Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders

As a management problem the identification of stakeholders is not easily solved. It comprises a modelling and a normative issue, which need to be solved in connection with each other. In stakeholder literature knowledge can be found, e.g. on various stakeholder categorizations, that could be useful...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Corporate social-responsibility and environmental management 2003-09, Vol.10 (3), p.141-152
Main Author: Vos, Janita F. J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Boundaries
Categories
Copyrights
Corporate responsibility
Documents
Enterprise resource planning
Finance
Financing
Heuristic
Identification
Investment
Joints
Judgments
Management
Methodology
Modelling
Social responsibility
Stakeholder management
Stakeholders
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:As a management problem the identification of stakeholders is not easily solved. It comprises a modelling and a normative issue, which need to be solved in connection with each other. In stakeholder literature knowledge can be found, e.g. on various stakeholder categorizations, that could be useful for the modelling issue. However, the normative issue remains unresolved. Additionally, the modelling of the so‐called stakeholder category ‘the affected’ further complicates this issue. Nevertheless, from a normative perspective, this group holds justified interests in aspects of organizational activity and its members are, for that reason, legitimate stakeholders. In this article it is explored to what extent critical systems heuristics can help in resolving the managerial problem of identifying stakeholders. Critical systems heuristics is a modelling methodology in which the normative aspect of modelling is crucial. Using the distinction between ‘the involved’ and ‘the affected’, a variety of boundary judgments are discussed. Special attention is given to the so‐called ‘witness’ as a representative of the affected. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
ISSN:1535-3958
1535-3966
DOI:10.1002/csr.39