an actor cannot be a stakeholder
‘‘without being in actual relationship with the firm …A
stakeholder theory that requires a manager to consider
those with whom the organization has no relationship
bends too far toward comprehensiveness to the detriment of
usefulness’’. ‘Being in a relationship’ was explicitly high-
lighted in a third of the 885 definitions reviewed, but
implicitly acknowledged by the majority of theorists.
Organisations and stakeholders are tied together, regardless
of whether only one party acknowledges this, and it is this
tie that forms the essence of a stakeholder (Donaldson and
Preston 1995). Ultimately, to be afforded stakeholder sta-
tus, a relationship must exist.
Aristotle argued that the essence of an object cannot be
located in physical attributes, as these are ephemeral. For
stakeholder theory this relates to transient factors such as
resource dependency, power, legitimacy etc. Essential
contestability occurs at the second level of meaning, that is,
the detailed specification or how the concept should be
interpreted in practice (Jacobs 2006; Swanton 1985) with
disagreements over such derivative factors or determinants.
The adoption of an essentialist approach enables the cre-
ation of a typology which accommodates the different
objectives involved in defining an essentially contested
concept and permits the identification of a range of genres
of stakeholder theory, whilst acknowledging that these
genres are differentiated by a wide range of derivative
attributes, as identified by stakeholder theorists. The con-
vergence, diffusion, complexity and proximity of concepts
can be accommodated through multi-dimensional scaling
using cluster analysis, which permits categories to overlap
and combine, as illustrated by Hofstede’s (1984) classifi-
cation of cultural dimensions, and the classification of
marketing (Solomon and Buchanan 1991) and financial
reporting (Nair and Frank 1980). It has also been applied to
stakeholder engagement (Vazquez-Brust et al. 2010)3.
‘Classification Systems’ in Stakeholder Theory
Simple dichotomous groupings are common in the stake-
holder literature, such as Freeman and Reed’s (1983) dif-
ferentiation between ‘wide’ and ‘narrow’ stakeholder
definitions, Savage et al.’s (1991) ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’
stakeholders as well as active/passive (Mahoney 1994),
3
Not all essentialist approaches are applicable to a classification of
stakeholder theory definitions. For example, dimensioning, associated
with the periodic table of chemical elements, and hierarchal
systematising, associated with the Linnaean biological classification
system, and used in the classification of financial reporting systems
(Nobes 1983; Seidler 1967) require absolute, mutually exclusive
categories which fail to recognise convergence and diffusion of
concepts as evident in Kaler’s (2003) ‘combinatory’ stakeholder
definitions.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
core-fringe/peripheral (Hart and Sharma 2004), voluntary/
involuntary (Clarkson 1995), moral/strategic, (Goodpaster
1991), normative/derivative (Phillips 2003) and primary/
public (Luoma and Goodstein 1999). Multiple distinctions
have also been suggested by Friedman and Miles (2002)
(necessary–contingent/compatible–incompatible), Sirgy (2002)
(internal/external/distal), Fassin (2009) (stakeholder/stake-
watcher/stakekeeper), Vazquez-Brust et al. (2010) (institu-
tional/organisational/social), Post et al. (2002) (resource-
based/industry structure-based/socio-political-based) and
Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) (organisational/community/
regulatory/media). Sachs and Maurer (2009) proposed four
stakeholder categories, differentiated according to stakeholder
position in the wealth creation process. Both managerial
(benefit or risk providers) and stakeholder perspectives (benefit
receivers or risk bearers) are incorporated. This is an important
consideration for stakeholder classification as the stakeholder–
organisation relationship exists, regardless of whether it is
perceived by management, the stakeholder or both. One major
drawback of simple typologies is the inability to assess rela-
tional attributes such as proximity, connection, co-dependence,
or mutual exclusivity, as most imply an either/or categorisation
rather than a subtle mix of variables. Whilst too simplistic to
warrant the label ‘classification’ per se, these distinctions
represent ideas about structuring, ordering and filtering and
relate to the range of stakeholder determinants in the devel-
opment of a more intricate methodology.
A couple of more sophisticated systematisations exist.
Mitchell et al.’s (1997) model of stakeholder salience,
which sorted stakeholders according to the presence of the
attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, is the most
prominent schema (Heaton et al. 2012). Derived from an
analysis of 27 stakeholder definitions, stakeholders are
categorised as definitive, dependent, dangerous, dominant,
discretionary, demanding, dormant. Whilst this is not a
classification of definitions there are beneficial elements for
classification, such as attribute determination and the
recognition of convergence of attributes. Mainardes et al.
(2012) developed a categorisation of six stakeholder types
(regulator, controller, partner, passive, dependent and non-
stakeholder) based on Mitchell et al.’s (1997) framework.
They used factor analysis on empirical data to assess
whether stakeholders ‘only influenced’, ‘influence and
influenced’, ‘do not influence’ and ‘are not influenced’.
Relevance, mutual influence and participation were found
to be central variables in explaining the organisation–
stakeholder relationship. Again, this is a useful reference
but for a comprehensive classification further consideration
of the wider range of boundary conditions for stakeholder
identification beyond influence is required.
Only one stakeholder theory definition classification
exists. Kaler (2002) advocated that all definitions can be
classified as ‘claimant’ (requiring some sort of claim on the
441
services of a business) ‘influencer’ (requiring only a
capacity to influence the working of the business) or
‘combinatory’ definitions (capturing both attributes). Kaler
provided a good starting point for analysing boundaries
around stakeholder types. This model, however, overlooks
many determinants as the constructs were only based on
the 27 definitions from Mitchell et al. (1997). Many defi-
nitions that emphasise interaction (Maignan et al. 2005),
exchange relationships (Laan et al. 2008), firm-specific
investment (Schneper and Guillén 2004) or merely rela-
tionships (Thompson et al. 1991)4 are unclassifiable as they
refer neither to any influence, nor explicitly to any claims,
but imply that a stakeholder identification can be based on
collaborative activities. Likewise, risk-based definitions
such as Clarkson (1994) are unclassifiable under Kaler’s
model as a risk is not the same as a claim (Phillips 1999).
In summary, simple distinctions between stakeholder
types have been proposed but only three examples are evi-
dent in which any empirical data, albeit limited, has been
used to determine typologies (Kaler 2002; Mitchell et al.
1997; Mainardes et al. 2012). A systematic, robust and
comprehensive multi-dimensional classification of stake-
holder theory definitions does not currently exist and is the
major contribution of this paper. The typology proposed is
based on an essentialist approach to classification derived
from empirical observation. Essentialism requires concep-
tualisation of ‘what it is to be an object’: for an essentially
contested concept, this corresponds with the core function of
the object agreed upon at the ‘first level,’ i.e. the essence of a
stakeholder is the organisation-stakeholder relationship. The
political disagreements at the ‘second level’ are the neces-
sary and sufficient conditions for stakeholder recognition
and will form the determinants of the classification model.
An essentially contested concept is variously describable
(Gallie 1956), whereby different appraisers afford different
weightings to various aspects of the concept, depending on
the ideology and social positioning of the definer. It is,
therefore, important to adopt an approach which permits
recognition of the convergence of concepts rather than
defining absolute categories of stakeholders, as is the case in
essentialism.
Methods
Bounded Systematic Review Methodology
In developing a classification, categories should be created
a priori to application as the filters used in the construct
4
Thompson et al. (1991) was included in the Mitchell et al. (1997)
paper, upon which Kaler (2002) based his analysis. It is not evident
how Kaler classified this definition as this paper was not referenced.
123
442
should, first and foremost, be informed by theory. For an
essentially contested concept one must start with a review
of the extent of the contestability, so that differentiating
variables can be identified from a consideration of recog-
nised, acknowledged and disputed factors impacting the
nature and form of the stakeholder–organisation relation-
ship and therefore how stakeholders are defined. As an
essentially contested concept, stakeholders have been
defined in countless ways, and this is acknowledged in the
literature, for example, Mitchell et al. (1997) identified 27
different definitions, Friedman and Miles (2006) listed 55
definitions and Laplume et al. (2008) referred to 104
alternative instantiations. For a typology that can withstand
the rigour of empirical application the data used in its
construction must be comprehensive. Comprehensiveness
is only achievable through a systematic review of the lit-
erature relevant, in this instance, to the question ‘what is a
stakeholder?’
The starting point for determining the extent of the
essential contestability of the stakeholder concept was to
define an explicit research protocol and objective: To
establish the range of stakeholder definitions using a
review of works which have ‘stakeholder(s)’ in the title,
published in high quality academic management journals,
prior to 2012. It is clear from the precise manner in which
this research objective has been expressed that there are
five filters imposed on the review; hence, it is ‘bounded’:
(i) Only academic journal articles are considered.
Seminal definitions from books (e.g. Freeman
1984), conference papers (e.g. Brenner 1993),
working papers (e.g. Emshoff and Freeman 1978),
memos (e.g. SRI 1963) and articles falling outside
the research protocol are captured through cita-
tions within the database.
(ii) The title of the article must contain ‘stake-
holder(s)’ to facilitate an electronic search.5
Multiple databases were searched to overcome
issues of different indexing and source data.
EBSCO Host electronic journals services, Emer-
ald fulltext, Bids.ac.uk IngentaConnect and, Busi-
ness Source Complete were used.
(iii) Only mainstream ‘business’ journals are consid-
ered covering the disciplines of accounting, busi-
ness ethics, corporate environmental management,
corporate governance, finance, marketing, human
resource management, strategy, operations and
information systems.6
5
Any seminal definitions included in articles that do not have
‘stakeholder(s)’ in the title are heavily cited in those that do and so are
not excluded from analysis (e.g. Stoney and Winstanley 2001).
123
S. Miles
(iv) Only ‘high quality’ journals were reviewed.
Quality was defined using the parameter estab-
lished by Harzing’s (2013) journal quality list
which is based on a consolidation of 22 journal
rankings7 of almost 1000 business journals.
Selection for consideration within the review is
based on the criterion that at least one of the 22
ranking systems judged the journal under consid-
eration to be an ‘international’ academic journal.
(v) Publication prior to 2012. The review stops at
2012 due to the significant time and resources
taken to complete this review and associated
research, as detailed in the process below.8
This bounded systematic review generated a list of 5434
articles for consideration. These were then filtered for
duplication and errors (n = 2706), relevance (n = 891)
and quality (n = 1170). This process returned 667 aca-
demic articles for consideration.
Extraction of Definitions
The 667 articles identified were sourced and read to extract
the definition(s) of stakeholder cited. Not all authors define
a stakeholder and not all definitions presented were inclu-
ded in the analysis. There are a number of ways in which
definitions can be expressed, for example by referring to
characteristics of what is, or is not a stakeholder, providing
synonyms of stakeholders or providing examples of
stakeholder groups (e.g. Woodward et al. 1996). For the
determination of a classification of stakeholder theory
definitions, examples of stakeholder groups are not inter-
esting as these state nothing of the necessary or sufficient
conditions of stakeholder identification. Taken together,
this process excluded 268 further articles resulting in 399
articles in the final sample for review, from which 885
definitions were identified.
6
The resulting typology may be open to revision if extended to other
disciplines such as medicine, psychology or the environmental
sciences.
7
Consolidated rankings are preferred as individual ranking systems
differ according to the severity of the imposed hurdle and the basis for
judging quality (author affiliation, academic surveys and citation
frequency). Other lists could be used to similar effect e.g. the
Association of Business Schools’ academic journal quality guide
which would equate to 2* and above. The author acknowledges that
such ranking systems are flawed but as with the other filters, it is
expected that important contributions excluded by this criteria will be
heavily cited by others in the database.
8
The review was completed in two stages. The first stage, undertaken
in 2009, included all articles up to 2008. This considered 1982 articles
in which 435 different stakeholder theory definitions were identified
(Miles 2011). In 2012 this was then extended, using the exact
bounded systematic review filters to cover 2728 management journal
articles published up to 2012.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
Analysis of Stakeholder Theory Definitions
The 885 definitions identified were entered onto a spread-
sheet. The resulting data set constituted 20,680 words. It
was not possible to code the data using content analysis
software due to the presence of antonyms as definitions are
drawn from both stakeholder and managerial perspectives,
e.g. a stakeholder can hurt a corporation (Miller and Lewis
1991) or they might be hurt as a consequence of the rela-
tionship (Schneider 2002). The definitions were manually
coded according to themes, issues, attributes and factors
emphasised by contributors:
(i) Who/what is the stakeholder?
(ii) What is the basis of the relationship?
(iii) What is the nature of the relationship?
(iv) What is the structural form of the relationship?
(v) What is the nature of the stake?
(vi) What does the stake relate to?
(vii) What is the nature of the stakeholder influence on
the organisation?
(viii) What is the nature of the organisation influence
on the stakeholder?
(ix) What is the objective of the relationship?9
The coding structure emerged from the data: 205 vari-
ables relating to different nouns, verbs, adverbs and
adjectives used within definitions were identified resulting
in 9201 data points. This provides clear evidence that the
stakeholder concept is internally complex and variously
describable as an essentially contested concept (Miles
2012). Not only are different answers suggested by con-
tributors to each of the questions above but, in the deter-
mination of stakeholder identification, each question is
assigned different weightings by different appraisers,
which is consistent with an essentially contested concept.
Classification Construct: Sorting Categories
The 205 definitional variables were then analysed. It was
evident that definitions varied according to
• Focus of analysis (either determinant ‘input’ factors or
‘output’ factors concerning relationship attributes).
Determinant Factors are the boundary conditions, or
the ‘input’ factors for recognition e.g. the identification
of a duty, a risk, a stake, power or legitimacy etc. The
class of stakeholder is then determined by the form or
nature of the boundary condition depending on the
9
A further question is who/what is defining the stakeholder? The
variation in nouns describing organisations (firm, organisation,
corporation etc.), or stakeholders (actor, group, coalition etc.) are
not boundary conditions of identification and, consequently, are not of
interest in the development of a classification typology.
443
Percepon of relaonship taken from
Management Stakeholder
Inputs
Managerial Stakeholder
Perceived Perceived
Focus of Analysis:
Determinants Determinants
Managerial
Outcomes
Stakeholder
Perceived Perceived
Relaonship Relaonship
Aributes Aributes
Fig. 1 Determinant factors and attributes of stakeholder definitions
focus of the definition, e.g. whether a claim is
economic, social, legal, moral, legitimate, explicit,
implicit etc. Relationship Attributes are factors relating
to the structural (physical and emotional) frameworks
which determine the nature of the relationship, i.e. the
‘output’ characteristics of the relationship e.g. the form
of interaction, interdependency, interconnectedness and
interrelatedness. Is the relationship based on a mutual
dependency or a power imbalance? Is there a high
propensity for the stakeholder to co-operate or harm the
organisation? Is the relationship distal or part of a
tightly developed network? Has management adopted a
strategic or narrow approach to stakeholder manage-
ment? And so forth.
• From whose perspective the definition is presented. The
majority of the definitional variables are defined from a
managerial, rather than a stakeholder, perspective. Each
perspective gives rise to an array of determinants and
relationship attributes and associated weightings, often
reflecting opposing opinions, for example focusing on
strategic risk management compared to organisational
accountability.
Juxtaposing these factors creates a 2 9 2 matrix in
which four sorting categories are created (see Fig. 1).
Managerial Perceived Determinants (MPD)
From a review of the stakeholder theory literature and
stakeholder theory definitions six categories of managerial
perceived determinants are identified (MPD1-6) (Fig. 2).10
These relate to necessary or sufficient conditions for
10
Many attributes have received much attention in the literature but
Figs. 2, 3 and 4 refer to the author(s) first identifying the attribute as a
determinant for stakeholder identification.
123
444 S. Miles

Fig. 2 Managerial perceived •Arm’s length (Marcoux, 2003)

determinants of stakeholder •Contractual/Official (Savage et al., 1991); Non-contractual (Aaltonen
identification & Kujala, 2010)
•Conven onal/Manifest/Representa onal/Eviden al (Trinkaus &
Giacalone , 2005)
•Direct (Schneper & Guillén, 2004); Indirect (Trinkaus & Giacalone,
2005)
•Deriva ve (Phillips, 2003)
•Economic (Friedman, 1970); Social (Unerman & Benne , 2004)
•Explicit-Implicit (Jensen, 1983)
•Formal (Barton et al., 1989) Informal (Unerman & Benne , 2004)
MPD1 •Iden fiable (Lantry, 1994); Self-perceived (Madsen & Ulhøi, 2001)
Form of claim, •Independent (Neville & Menguc, 2006)
interest, stake, etc. •Involuntary-voluntary (Phillips, 1999)
•Investment (Clarkson, 1994)
•Legal–Moral (Carroll,1989)
•Material/Affiliated/Poli cal/ Symbolic/Spiritual (Holtbrügge et
al.,2007)
•Non-nego able (Bourne & Walker, 2005)
•Opera onal (Turnbull, 1994)
•Overlapping (Fineman & Clarke, 1996)
•Ownership (Carroll, 1989)
•Real-Pschological (Vinten, 2000)
•Strong–weak (Kaler, 2002)
•Residual (Za oni, 2011)

•Compa ble/incompa ble/necessary/co ngent (Friedman & Miles,

2002)
•Formal (Savage et al., 1991) informal (Murray & Vogel, 1997)
•Primary-secondary (Savage et al., 1991) Ter ary (Miller & Lewis,
MPD2
1991)
Nature of rela onship •Official (Savage et al., 1991)
•Market (Nu , 1997) Non-market (Lawrence, 2010)
•Fiduciary - non-fiduciary ( Goodpaster, 1991)
•Non-trivial (Brenner, 1993)

•Claim (Hill & Jones, 1992)

•Contract (expressed/implied) (Donaldson & Preston (1995)
•Deriva ve (Phillips, 2003)
•Direct market transa on-Indirect external exposure (Nu , 1997)
•Exchange rela onship (Hill & Jones, 1992)
•Exchange transa ons (Brenner, 1993)
MPD3 •Financial-human capital (Mir & Rahaman, 2011)
Basis of Le macy •Legal tle/right –moral interest/right (Agle et al., 1999)
•Moral responsibility (Brenner, 1993)
•Norma ve (Phillips, 2003)
•Obje ve –perceived (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010)
•Property rights (Mitchell et al., 1997)
•Risk (Goodpaster, 1991)
•Responsibility (Alkhafaji, 1989)

•Advocacy, Guardianship, Managerial values (Knox & Gruar, 2007)

•Beneficence (O’Higgins, 2010)
•Culture (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2009)
MPD4 •Duty of care (Burton and Dunn, 1996)
Nature of obliga on, •Fairness (Phillips, 2003)
duty or responsibility •Fiduciary (De Bussy et al., 2000)
•Intrinsic value (Donaldson & Preston , 1995)
•Moral (Brenner, 1993)
•Perfect -imperfect (Kaler, 2002)

MPD5
•Voluntary-involuntary (Clarkson, 1994)
Nature of risk

•U litarian/Coercive/Norma ve (Mitchell et al., 1997)

MPD6
•Formal/Economic/Poli cal (Freeman & Reed, 1983)
Nature of Power

123
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
stakeholder identification, from a managerial viewpoint,
which must exist for stakeholder status to be afforded. Not
all 6 MPDs need to be present for stakeholder status to be
recognised, any one is sufficient, albeit being an essentially
contested concept this area is open to contestation. As an
example, for Hanly (1992) the mere recognition of a stake
is sufficient for stakeholder identification, but The Clarkson
Centre for Business Ethics (1999) specified that the stake
must be at risk, with something to gain or lose.
MPD1: Form of Claim Many scholars suggested that for
a stakeholder to be recognised there must be a stake, right,
interest etc. The form of the claim was differentiated across
39 terms. These have been sorted along a contractual/le-
gal–moral/social continuum. Contractual/legal claims are
recognised as being entered into voluntarily and depicted
as being direct (Schneper and Guillén 2004), explicit
(Jensen 1983), manifest (Trinkaus and Giacalone 2005),
formal (Barton et al. 1989) official (Savage et al. 1991),
economic (Friedman 1970), non-negotiable (Bourne and
Walker 2005), determined independently by arm’s length
transactions (Marcoux 2003), conventional (Trinkaus and
Giacalone 2005) and therefore ‘real’ (Vinten 2000) and
‘strong’ (Kaler 2002). Moral/social claims are recognised
as involuntary and depicted by contributors as non-con-
tractual (Aaltonen and Kujala 2010), indirect and eviden-
tial (Trinkaus and Giacalone 2005), implicit (Jensen 1983),
informal (Unerman and Bennett 2004), imperfect and
‘weak’ (Kaler 2002) and self-perceived (Madsen and Ulhøi
2001). Both types of contractual forms give recognition to
a stakeholder but it is clear that management may wish to
differentiate. Contractual claimants have a mandatory right
to have their claims addressed, whereas moral claimants
rely on moral obligation/philanthropy.
MPD2: Nature of Relationship The second determinant
relates to the nature of the relationship. The most common
differentiation is primary–secondary (Savage et al. 1991)
and variants thereof: market (primary/economic), non-
market (secondary/societal) stakeholders (Lawrence 2010);
social (indirect/primary–direct/secondary), non-social (di-
rect/primary-indirect/secondary) (Wheeler and Sillanpää
1997). Friedman and Miles (2002) advocated that the
organisation–stakeholder relationship is based on two dis-
tinctions: whether the relationships are (in) compatible in
terms of ideas and material interests and whether the
relationships are necessary (internal to a social system or
logically connected) or contingent (external or not logically
connected). Boundary conditions for stakeholder status
have also been suggested, such as ‘official’ (Savage et al.
1991), ‘non-trivial’ (Brenner 1993), formal/informal
(Murray and Vogel 1997) and fiduciary/non-fiduciary
(Goodpaster 1991).
445
MPD 3: Basis of Legitimacy Hill and Jones (1992,
p. 133) were first to include legitimacy as a defining
stakeholder attribute, whereby legitimacy is ‘‘established
through the existence of an exchange relationship’’.
Brenner (1993) and Nuti (1997) adopted similar stances
(referring to exchange and market transactions, respec-
tively), whereas Mir and Rahaman (2011) suggested
legitimacy is predicated on the presence of risk or human
or capital investment. Mitchell et al. (1997) explored the
concept in-depth suggesting that legitimacy can be derived
contractually from property rights, or through normative
channels such as moral claims (Evan and Freeman 1988),
at risk status (Clarkson 1994) or responsibility (Alkhafaji
1989). Phillips (2003) submitted that the problem of
stakeholder identity may be connected to a poor under-
standing of legitimacy and differentiated between norma-
tive (moral obligation of stakeholder fairness) and
derivative legitimacy (derived from a stakeholder’s ability
to affect an organisation and its normative stakeholders).
Nature of Obligation: MPD4 Related to the concept of
legitimacy is the nature of duty or responsibility. Kaler
(2002, p. 93) distinguished between perfect duties, ‘‘for
which there is a corresponding right’’, and imperfect moral
duties of benevolence, for which no right exists. Numerous
theorists recognise moral rights but do not explicitly detail
them. One exception is Phillips (1999) who distinguished
direct obligations due to normative stakeholders from
indirect responsibilities due to derivative stakeholders.
Mandatory responsibilities are implicit in definitions that
highlight legal claims (Langtry 1994), contracts (Unerman
and Bennett 2004), titles (Carroll 1989) or rights (Agle
et al. 1999). In line with Mitchell et al. (1997) some authors
differentiate duties according to stakeholder class, for
example, Knox and Gruar (2007, p. 133) asserted that
dependent stakeholders rely on ‘‘advocacy, guardianship
or internal management values’’, whereas dominant
stakeholders have more formal mechanisms. Mahoney
(1994) argued that active stakeholders have a share in
corporate responsibility and accountability and require
reciprocity in accordance with the Principle of Benefi-
cence, whereas passive stakeholders are only entitled to be
treated in terms of the Principle of Non-maleficence.
Nature of Risk: MPD5 Stakeholder classes differ
depending on the nature of risk borne by the stakeholder,
although this has received less attention in the literature
than the other determinants. Goodpaster (1991, p. 54) was
first to suggest that putting ‘‘some economic value at risk’’
was a necessary condition for stakeholder recognition,
whereas Clarkson (1994) is more frequently associated
with the concept of a stakeholder as a risk-bearer. Risks
can be voluntary or involuntary (Clarkson 1994) and for
123
446
Phillips (1999) it is only the assumption of a risk that
creates stakeholder status.
Nature of Power: MPD6 Various taxonomies of power
have been suggested, including Freeman and Reed (1983)
formal/economic/political but it was Jones (1995) who first
proposed power as a defining factor for stakeholder iden-
tification. Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested that power alone
was sufficient to recognise a ‘dormant’ stakeholder. They
analysed power, separating utilitarian power (derived from
control of resources), normative power (associated with
symbolic resources) and coercive power (physical force).
Stakeholder power has also been associated with network
structures (Rowley 1997) and the concentration of resour-
ces (Carroll 1989).
Managerial Perceived Relationship Attributes (MPRA)
The second sorting category is managerial perceived rela-
tionship attributes (MPA1-10) relating to characteristics of
‘outcomes’ of the organisation–stakeholder relationship
that are perceived from the viewpoint of management
(Fig. 3).
Strategic Focus: MPRA1 Early contributions focused on
differentiating broad (normative) and narrow (strategic)
definitions (Freeman and Reed 1983) and many authors
specify this differentiation (e.g. Bourne and Walker 2005;
Orts and Strudler 2009; Shankman 1999; Van Buren 2001).
Friedman and Miles (2006) juxtaposed these variables and
suggested it is possible to have both broad strategic defi-
nitions that focus on the legal or institutional recognition of
stakeholders and, narrow normative definitions, that only
recognise those stakeholders to whom the organisation owe
significant responsibilities. Friedman and Miles (2006)
considered narrow definitions to be organisation-centric
and broad definitions de-centred from the organisation.
Form of Interaction: MPRA2 The form of interaction is
the most commonly expressed delineation of stakeholder
type, in part due to the popularity of Freeman’s (1984)
conceptualisation ‘‘any group or individual who can affect
or is affected by the achievements of the organization’s
(firm’s/corporation’s) objectives (purpose/perfor-
mance)’’.11 Scholars have also used ‘influences-influenced
by’ and ‘impacts-impacted by’, either asymmetrically or
symmetrically. In addition some authors, such as Schneider
(2002, p. 212), specify the nature of the impact: ‘‘con-
11
Freeman (1984) proposed five definitions which are all broadly
similar. The variations are shown in parenthesis.
123
S. Miles
tribute, or benefit from, the value creation, or they might
hurt or suffer from it’’.
Centrality of the Organisation: MPRA3 Most stakeholder
studies that attempt to differentiate stakeholders in order to
predict stakeholder behaviour focus on demographic factors
(size, location, stakeholder interest etc.) of stakeholders. A
few studies have focused on structural features in the
stakeholder–organisation (e.g. Frooman 1999; Hill and
Jones 1992; Rowley 1997) such as the degree of information
asymmetry evident, centrality of the organisation within the
organisation–stakeholder network, and level of dependency
between parties (MPRA7). Freeman (1997) advocated that
organisations that occupy peripheral positions in their net-
work are more likely to negotiate and submit to their stake-
holders than those occupying a central position where a
greater degree of influence can be achieved.
Frequency of Contact: MPRA4 Ojala and Luoma-aho
(2008) expanded the salience model (Mitchell et al. 1997)
to include frequency of contact. Frequency relates to the
continuity of the stakeholder relation. High frequency is
associated with longevity, loyalty, trust, involvement,
reputation building, and reduced transaction costs and
uncertainties. Frequency is captured by the amount and
recurrence of organisation-stakeholder, personal and
mediated, interaction. Given the existence of capital
rationing of resources, high frequency of contact is
expected to be correlated with demands for information
stemming from the coercive power of the stakeholder or
stemming from fiduciary or perfect duties.
Proximity of Relationship: MPRA5 Driscoll and Starik
(2004) argued that the greater the proximity, the greater the
likelihood of the development of stakeholder relationships,
and extended the salience model proposed by Mitchell
et al. (1997). Proximity relates to physical closeness as well
as shared ideas, associations and value chains. This is
considered an attribute rather than a determinant as prox-
imity alone does not afford stakeholder status. This goes
further than simple dichotomous groupings which refer to
relative positioning of the stakeholder within or outside the
firm: Mitroff (1983) internal–external; Hart and Sharma
(2004) core–fringe; Sirgy (2002) internal–external–distal
and overcomes inherent problems if one considers an
organisation as a nexus of contracts (all stakeholders are
internal) or a separate legal entity (all stakeholders are
external). Proximal, core, internal or inside stakeholders
are associated with primary stakeholders ‘‘without whose
continuing participation the corporation cannot survive as
a going concern’’ (Clarkson 1995, p. 111), whereas distal,
fringe, external or outside stakeholders are associated with
secondary, or tertiary stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions 447

MPRA1:Strategic
•Wide (Broad)-Narrow (Freeman & Reed, 1983)
Focus
•Affects (Emshoff & Freeman, 1978) Affected by (Pfeffer and
Salancik , 1978)
•Influences/ controls (Pfeffer & Salancik , 1978) Influenced by
(Maranville, 1989)
•Impacts (Brenner, 1993) Impacted by (Frost, 1995)
•Harms/Benefits (Phillips, 1993)
•Harmed by (Evan & Freeman, 1988), Gains from (Rowley, 1997)
•Rights violated or respected (Evan & Freeman, 1988)
•Helps/Hurts (Miller & Lewis , 1991)
•Suffers from/ Hurt by (Schneider, 2002)
•Assists/hinders (Phillips et al., 2003)
MPRA2: Form of •Constrain (Kaufman & Englander, 2011)
Interaction
•Contribute (Kochan & Rubinstein, 2000)
•Cooperate/Threaten (Polonsky & Oman, 1998)
•Creates value (Freeman, 1994)
•Creates wealth (Post et al., 2002)
•Interactive (Neville & Menguc, 2006)
•Invests value (Goodpaster, 1991)
•Makes a difference/participates (Hummels, 1998)
•Promote/oppose (Aaltonen & Kujala,2010)
•Support (SRI, 1963)
•Withholding (Frooman, 1999)
•Something to lose (Rowley, 1997)
MPRA3:Centrality of
•Central-Distal (Frooman , 1997)
organisation
MPRA4:Frequency of
•Frequent-infrequent (Ojala & Luoma-aho, 2008)
contact
•Core (Jones & Wicks, 1999) Fringe (Hart & Sharma , 2004)
•Inside (Atkinson et al. , 1997) Outside (Fineman & Clarke , 1996)
MPRA5: Proximity of
•Internal -external (Mitroff , 1983)
relationship
•Proximity (Driscoll & Starik, 2004);
•Distal (Sirgy, 2002)
MPRA6: Density of
•High-Low (Rowley, 1999)
Networks

•Success (Starik, 1995)

•Boom line (Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999)
•Revenues (Shaoul , 1998)
•Performance (Freeman , 1984)
•Outcome (Starik, 1995)
•Value (Jensen, 1983)
•Welfare (Jensen, 2001)
•Survival (SRI, 1963)
MPRA7: Dependency of •Existence (Rhenman, 1964, cited in Mitchell et al., 1997)
organisation on
stakeholder •Going concern (Clarkson , 1995)
•Future (Emshoff and Freeman, 1978)
•Purpose (Freeman, 1984)
•Objectives (Freeman & Reed, 1983)
•Strategy (Darnall et al. , 2010)
•Licence to operate (Jahansoozi, 2006)
•Mission (Choi & Shepherd, 2005)
•Resources (Firm dependent ) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978)
•Stakeholder dependent (Langtry, 1994)

•High-Low (Bosse et al., 2009)

•Interdependencies (Carroll , 1989)
•Joint (Freeman, 1994)
MPRA8: Reciprocity of
•Mutual benefit (Phillips , 1997)
relationship
•Mutually acknowledged (Heugens & van Oosterhout, 2002)
•Mutually dependent (Wicks et al. , 1994)
•Reciprocal (Fineman & Clarke , 1996)

MPRA9: Propensity to •High-Low (Freeman, 1984)

cooperate •Collaboration/Supportive-non supportive/marginal (Savage et al., 1991)

•High/Low Propensity to harm (Savage et al., 1991)

MPRA10: Propensity to
•Cause/Affected by harm (Polonsky et al. , 2003)
Harm
•Potential for Threat (Freeman, 1984)

Fig. 3 Managerial perceived relationship attributes of stakeholder identification

123
448
Density of Networks: MPRA6 In exploring how structural
factors constrain and shape stakeholder behaviour, Rowley
(1997) juxtaposed the concepts of centrality (MPRA3) and
density of networks. The existence of dense ties within and
between parties in an organisation-stakeholder network
facilitates the transfer of shared behaviours and expecta-
tions through enabled communication links. High levels of
density (interconnectedness) between stakeholders in a
network are associated with high levels of coalitions and
are therefore related to high levels of stakeholder power
(MPD6) and voluntary risk taking (MPD5) derived through
collective action.
Dependency of Organisation on Stakeholder: MPRA7
Frooman (1999) proposed that power and dependency are
related: high stakeholder dependency and low firm
dependency creates firm power, and vice versa for stake-
holder power. Organisations are dependent on stakeholders
for many reasons, from survival, the fulfilment of goals,
success and value creation, to providing resources or a
licence to operate. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) provided an
early but comprehensive definition of a stakeholder, based
on dependency from which stakeholder power is derived:
‘‘…These actors may provide essential raw materials, may
control key marketing channels or resources, or may pos-
sess control over the firm’s financial well-being. Because
the firm is dependent on the actors for their cooperation,
the actor can influence the actions of the firm’’.
Reciprocity of Relationship: MPRA8 Reciprocity is also
an important consideration in stakeholder identification.
Bosse et al. (2009) argued that stakeholders and managers
will willingly sacrifice self-interest for the sake of princi-
ples and fairness. Reciprocity is central to stakeholder
value creation based on joint endeavours (Freeman 1994),
interdependencies (Carroll 1989), mutual benefit (Phillips
1997) and is thereby mutually dependent (Wicks et al.
1994).
Propensity to Co-operate: MPRA9 Freeman (1984) sug-
gested that management can seek strategic guidance by
examining the relative potential for threat and cooperation
of stakeholders, and proposed four associated strategies.
Building on Freeman’s model, Savage et al. (1991) sug-
gested that collaborative (mixed blessing) and supportive
stakeholders are associated with high cooperative potential
and, non-supportive and marginal stakeholders are associ-
ated with low cooperative potential.
Propensity to Harm: MPRA10 Perceived propensity of
the stakeholder to damage the organisation is associated
with power (MPD6), resource dependence (MPRA7),
proximity (MPRA5) and network density (MPRA6).
123
S. Miles
STAKEHOLDER PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS (SPD)
SPD1:Urgency of •Critical/time sensitive (Mitchell et al., 1997)
stakeholder issue •Probability (Driscoll & Starik, 2004)
STAKEHOLDER PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP ATTRIBUTES (SPRA)
SPRA1:Influencing
•Active-Passive (Mahoney, 1994)
strategy
• Direct-Indirect (Starik, 1995)
• Crical Eye (Bowmann-Larsen & Wiggen, 2004)
• Voice/Damage Strategies (Friedman & Miles, 2006)
SPRA2:Pathway
• Mobilise Opinion (Magness, 2008)
• Usage/Withholding strategies (Frooman, 1999)
• Grants/Denies Resources (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2009)
Fig. 4 Stakeholder perceived determinants and relationship attributes
of stakeholder identification
Freeman (1984) and Savage et al. (1991) contrasted this
attribute against the potential of the stakeholder to co-
operate.
Stakeholder Perceived Determinants (SPD)
Friedman and Miles (2006) submitted that most stake-
holder theories are organisation-centric, stemming from
management literature related to strategy or business eth-
ics, so it is unsurprising that the majority of factors are
managerial-focused (Fig. 4). This has resulted in a some-
what unbalanced perspective in which the stakeholder
voice is under represented and remains a limitation of
stakeholder theory which needs to be addressed in future
research. As the coding structure for the proposed classi-
fication system is derived from this literature it is not
surprising that there is an imbalance in the components of
the model with just one stakeholder perceived determinant
and two stakeholder perceived relationship attributes.
Urgency of Stakeholder Issue: SPD1 Managerial per-
spective of the criticality of an issue is not sufficient to
warrant stakeholder status. It is the stakeholder’s percep-
tion of criticality that will determine whether or not the
stakeholder mobilises action, as urgency is necessary for
execution. According to Mitchell et al. (1997), urgency is
based on time sensitivity, the degree to which managerial
delay in attending to the claim is unacceptable to stake-
holders, and the criticality or importance of the claim to the
stakeholder. Driscoll and Starik (2004) suggested that the
probability or potential likelihood of interaction should
also be considered as an attribute of urgency to ensure that
subtle, silent and slowly evolving claims are not over-
looked by management, indicating that management should
focus on the long term and on potential as well as actual
stakeholder relationships. This reasoning was based on the
probability-impact matrix whereby issues with high prob-
ability and high impact should be given priority. Urgency
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
is a disputed stakeholder attribute. Rowley and Moldo-
veanu (2003) purported that urgency fails to explain why
those with an urgent claim fail to act, whilst others may
pursue a lost cause. They proposed that mobilisation is
most likely where interest overlaps across stakeholders that
belong to different stakeholder groups is high and identify
overlap between groups is low.
Stakeholder Perceived Relationship Attributes (SPRA)
Influencing Strategy: SPRA1 Stakeholder influencing
strategies are differentiated according to whether a proac-
tive, active or passive approach is taken (Buysse and
Verbeke 2003; Mahoney 1994). Active stakeholders posi-
tively and voluntarily seek to participate in organisational
activities and consequently affect decisions and policies
(Mahoney 1994). Passive stakeholders are not necessarily
less interested or powerful than active stakeholders, but
they do not seek to press their claims or exert their power.
In practice, this can relate to accommodating the perceived
interests of recipients of an organisation’s actions or an
associate willing to collaborate at a distance, such as the
local community.
Twenty-nine terms were evident in the 885 stakeholder
definitions that describe active influence including negative
impacts such as constrain, damage, harm, hurt, hinder,
oppose, threatens and withholds resources and positive
impacts such as assists, contributes, value creation, helps,
promotes, participates and grants resources. Active influ-
encing strategies depend on numerous issues such as crit-
icality (SPD1), identification of interested parties, ability to
build collective coalitions, access to technology and
resources, leadership, organisation and emotional com-
mitment, the existence of institutional supports, dense
networks (MPRA6) and a history of action (Friedman and
Miles 2006).
Pathway: SPRA2 Stakeholder identification may be
determined by the pathway used in resource manipulation
(Frooman and Murrell 2005), whether direct action, or via
intermediaries. Frooman (1999) identified four influencing
strategies undertaken by stakeholders according to the
resource relationship that exists with the organisation. In
the instance of stakeholder power (stakeholder indepen-
dence and form dependence), the stakeholder will adopt a
direct withholding strategy such as boycotts, whereas if
firm power exists, the stakeholder strategy switches to
indirect usage, aiming to influence the organisation via an
intermediary, such as lobbying via a consumer body. If
interdependence is high, a direct usage strategy is expected,
such as positive investment screening associated with
social responsibility investments. This contrasts with an
indirect withholding strategy in cases of low
449
interdependence. Friedman and Miles (2006) also added
voice strategies, such as constructive dialogue evident from
progressive social responsibility investment funds and let-
ter writing campaigns, now more commonly associated
with twitter, blogs and online feedback facilities, and
damage strategies such as direct activism and modified
vendettas associated with environmental activists. Pathway
as a defining attribute is evident in many definitions, for
example Ferrell and Ferrell (2009, p. 258) ‘‘the individuals
or group can grant or deny resources to the organization’’
and O’Riordan and Fairbrass (2008, p. 747, citing Bow-
mann-Larsen & Wiggen 2004) ‘‘all those individuals and
groups with a ‘critical eye’ on corporate actors’’.
A Classification Model of Stakeholder Theory
Definitions
A stakeholder theory definition classification model is
proposed (Fig. 5). Essentially contested concepts are var-
iously describable (Gallie 1956), as different appraisers
afford different weightings to various aspects of the con-
cept, depending on the ideology and social positioning of
the definer. These weightings exist along a continuum
rather than being absolute. The constructs of the typology
centre around this acknowledgment: appraisers defining
stakeholders from a managerial perspective will attach
emphasis to whether relationship attributes and determi-
nant factors should be normatively broadened to increase
inclusivity or, strategically narrowed for pragmatic pur-
poses. The existence of this normative-instrumental clas-
sification is firmly established within stakeholder theory
(Boatright 2000; Freeman 1997; Orts and Strudler 2002)
through the work of Donaldson and Preston (1995) who
proposed that all stakeholder theory approaches (descrip-
tive and instrumental) have a normative core. As descrip-
tive stakeholder theory is a study of practice,
epistemologically, there are only two variants: instrumental
(strategic) and normative.12 All managerial perceived
determinants (MPD1-6) have been sorted along this
dimension.
The resulting typology suggests four stakeholder hypo-
nyms: influencers, claimants, recipients and collaborators.
12
Normative stakeholder theories are based on eternal values derived
from ethical theory, rather than observed norms, and explore the
reasons why stakeholders’ interests ought to be taken into account in
an attempt to alter management behaviour. This is contrasted with the
instrumental approach aligned with strategic stakeholder management
in which there may be ethical consequences from derived stakeholder
benefit but stakeholder management is not necessarily predicated
from an ethical basis.
123
450 S. Miles

Fig. 5 A classification model MANAGERIAL PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS (MPD)

of stakeholder theory definitions MPD1:NATURE OF CONTRACT, CLAIM, STAKE ETC.
Legal/Contractual/Formal Moral/Non-contractual/Informal
Economic/Operational/Affiliated Social/Symbolic/Spiritual
Critical/Strong/Material/Real Residual/Weak/Derivative/Psychological
Direct/Explicit/Identifiable Indirect/Implicit
Voluntary Involuntary
Manifest-Conventional Evidential-representational
Overlapping Independent
MPD2:NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP

Instrumental
Fiduciary Non-Fiduciary

Normative
Formal/Official Informal
Primary/Market/Nontrivial Secondary/Tertiary/Non-market
Necessary Contingent
MPD3:BASIS FOR LEGITIMACY
Contract (expressed)/Objective Contract (implied)/Perceived
Legal Title/Property right/Claim Moral Interest/Normative/Derivative
Financial capital Human capital
Direct Market transaction/Exchange Indirect external exposure
Risk Responsibility/Granted
MPD4:NATURE OF OBLIGATION, DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY
Fiduciary Moral/advocacy/guardianship/values/fairness/care
Perfect Imperfect
Voluntary MPD5:NATURE OF RISK Involuntary
Utilitarian/coercive MPD6:NATURE OF POWER Normative

RELATIONSHIP ATTRIBUTES (SPRA)

Passive
Indirect
Non-urgent
Unimportant

Possible

SPRA1:INFLUENCING STRATEGY
SPD1:URGENCY OF ISSUE

CLASS 4 CLASS 3
STAKEHOLDER PERCEIVED

STAKEHOLDER PERCEIVED
DETERMINANTS (SPD)

SPRA2:PATHWAY
COLLABORATOR RECIPIENT
Time sensitive

CLASS 1 CLASS 2
Critical

Probable

Direct

Active
INFLUENCER CLAIMANT

Narrow MPRA1:STRATEGIC FOCUS Wide

MPRA2:FORM OF INTERACTION
Affects/Influences/Impacts Affected/Influenced/Impacted
Assists/Hinders/Helps/ Creates value Harmed/placed at risk/suffers
Rights Respected Rights Violated
Central MPRA3:CENTRALITY OF THE FIRM Distal
Frequent MPRA4:FREQUENCY OF CONTACT Infrequent
MPRA5:PROXIMITY OF RELATIONSHIP
Proximal/Core/Internal/Inside Distal/Fringe/External/Outside
High MPRA6:DENSITY OF NETWORKS Low
MPRA7:DEPENDENCY ON STAKEHOLDER FOR RESOURCES, SURVIVAL ETC.
High/Firm dependent Low/Stakeholder dependent
MPRA8:RECIPROCITY OF RELATIONSHIP
High/Mutual/Interdependent/Joint Low/Independent
Reciprocated Unreciprocated
MPRA9:Propensity to cooperate
High/Collaboration/Supportive Low/Non-supportive/Marginal
High MPRA10:PROPENSITY TO HARM Low
MANAGERIAL PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTES (MPRA)

Class 1: Influencer Definitions legitimacy (MPD3) is likely to come from explicit claims
derived from legal, contractual or formal arrangements
Influencer definitions require a capacity to influence based on economic transactions (MPD1), giving rise to a
(MPRA2) the operations of an organisation and an active fiduciary or perfect obligation (MPD2) to have their con-
strategy to do so (SPRA1). It is important to consider cerns reciprocated (MPRA9). Management prioritise
jointly the impact of power, interest and influence so a stakeholders identified as influencers when a narrow
distinction can be made between active influence (influ- strategic focus is adopted (MPRA1) and, as part of stake-
encer), passive influence (collaborator), the potential to holder management, seek frequent contact (MPRA5) and
influence (claimants) and no influence (recipients). Influ- transparent communication (MPRA3). The propensity to
encer stakeholders are associated with the highest combi- influence increases when density of stakeholder networks is
nation of power and interest, i.e. those with critical, high (MPRA7) and where the firm is positioned centrally
probable and time sensitive claims (SPD1), hold utilitarian within the network (MPRA4) Contributors emphasising
power (MPD6) and a high potential propensity to harm influencer definitions communicate the capacity to influ-
(SPRA3) or co-operate (MPRA10). Power and associated ence explicitly through use of the verbs to influence, affect,

123
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
impact, interfere, assist or hinder, help or harm or co-op-
erate or threaten (MPRA2).
Despite the similarity in nomenclature, this approach
contrasts with Kaler’s (2002) which combined the extent to
which stakeholders can exert an influence on an organisa-
tion with the corresponding influence the organisation can
exert on the stakeholder. Freeman’s five seminal 1984
definitions which are all based on the symmetric notion ‘to
affect…are affected by’ would therefore be classified by
Kaler as ‘influencer’, rather than ‘combinatory’ definitions
(Greenwood and De Cieri 2006). Kaler argued that being
affected is a necessary condition for being a claimant, as
there is no point in having a claim if it cannot have an
effect. The reverse, however, is not true: being affected by
someone is not the same as having a claim. In the proposed
classification, a distinction is made between being ‘subject
to influence’ and ‘ability to influence’. Class 1 (influencer)
definitions can only relate to ‘ability to influence’ and,
therefore, pure influencer definitions must be asymmetric
in scope. Consequently, Freeman’s (1984) definitions are
reclassified as combinatory, lying in the intersection
between Class 1 (influencer) and Class 3 (recipient).
Influencer definitions are subject to criticism for per-
mitting an unfeasibly wide range of actors to be recognised
as organisational stakeholders. Merely having the power to
influence offers little discrimination. The problem here lies
in Kaler’s definition of an influencer. This proposed clas-
sification is based on essentialism, with the ‘essence’ of a
stakeholder taken to be the existence of a stakeholder–
organisational relationship. A terrorist, for example, has no
relationship with an organisation and cannot be a stake-
holder, despite being able to influence activities. This dif-
fers from activist groups which may have contingent and
incompatible organisational relationships (Friedman and
Miles 2002) as social pressures may create moral obliga-
tions for organisations to consider their implicit claims
(Class 2: claimant). Such activists will only become ‘in-
fluencers’ if they adopt active influencing strategies and
secure coercive or utilitarian power, for example, from
mobilising the actions of others (Frooman 1999). Donald-
son and Preston (1995) differentiated between ‘influencers’
and ‘stakeholders’ on the premise that some actors, such as
shareholder are both. Others, such as the media may have
influence but no stake, whilst others may have a stake but
no influence, such as job applicants. Likewise, Mitchell
et al. (1997, p. 860) advocated that ‘Influencers have power
over the firm, whether or not they have valid claims or any
claims at all, and whether or not they wish to press their
claims’. The proposed typology is consistent with these
arguments as influencers are differentiated from claimants
and combinatory definitions which capture both elements
and being in a relationship with the organisation is a pre-
requisite for identification.
451
An influencer stakeholder is therefore an individual, or
group that has the capacity to influence the actions of an
organisation and has an active strategy to do so.
Class 2: Claimant Definitions
Claimant definitions require a form of entitlement,
although few authors use the term claim (e.g. Cornell and
Shapiro 1987; Roberts and Mahoney 2004), expressing
claims as interests, rights and titles (Carroll 1989), stakes
(Hanly 1992), commitments (Heugens and van Oosterhout
2002), contracts (Freeman and Evan 1990) and bonds (de
Bakker and den Hond 2008). All types of stakeholders may
have a claim but claimant stakeholders are differentiated by
the attribute that they actively pursue the claim (SPRA1)
but lack the coercive power (MPD6) to guarantee that their
claims are attended to, as their claims are derived from
moral, social or residual rights rather than legal, direct or
economic claims associated with the power to influence
(MPD1). The nature of the relationship is based on infor-
mal or non-fiduciary duties of management (MPD2)
stemming from the acknowledgement of legitimacy
through moral responsibility (MPD3) or a duty of care
(MPD4). Without the power to influence organisations the
form of interaction is largely centred on how the stake-
holder is impacted or affected by the organisation rather
than how they impact or affect the organisation’s activities
(MPRA 2) as the level of reciprocity is low (MPRA9).
Management that attend to the needs of pure claimant
stakeholders must have adopted a wide or holistic strategic
focus (MPRA1) as these stakeholders are not depended on
for key resources or survival (MPRA8).
Influencer and collaborator definitions relate to eco-
nomic, legal, direct claims associated with variables
aligned with the instrumental extremes on the normative-
instrumental continuum, whereas recipient and claimant
definitions are more aligned with claims portraying vari-
ables on the normative extreme. Claimant definitions can
also relate to perfect duties, in response to corresponding
explicit, strong or legal claims, more associated with
instrumental characteristics.
A claimant stakeholder is therefore an individual, or
group that has a claim on an organisation and an associated
active strategy to pursue the claim but lacks the power to
guarantee that the claim is attended to by management.
Class 3: Collaborator Definitions
In order to differentiate classes of influence, a third class of
definitions is suggested: ‘collaborator’. Collaborator defi-
nitions are those which identify stakeholders through their
ability to co-operate with organisations, regardless of their
power to influence, or the existence of a claim on corporate
123
452
resources, for example, Rasche and Esser (2006, p. 257)
‘established through the existence of an exchange rela-
tionship’. Collaborator definitions are cognisant of the
ability to influence and consistent with the recognition of
utilitarian power, achieved through investment of resour-
ces, but differ from Class 1 ‘influencer’ definitions in that
the balance of power lies with the organisation and, con-
sequently, the stakeholder influencing strategy is a passive
one (Frooman 1999) (SPRA1). Collaborators do not pos-
sess urgency (SPD1), which would be associated with
active stakeholder influencing strategies.
A collaborator stakeholder is therefore an individual, or
group that co-operates with an organisation but lacks an
active interest to influence the organisation.
Class 4: Recipient Definitions
There are a number of definitions which are asymmetrical,
recognising that stakeholders are, for example, all those
‘‘who are affected significantly by the company’s actions’’
(Carson (1993, p. 172) or ‘‘directly affected by the opera-
tions of the firm’’ (Lea 2004, p. 207). These definitions
imply no claim and no ability to influence. Kaler overlooks
such asymmetrical definitions as he did not differentiate
between latent and active claims (SPA1). This suggests a
fourth class of definitions: ‘recipient’ which requires the
capacity to be affected by the operation of a corporation,
whether it is to put the stakeholder at risk (Clarkson 1994)
to impact stakeholder interests (Madsen and Ulhøi 2001),
or simply to be recipients of a service (Patton 1978).
Recipient definitions often include terms such as ‘loss’,
‘lose’, ‘affected by’, ‘gains’, ‘impacted’, ‘influenced by’
and ‘risk’ (MPRA2). The presence of a claim, however
described, is a sufficient boundary condition for stake-
holder recognition. Imperfect or weak claims, based on
voluntary benevolence are difficult to interpret, as stake-
holders may be ignorant of the presence or form of their
claim, or may lack the voice to press their claim. Such
claims are not invalid, but their implicit and uncertain
nature often means that they are not actively pursued, and
definitions that reflect this would be classified as ‘recipient’
(Class 3) rather than ‘claimant’ definitions. Such claims
need to be differentiated for management purposes, much
in line with the concept of urgency advocated by Mitchell
et al. (1997), and captured under SPD1: if claims are time
sensitive and critical there is an active stakeholder influ-
encing strategy and management will need to directly
manage that stakeholder (Frooman 1999), but definitions
that reflect this are classified as claimant, rather than
recipient definitions.
A stakeholder may be the passive recipient of the
impacts of corporate activity as a consequence of mere
existence rather than the consequence of action, as implied
123
S. Miles
in a claim. Stakeholders may not always exercise their
power, legitimacy or urgency, keeping quiet about their
claims. A clear example of this includes definitions based
on risk (Clarkson 1994). Kaler (2002) stated that exposure
to risks is a way of attributing claimant status, however, a
claim may exist in the absence of risks (Phillips 1999),
necessitating a separate consideration of these concepts.
A recipient stakeholder is therefore, an individual or
group that is a passive recipient of the impact of organi-
sational activity.
Combinatory Classes
Whilst it is anticipated that some appraisers may promote
definitions that are mutually exclusive, for example using a
pure claimant definition to stress a business ethics agenda,
the pragmatic, multifaceted and nuanced nature of stake-
holder theory requires the recognition of the intersection of
genres. As an essentially contested concept the stakeholder
concept is variously describable, internally complex, open
in character and is used aggressively and defensively
(Gallie 1956), it is expected that the number of combina-
tory stakeholder definitions will be high. Merrilees et al.
(2005, pp. 1063–1064) provided a typical combinatory
definition proposing that stakeholder identification is based
on three salient features: (1) Interdependence; (2) affecting/
being affected by the organization; and (3) the sense of an
interest or right in the organization.
Eleven potential combinations of genres exist, six rep-
resenting the intersection of two genres (Class 5–10), four
representing the intersection of three genres (Class 11–14)
and one (Class 15) whereby elements from all four genres
are included in a definition. These 15 categories, together
with an additional classification relating to potentially
unclassifiable definitions are illustrated in Fig. 7.13
Kaler (2002) argued that, at least for business ethics,
only pure claimant definitions will suffice, as influencer
elements in a combinatory definition add confusion and a
superficial air of comprehensiveness. For an essentially
contested concept, combinatory definitions are necessary
as, aforementioned, claimant, influencer, recipient and
collaborator classes are not mutually exclusive: a stake-
holder that affects, or can be affected by, can also have a
claim and engage, while a stakeholder that has no claim
can still affect or be affected. There is no implication of, or
necessity for, reciprocal impact. Using the claimant defi-
nition, competitors, for instance, would have to be exclu-
ded as stakeholders, whereas on the basis of the influencer
definitions, they should be integrated since they can harm
13
The apostrophe is used to denote instances where definitions are
not in a particular category i.e. a’bcd’ refers to a definition that is not
included in categories a and d but is included in b and c.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions 453

or benefit the firm and it is strategically important to capacity to influence, or affect, the operations of an
include them. One would anticipate, however, that con- organisation and an active strategy to do so, although pure
tributors with similar ideological or social positioning influencer definitions (Class 1) only accounted for 7.8 %
would gravitate towards the same, or similar stakeholder (n = 69) of these definitions. This contrasts with 268
attributes when conceptualising a stakeholder and so there (30.28 %) claimant-based definitions, 217 (24.52 %) col-
should be clusters evident in application of the classifica- laborator definitions and 445 (50.28 %) recipient defini-
tion system. tions. Both influencer- and recipient-based definitions are
impacted by the ‘Freeman effect’, as the original exemplar
of stakeholder theory as an essentially contested concept
Empirical Evaluation (Miles 2012), as many authors either adopted one of the
five 1984 variants, or presented a modified definition based
The classification model was tested through the empirical on the influencer attribute ‘can affect’ (n = 221 defini-
application of 885 definitions identified from the bounded tions) or the recipient attributer ‘is affected by’ (n = 288).
systematic review. All definitions were included in a new The majority of contributors (n = 508) presented defi-
spreadsheet, analysed according to the 19 identified attri- nitions that overlapped two genres, indicating the nuanced
butes and determinants and, classified according to the four nature of stakeholder definitions and the perpetual debate
proposed hyponyms. The process was independently associated with an essentially contested concept. Only
undertaken by a colleague and the few resultant disagree- 3.62 % (n = 32) of definitions included three or more
ments discussed and resolved. It was possible to derive genres (classes 11–15). Whilst these definitions represent
observations from all categories of the typology, as wide interpretations of the concept, and are all inclusive,
depicted in Fig. 6, providing further support for the they lack practical application and are less useful instan-
essential contestability of the stakeholder concept. tiations than those focusing on specific stakeholder char-
Over a third of definitions (n = 334; 37.7 %) focused on acteristics. For an essentially contested concept one may
just one aspect of stakeholder identification (Class 1–4), expect the occurrence of such definitions to diminish over
with pure claimant definitions being the most profuse time as debate leads to greater definitional clarification;
(n = 134). As a genre, influencer definitions were the most Whilst this is partially so, with a peak of combinatory
prolific, with 58.75 % (n = 520) definitions including a definitions pre-2000, such definitions are still being origi-
nated, for example Maignan et al. (2011).
For each of the 15 classes of stakeholder definitions an
example is given in Fig. 7. Whilst these may not represent
a b perfect definitions, they are clear and unambiguous
Claimant Influencer
(n=268) 1 2 n=520 instantiations, especially when compared to other defini-
(n=134) (n=69)
ab’c’d’ a’bc’d’ tions presented.
6
(n=63)
Only 1.24 % (n = 11) of definitions could not be clas-
5 7
(n=35) abc’d’ (n=99) sified. All of these relate to instances whereby the
abc’d’ a’bc’d
11
3
expression ‘stakeholder’ is defined by reference to char-
4 (n=8) 12
(n=84) abcd’ (n=4)
(n=47) acteristics that stakeholders do not possess. For example,
a’b’c’d
a’b’cd’ abc’d secondary stakeholders have been defined as those that
15
‘‘lack a formal contractual bond with the firm, do not have
10 (n=264) (n=4)
abcd
8 a direct legal authority over the firm’’ (de Bakker and den
a’bcd’ (n=13)
ab’c’d Hond 2008, p. 9), that the company does not depend on for
14 13
(n=9) (n=7) its survival (Dimovski and Brooks 2004), are ‘‘not involved
a’bcd ab’cd
directly in the firm’s economic transactions’’ (Darnall et al.
c 9
(n=34)
d 2010, p. 1075) and with ‘‘no accountability rights’’ (Kaler
Recipient Collaborator
a’b’cd
n= 445 n=217 2009, p. 299). This kind of definition infers that anybody or
anything that does not have these characteristics would be
afforded stakeholder status as it fails to delineate the nec-
essary or sufficient conditions for identification. As such
16
(n=11)
these definitions are unclassifiable due to the absence of
Unclassifiable
n=11 a’b’c’d’ clear, precise limits and precision of approach required for
a typology based on similarity or essentialism. The findings
Fig. 6 Typology of stakeholder definitions and associated classifica- from this research suggest such definitions should be
tion of 885 stakeholder definitions (n) avoided.

123
454 S. Miles

• “individuals or groups with which business interacts who have a ‘stake’

Class 1: Claimant or vested interest in the firm. This ‘stake’ is also described as a ‘claim’,
‘interest’ or ‘right’ (Carroll, 1989, p.22)
• "those who can assist or hinder the achievements of the organizaon’s
Class 2: Influencer
objecves" (Phillips et al., 2003, p.481)

•"Parcipants in the human process of joint value creation" (Freeman,

Class 3: Collaborator
1994, p.415)

Class 4: Recipient • “Are placed at risk as a result of a firm’s activies” (Clarkson, 1994, p. 5)

Class 5: Claimant- •“those persons or interests that have a stake, something to gain or lose
Recipient as a result of its [the corporaon’s] activies” (Clarkson, 1998, p. 2)

•"The firm is characterized by relationships with many groups and

Class 6: Claimant- individuals (‘’stakeholders’’), each with (a) the power to affect the firm’s
Influencer performance and/or (b) a stake in the firm’s performance (Jones, 1995,
p.407 )
Class 7: Influencer- •“those groups without whose support the organizaon would cease to
Collaborator exist” (SRI, 1963, p.854)

•"constuents who have a legimate claim on the firm…established

Class 8: Claimant-
through the existence of an exchange relationship" (Hill and Jones, 1992,
Collaborator
p. 133)

•“bear some form of risk as a result of having invested some sort of

Class 9: Collaborator -
capital, human or financial, something of value, in a firm” (Clarkson ,
Recipient
1994, p.5

Class 10: Influencer- •“any group or individual who can affect, or be affected by, the
Recipient achievements of an organizaon’s purpose” (Freeman, 1984, p. 54 )

•"based on an explicit or implicit agreement of mutually acknowledged

Class 11: Claimant-
rights and obligations in order to achieve mutual benefit or prevent some
Influencer-Recipient
harm" (Lamberg et al., 2008, p.847)

•"stakeholder groups have a vital stake in the operaons of a business

Class 12: Claimant-
without whose sancon and support the business would cease to exist”
Influencer-Collaborator
(Murphy et al., 1997)

•holders of legimate interest or stakes in company acvies, directly

Class 13: Claimant-
through market transactions or indirectly through exposure to external
Collaborator-Recipient
effects (Nu , 1997, p. 14)

•"individuals and constuencies that contribute, either voluntarily or

Class 14: Influencer- involuntarily, to its wealth-creating capacity and acvies, and who are
Colloborator-Recipient therefore its potenal beneficiaries and/or risk bearers" (Post et al.,
2002, p. 8)

•"contractual commitments because they are (a) grounded in some form

of mutual agreement; (b) for the specific purpose of realizing mutual
Class 15: Claimant-
benefit or prevenng some harm; involving (c) a set of mutually
Influencer-Collaborator-
acknowledged future rights and obligations to either be implied or
Recipient
‘presented’ in the terms of the contract" (Heugens and van Oosterhout,
2002, p.388)

Fig. 7 Examples of stakeholder definitions for each definitional class

Conclusions returned a mass of complex data (9201 data points) which

This paper presents a multi-dimensional classification of
stakeholder theory definitions, based on an essentialist
approach to classification established by empirical obser-
vation of 885 stakeholder theory definitions. An extensive
review of the stakeholder literature was undertaken as a
starting point for the determination of stakeholder charac-
teristics. The analysis of the resulting 885 definitions
is summarised, synthesised and contrasted. The proposed
classification model represents the first systematic attempt
at amalgamating, filtering and ordering the constructs of
the stakeholder concept. This radically advances the work
of Kaler (2002), extending the recognised classification of
stakeholder definitions from a three category model based
on analysis of 27 definitions, to a 16 category model based
on an analysis of 885 definitions.

123
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
This evaluation reveals widespread profusion and con-
fusion in relation to stakeholder characteristics. Similarities
and differences between approaches are evident and con-
firm the status of the stakeholder concept and stakeholder
theory as essentially contested concepts as purported by
Miles (2012) and Mitchell (2012). If the fundamental
question ‘who is a stakeholder?’ is essentially contested,
how can stakeholder theory prescribe why it is important to
consider a range of stakeholder needs, or how management
should formulate stakeholder strategies or manage con-
flicting stakeholder interests? Previous stakeholder theory
research, as outlined in the introduction of this paper, has
called for further research to address the ‘definition prob-
lem’ and this paper was predicated on the basis of
addressing these concerns.
One approach to addressing such concerns is to con-
tribute to the optimal development of stakeholder theory as
an essentially contested concept. A classification system
conveys meaning beyond that conveyed by the description
of a concept and provides sharper description and analysis
leading to reduced contestability. Optimal development is
supported through the provision of clear guidance on the
array of constructs of stakeholder identification evident in
the management literature, and how these are related, so
that terms and constructs can be used consistently, and
duplication can be avoided. This should enable the pre-
diction of emerging narratives as well as enabling potential
problems to be foreseen.
Optimal development is also supported through the
helpful overview of stakeholder theory presented. A mul-
titude of narratives and stakeholder ‘theories’ are com-
pared, contrasted and positioned together within one model
through the analysis of the determinants and relationship
attributes advocated by individual contributors. Through a
collective consideration of the constructs of the classifica-
tion, the extent to which these contributions are connected,
interrelated or divergent is highlighted. For example, the
proposed model suggests how the attributes of density of
networks, centrality, reciprocity, influencing strategies, the
nature of claims, the perceptions of risk taking, the basis of
legitimacy, the propensity to harm and so forth are con-
nected. Further research could explore specific
relationships.
As an essentially contested concept, the stakeholder
concept is subject to perpetual debates concerning the best
instantiation of the term. A classification of stakeholder
definitions will enable consideration of the difficulties or
ease of synchronisation of definitions. In evaluating the
constructs of the typology the inherent problems of defi-
nitional convergence are clearly exposed. Definitional
clarity is inversely related to the number of hyponyms
covered, to the extent that an all-inclusive definition (class
15) is nonsensical, with extremely limited practical or
455
theoretical application. Many papers devote much effort to
covering a range of definitions (e.g. Aaltonen and Kujala
2010; Boonstra and Govers 2009; Clifton and Amran 2011;
McLarney 2002) with some covering as many as 15 dif-
ferent instantiations. The proposed classification model
should minimise the need to specify and analyse a range of
definitions every time a contribution is made to stakeholder
theory. Contributors can, instead, focus the conceptual
enquiry on the hyponym(s) of the stakeholder concept that
align(s) with their ideology and focus on specific contri-
bution to knowledge. By acknowledging that the stake-
holder concept is essentially contested, with 593 different
instantiations, it should be clear to future researchers that
repeatedly debating a few instantiations of the concept is,
at best, incomplete and at worst superficial and misleading.
At the other extreme 40.18 % of contributors (268 papers)
reviewed did not provide any conceptual enquiry, despite
widespread definitional debate and calls for clarification.
The recognition of the stakeholder concept as an essentially
contested concept and the associated classification system
emphasises the need for definitional specification to align
contributions to narratives.
Implications for Future Research
As a conceptual enquiry into the stakeholder concept aimed
at the optimal development of stakeholder theory, focus on
the implications for future research is exceedingly
important:
1. Agreement is needed on the best instantiation per
genre. Recognition of the stakeholder concept as an
essentially contested concept indicates that it is not
logical for academics to endlessly debate the construc-
tion of the definition with a view to agreeing on the
best instantiation, as a universally accepted definition
can never be reached. Instead, to achieve optimal
development, future conceptual enquiry needs to focus
on stakeholder genres. As stakeholder theory reaches
maturity, attention should logically shift from contin-
ual debates around generic stakeholder definitions to
more refined and focused definitional debates on the
delineation of the boundaries of stakeholder identifi-
cation which are aligned to context. Optimal develop-
ment (Gallie 1956) will be achieved if there is a
‘‘marked improvement in the quality of arguments
between the disputants over time’’ (Miles 2012,
p. 294), as it is clear that some definitions are
considerably better than others. Similar political argu-
ments should logically cluster towards particular
definitional conditions and contributors need to work
towards creating a similar voice in promoting the best
instantiation possible so that consensus can be reached
123
456
at the second level of meaning. The development of
specific genres of stakeholder types will enable
researchers to align their contribution more easily
with the contributions of others. For example, given
that 329 of the 885 definitions analysed originated
from Business Ethics Journals (Journal of Business
Ethics, 225, Business & Society 57 and, Business
Ethics Quarterly 47) with a significant number of
papers directly included in the analysis of the deter-
minants and attributes that form the construct of the
classification model, there is further potential to
analyse, and refine, the stakeholder concept from a
pure business ethics perspective.
2. Are particular aspects of the stakeholder concept
subject to more or less essential contestability? Further
research is required to establish precisely where the
political debates associated with different stakeholder
genres differ and which stakeholder attributes are
subject to the strongest and most vocal arguments.
3. Are there preferred forms of stakeholder definitions
that are better than others? Some definitions are better
than others and, there needs to be further debate
concerning the desirable principles of a ‘good’ defini-
tion, such as clarity of form, succinctness, balance,
relevance and understandability. Robust, rigorous
definitions define terms by reference to necessary or
sufficient conditions rather than through examples, the
use of synonyms or by reference to what an expression
is not. Definitions that only relate to examples ignore
the dynamic nature of the relationship and are partial if
stakeholder groups are omitted due to being situational
specific. Definitions that refer to synonyms, e.g.
‘contract holders’ (Freeman and Evan 1990) or
‘claimants’ (Cornell and Shapiro 1987) may be
succinct but the lack of descriptors render this kind
of definition vague.
4. Are there alternative forms of classification, or refine-
ments to be made to the proposed model? Further
debate and research are an expected and desirable
consequence of this research because not only is any
classification within the social sciences a social
construct, designed for its purpose, but also this
classification system is based on an essentially con-
tested concept. Being the first effort to classify an
exceptionally complex field in a systematic, yet
pragmatic way, there are bound to be important
variables in determining stakeholder definition which
are not considered, despite best efforts to capture 205
determinant variables from 885 definitions. Whilst the
current typology was tested with empirical data with
positive results, as only 1.24 % of definitions were
unable to be accommodated, those with alternative
123
S. Miles
worldviews could, and should, propose a different
taxon.
5. Can, or should the classification model be extended?
The current typology is based on a wide range of
literature but this is exclusively from management or
business disciplines. Further research could consider a
wider range of appropriations beyond management
literature, exploring public policy or the environmental
or natural sciences, or the perspective to include
practitioner use of the stakeholder concept.
6. Future research is needed on identifying stakeholder
perceptions of stakeholder status. This research repre-
sented a comprehensive bounded systematic review of
stakeholder theory literature and yet only three stake-
holder perceived relationship attributes and determi-
nants were identified compared to 15 managerial
perceived factors. In order to better understand the
stakeholder–organisation relationship there has to be
much more research that explores stakeholder percep-
tions and what factors stakeholders consider to be
necessary and sufficient conditions for stakeholder
recognition. This would benefit management by reduc-
ing the expectations gap between management and
stakeholders with respect to important business ethics
issues such as accountability and transparency.
7. Can definitional analysis help identify instances where
stakeholder theory has been misappropriated? Evalu-
ation of the boundaries proposed in the classification
model could facilitate the assessment of those concepts
(definitions) that fall outside of stakeholder theory
where the stakeholder concept is misappropriated or
misunderstood. Phillips et al. (2003) provides a good
starting point in this regard in terms of what stake-
holder theory is and is not.
8. Research is required into the evolution of stakeholder
theory definitions. Currently, little is known about the
evolution of stakeholder definitions indicating that
future conceptual enquiry is needed. The current
empirical application of the typology includes defini-
tions that range from 1963 to 2011. The application of
the typology at various points in time would reveal
clusters of definitions, enabling researchers to chart the
progress of contestability, or harmonisation over time,
and within specific narratives, such as within business
ethics.
9. Contribution to the optimal development of other
essentially contested concepts. Both sustainability and
corporate social responsibility have been found to be
essentially contested concepts (Jacobs 2006; Okoye
2009). The stakeholder concept holds many similarities
with these concepts and so there is scope for this study to
inform similar approaches in these related disciplines.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
It is hoped that this classification will provide a spring-
board for debate and contribute to the wider aims of fellow
stakeholder theorists ‘‘to render a stronger and more con-
vincing theory as a starting place for future research’’
(Phillips et al. 2003, p. 479) that will lead to the achievable
outcome, for an essentially contested concept, of the optimal
development of stakeholder theory (Miles 2012).
References
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on
stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.
Adelman, I., & Morris, C. T. (1965). A factor analysis of the
interrelationship between social and political variables and per
capita gross national product. The Quarterly Journal of Eco-
nomics, 79(4), 555–578.
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters
to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience,
corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42(5), 507–525.
Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate
governance; managing in a dynamic environment. Westport,
CT: Quorum Books.
Almond, G. A. (1956). Comparative political systems. The Journal of
Politics, 18(3), 391–409.
Barton, S. L., Hill, N. C., & Sundaram, S. (1989). An empirical test of
stakeholder theory predictions of capital structure. Financial
Management, 18, 36–44.
Boatright, J. R. (2000). Ethics and the conduct of business (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Boonstra, A., & Govers, M. J. G. (2009). Understanding ERP system
implementation in a hospital by analysing stakeholders. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 177–193.
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders,
reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 30, 447–456.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping
stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43, 649–660.
Bowmann-Larsen, L., & Wiggen, O. (2004). Responsibility in world
business: Managing harmful side-effects of corporate activity.
New York: United Nations University Press.
Brenner S. N. (1993). The stakeholder theory of the firm and
organizational decision making: Some propositions and a model.
In J. Pasqueroa & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business
and Society. San Diego.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strate-
gies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 24(5), 453–470.
Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder
management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company.
Carson, T. L. (1993). Does the stakeholder theory constitute a new
kind of theory of social responsibility? Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 3(2), 171–176.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an
essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic
future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.
Clarkson, M. E. (1994). Risk-based model of stakeholder theory.
Toronto: The Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics.
457
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and
evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 20(1), 92–118.
Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics. (1999). Principles of stakeholder
management, Joseph L. Rotman school of management, Univer-
sity of Toronto, Toronto. Reproduced in 2002. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 12(1), 256–264.
Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A
sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98,
121–136.
Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and
corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.
Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social
identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 102, 77–87.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive
environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm
size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.
de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics
of stakeholder influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 8–20.
Dimovski, B., & Brooks, R. (2004). Stakeholder representation on the
boards of Australian initial public offerings. Applied Financial
Economics, 14, 233–1238.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: concepts evidence and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 65–92.
Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder:
advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for
the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–74.
Emshoff, J. R & Freeman, R. E. (1978). Stakeholder management.
Working paper July, Wharton Applied Research Center, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the
modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp &
N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84, 113–135.
Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2009). An enterprise-wide strategic
stakeholder approach to sales ethics. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 17(3–4), 257–270.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some
future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.
Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern
corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical
theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A
stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19,
337–359.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., &
DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders:
A new perspective on corporate governance. California Man-
agement Review, 25(3), 88–106.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of a firm is to increase
its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory.
Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and
practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 191–205.
123
458
Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies:
The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business
and Society, 44(1), 3–31.
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of
standardised ethics initiatives: A stakeholder theory perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755–773.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.
Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political
concepts. Political Theory, 5(3), 331–348.
Greenwood, M., & De Cieri, H. (2006). Stakeholder theory and the
ethics of human resource management. In A. Pinnington, R.
Macklin, & T. Campbell (Eds.), Ethics in human resource
management and employment relations. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Hanly, K. (1992). Hostile takeovers and methods of defense: A
stakeholder analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 895–913.
Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for
competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive,
18, 7–18.
Harzing, A. W. (2013). Journal quality list. Retrieved from http://
www.harzing.com/jql.htm.
Heaton, P., Miles, S., & Duhan, S. (2012). Dynamic mapping of
stakeholders for dealing with plant closure complexity. Social
Business, 2(2), 95–119.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between
environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of
stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal,
42(1), 87–99.
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & van Oosterhout, H. (2002). The confines
of stakeholder management: Evidence from the Dutch manufac-
turing sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 387–403.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory.
Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
Hofsted, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and
planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99.
Jacobs, M. (2006). Sustainable development as a contested concept.
In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environ-
mental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology.
Accounting Review, 8, 319–339.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of
ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20,
404–438.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory.
Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.
Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification.
Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 91–100.
Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of
Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.
Kaler, J. (2009). An optimally viable version of stakeholder theory.
Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 297–312.
Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: A critique of
stakeholder ‘‘theory’’. Management Decision, 37(4), 317–328.
Knox, S., & Gruar, C. (2007). The application of stakeholder theory
to relationship marketing strategy development in a non-profit
organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 115–135.
Laan, G., Ees, H., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate social and
financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and
empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business
Ethics, 79, 299–310.
Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of the
firm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.
123
S. Miles
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory:
Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management,
34(6), 1152–1189.
Lawrence, A. T. (2010). Managing disputes with nonmarket stake-
holders: wage a fight, withdraw, wait, or work it out? California
Management Review, 53(1), 90–113.
Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to
stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 201–217.
Lehmann, A. (2013). Quality and Governance in High Frequency
Trading Systems. University of Oslo, Department of Informatics.
Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Research notes: Stakeholders and
corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition
and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.
Madsen, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Integrating environmental and
stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment, 10(2), 77–88.
Mahoney, J. (1994). Stakeholder responsibilities: turning the ethical
tables. Business Ethics: A European Review, 3(4), 31–35.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model
for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 39, 956–977.
Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Tomas, G., Hult, M., & Ferrell,
O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: development and testing
of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for
stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Man-
agement Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.
Marcoux, A. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder
theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 1–24.
McLarney, C. (2002). Stepping into the light: Stakeholder impact on
competitive adaptation. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 15, 255–272.
Merrilees, B., Getz, D., & O’Brien, D. (2005). Marketing stakeholder
analysis: Branding the Brisbane goodwill games. European
Journal of Marketing, 39, 1060–1077.
Miles, S. (2011). Stakeholder definitions: profusion and confusion.
EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholders,
resources and value creation, IESE Business School, University
of Navarra, Barcelona.
Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholders: Essentially contested or just con-
fused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 285–298.
Miller, R. L., & Lewis, W. F. (1991). A stakeholder approach to
marketing management using the value exchange models.
European Journal of Marketing, 25(8), 55–68.
Mir, M. Z., & Rahaman, A. S. (2011). In pursuit of environmental
excellence: A stakeholder analysis of the environmental man-
agement strategies and performance of an Australian energy
company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(7),
848–878.
Mitchell, R. K. (2012). Book review: Stakeholder theory: impacts and
prospects. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1407–1411.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory
of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle
of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,
22, 853–886.
Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects
approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social respon-
sibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus
non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38,
141–159.
Nair, R. D., & Frank, W. G. (1980). The impact of disclosure and
measurement practices on international accounting classifica-
tions. Accounting Review, 55, 426–450.
Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions
Nobes, C. W. (1983). A judgmental international classification of
financial reporting practices. Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 10(1), 1–19.
Nuti, D. M. (1997). Democracy and economy: What role for
stakeholders? Business Strategy Review, 8(2), 14–20.
Ojala, J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2008). Stakeholder relations as social
capital in early modern international trade. Business History,
50(6), 749–764.
Okoye, A. (2009). ‘Theorising corporate social responsibility as an
essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal
of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627.
O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility
(CSR): Models and theories instakeholder dialogue. Journal of
Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.
Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental
limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2),
215–234.
Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2009). Putting a stake in stakeholder
theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 605–615.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of
organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper and Row.
Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 51–66.
Phillips, R. A. (1999). On stakeholder delimitation. Business and
Society, 38, 32–34.
Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 13, 25–41.
Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What
stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4),
479–502.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the
corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational
wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to
stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65,
251–267.
Roberts, A. D. (1995). The very idea of classification in international
accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 639–664.
Roberts, R. W., & Mahoney, L. (2004). Stakeholder conceptions of
the corporation: Their meaning and influence in accounting
research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 399–431.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory
of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22,
885–910.
Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder
groups act? An interest and identity based model of stakeholder
group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2),
204–219.
Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stake-
holder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 535–544.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991).
Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakehold-
ers. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.
Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational
leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209–220.
Schneper, W. D., & Guillén, M. (2004). Stakeholder rights and
corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile take-
overs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 263–295.
459
Seidler, L. J. (1967). International accounting—the ultimate theory
course. The Accounting Review, 42, 775–781.
Shankman, N. A. (1999). Reframing the debate between agency and
stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19,
319–334.
Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Measuring corporate performance by building on
the stakeholder’s model of business ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics, 35, 143–162.
Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to
product symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation.
Journal of Business Research, 22, 95–109.
SRI (Stanford Research Institute). (1963). Internal memo (unpub-
lished). Stanford Research Institute, California, USA.
Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Towards
stakeholder status for nonhuman nature. Journal of Business
Ethics, 14, 207–217.
Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 5, 3–10.
Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or
Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management
Studies, 38(5), 603–626.
Swanton, C. (1985). On the ‘‘essential contestedness’’ of political
concepts. Ethics, 95(4), 811–827.
Teklemariama, D., Azadi, H., Nyssena, J., Haile, M., & Witloxa, F.
(2015). Transnational land deals: Towards an inclusive land
governance framework. Land Use Policy, 42, 781–789.
Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organiza-
tions: a stakeholder approach. Financial Accountability &
Management, 25(3), 353–366.
Thompson, J. K., Wartick, S. L., & Smith, H. L. (1991). Integrating
corporate social performance and stakeholder management:
Implications for a research agenda in small business. Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 207–230.
Trinkaus, J., & Giacalone, J. (2005). The silence of the stakeholders:
Zero decibel level at Enron. Journal of Business Ethics, 58,
237–248.
Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue
and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or
reinforcing capital hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 29, 685–707.
Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent
the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.
Vazquez-Brust, D. A., Liston-Heyes, C., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., &
Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic
prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses
in Argentinean firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 171–192.
Vinten, G. (2000). The stakeholder manager. Management Decisions,
38, 377–383.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation: A
blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman
Publishing.
Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R, Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist
reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 4, 475–497.
Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational
legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Jour-
nal of Management, 7(4), 329–347.
123
Journal of Business Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.