Dear Prof. Noro,

I am not an expert on your topic. I found the following reference of Alexis Rocamora, though:

Rocamora (2017), Integrated stakeholder engagement: putting sustainability at the heart of corporate value creation.

Reading your question, I thought you might be searching for an integrated stakeholder engagement similar to the one described by Rocamora.

Here is the link: https://pub.iges.or.jp/pub_file-247/download

Yours sincerely,

Rainer

Dear Rainer Spiegel,

Thank you for the input. The views expressed in the article actually come close to my own and very useful for me.

Kind regards,

Luca

An attempt to get some discussion going.

It is my view that stakeholder theory should be conceived in a very schematic manner, without much empirical content. Basically, a conceptual scheme together with some very minimal causal and ethical propositions that connect certain of the concepts. It comprises two distinct sets of these non-analytical propositions (that express non-conceptual relations), one set being (I think) nomologicalish and one expressing ethical propositions. These parts are logically distinct, so one can discharge commitment to either one while retaining a commitment to the other.

As for the claim that the theory "nests" various aspects (due to Donaldson & Preston - Donaldson wouldn't agree with my claim in the following!), this should be construed as a (misleading) way of stating that the intention of many researchers is to express commitment to, and defend, the entire bundle of propositions, and that the "spirit" of this defense especially stresses the "normative" content of the complex theory.

Now, there is an analytical argument from the purely conceptual scheme of stakeholder theory, together with some minimal ethical propositions, from which you can in fact derive very schematic counterfactual propositions with empirical import. These propositions are enough to yield empirical (and testable) hypotheses when the theory is extended with empirical propositions (for instance from social psychology, marketing and so on).

These propositions express theoretically dependent on the ethical propositions (the conceptual schemes are tautological and acceptable without commitment to any stakeholder theory with causal or managerial import, I think). I mean roughly that the schematic propositions are dependant on the ethical commitments of a normatively committed stakeholder theorist, or dependant on the normative content of the theory.

If this is correct, then it is obviously possible to establish a schematic stakeholder theory capable of structuring, unifying and guiding empirical research on very, very minimal ground. An unsystematic first stab at this would consist in figuring out plausible "finer grained" causal determinants and system states that lead to states of affairs that realize the broad/schematic outcome states that are likely realizers (in the metaphysical sense) of those states or properties picked out by the concepts embedded in the conceptual scheme of stakeholder theory.

I am working the details out, but in case anyone has had any similar ideas, this brief, vague and abstract discussion should be enough to prompt an immediate understanding of what I am trying to convey. In case you have read this far and recognize the ideas, feel free to give your opinion. If you want to discuss the matter in a private forum, you can reach me on e-mail (I don't feel that confident when it comes to spelling out the exact details, but if there is any interest in this thread I will give it a go):

[email protected]

Kind regards,

Luca