The Normative Approach to Stakeholder Management |
Articles | Books | Dictionary | Faq | Home | Leaders | Organizations | Search
|
Intrinsic Stakeholder Commitment |
Summary of the Normative Approach to Stakeholder Management. Abstract |
Berman, Wicks, Kotha, Jones (1999) Edward Freeman (1984) |
The Intrinsic Stakeholder Commitment described by Berman, Wicks, Kotha, Jones (Academy of Management Journal; Oct99, Vol. 42 Issue 5) using earlier work of Edward Freeman is a Normative Approach.
Normative approaches towards stakeholder theory hold that:
Managers ought to pay attention to key stakeholder relationships.
According to this perspective, managerial relationships with
stakeholders are based on normative, moral commitments rather than on a
desire to use those stakeholders solely to maximize profits. In
short, a firm establishes certain fundamental moral principles that
guide how it does business--particularly with respect to how it treats
stakeholders--and uses those principles to drive decision making.
One genesis of this normative model is the fact that firm decisions
affect stakeholder outcomes. Ethics, generally speaking, deals with
obligations that arise when an individual or corporate agent's decisions
affect others; regardless of precisely what constitutes an ethical
decision, decisions made without any consideration of their impact on
others are usually thought to be unethical. Donaldson and Preston (1995)
captured the implications of this view for stakeholder management quite
well by stating that stakeholder interests have intrinsic worth. That
is, certain claims of stakeholders are based on fundamental moral
principles unrelated to the stakeholders' instrumental value to a
corporation. A firm cannot ignore or abridge these claims simply
because honoring them does not serve its strategic interests. In a
sense, these claims are independent of, and should be addressed prior
to, corporate strategic considerations. Stakeholder interests are
thought to form the foundation of corporate strategy itself,
representing "what we are" and "what we stand for" as a company.
Given such a stakeholder orientation, a firm shapes its strategy
around certain moral obligations to its stakeholders. In this vein,
a Kantian posture (Bowie, 1994; Evan & Freeman, 1983), a feminist
perspective (Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994), and a fair contracts
approach (Freeman, 1994; Phillips, 1997) are examples of moral
principles that can form the normative foundation for
stakeholder-oriented management. Freeman and Gilbert explicated this
perspective:
We cannot connect ethics and strategy unless there is some point of
intersection between the values and ethics we hold and the business
practices that exemplify these values and ethics. In order to build
strategy on ethics and avoid a process that looks a lot like post hoc
rationalization of what we actually did, we need to ask "what do we
stand for?" in conjunction with our strategic decisions. (1988: 7071)
The second genesis of a normative stakeholder orientation based on moral
principles is the argument that making a strategic commitment to
morality is not only conceptually flawed but is also ineffective.
First, strategically applying ethical principles--that is, acting
according to moral principles only when doing so is to your
advantage--is, by definition, not following ethical principles at all.
In addition, Quinn and Jones (1995) argued that if the purpose of acting
ethically is to acquire a good reputation that, in turn, will provide a
firm with economic benefits, why not pursue the good reputation directly
without the intellectual excursion into moral philosophy? In some cases,
of course, the behavior called for will coincide with that dictated by
ethics, but in others it may not. What difference does ethics make if
one can act instrumentally without reference to ethics?
From a practical perspective, Jones (1995) argued that the instrumental
benefits of stakeholder management paradoxically result only from a
genuine commitment to ethical principles. He argued that firms that
create and sustain stakeholder relationships based on mutual trust and
cooperation will have a competitive advantage over those that do not
(cf. Barney & Hansen, 1994). If a firm's commitment to trust and
cooperation is strategic rather than intrinsic, it will be difficult for
the firm to maintain the sincere manner and reputation (Frank, 1988)
required for its differential desirability as an economic partner. In
other words, trustworthiness, honesty, and integrity are difficult to
fake. Thus, in order to reap the instrumental benefits of stakeholder
management, a firm must be committed to ethical relationships with
stakeholders regardless of expected benefits. Strategically applied
moral commitments are not really moral and, paradoxically, cannot lead
to the strategic outcomes desired.
This model is called the intrinsic or normative stakeholder commitment model
because the interests of stakeholders have intrinsic value, enter a
firm's decision making prior to strategic considerations, and form a
moral foundation for corporate strategy itself.
👀 | TIP: On this website you can find much more about Intrinsic Stakeholder Commitment! |
Compare with Intrinsic Stakeholder Commitment: Strategic Stakeholder Management | Shareholder and Stakeholder Perspective | History of Value Based Management | What is Value based Management | Clarkson Principles | Strategic Intent
About us | Advertise | Privacy | Support us | Terms of Service
©2023 Value Based Management.net - All names tm by their owners