A school is “a building that has four walls…with tomorrow inside”: Toward the reinvention of the business school

Business schools, defined as educational institutions that specialize in teaching courses and programs related to business and/or management, are facing major challenges. These challenges stem from a number of major shifts in the business education landscape, including the rising importance of rankings and accreditations, the increased weight placed on ethical decision making, the ongoing debate on rigor vs. relevance in research, the digital revolution, and the significant decrease in public funding. In fact, they are so fundamental that the coming decade is likely to represent a new era in the history of business education, the fourth since the concept of the business school was created in 1819 with the establishment of ESCP Europe. The purpose of this article is to outline these main changes (TASK: T—from tower to Twittersphere, A—from auditorium to anti-café, S—from stakeholder to shareholder, K—from knowledge to know-how) and to discuss how they impact the different AS-SE-TS of a business school (alumni & students, staff & equipment, teachers & scholars). The article ends with a proposed classification of schools along four corners (culture, compass, capital, and content) and a discussion of which types of schools are best suited to adapt to these changes.     

The Stakeholder Model Refined

The popularity of the stakeholder model has been achieved thanks to its powerful visual scheme and its very simplicity. Stakeholder management has become an important tool to transfer ethics to management practice and strategy. Nevertheless, legitimate criticism continues to insist on clarification and emphasises on the perfectible nature of the model. Here, rather than building on the discussion from a philosophical or theoretical point of view, a different and innovative approach has been chosen: the analysis will return to the origin of stakeholder theory and will keep the graphical framework firmly in perspective. It will confront the stakeholder model’s graphical representation to the discussion on stakeholder definition, stakeholder identification and categorisation, to re-centre the debate to the strategic origin of the stakeholder model. The ambiguity and the vagueness of the stakeholder concept are discussed from managerial and legal approaches. The impacts of two major shortcomings of the popular stakeholder framework are examined: the boundaries and the level of the firm’s environment, and the ambivalent position of pressure groups and regulators. Working pragmatically, with a focus on the managerial and organisational perspective, an attempt is made to clarify the categorisations and classifications by introducing new terminology with a distinction between stakeholders, stakewatchers and stakekeepers. The analysis will finally lead to a proposed upgraded and refined version of the stakeholder model, with incremental ameliorations close to Freeman’s original model and a return of focus to its essence, the managerial implications in a strategic approach.     

Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?

The concept of the ??stakeholder?? has become central to business, yet there is no common consensus as to what the concept of a stakeholder means, with hundreds of different published definitions suggested. Whilst every concept is liable to be contested, for stakeholder research, this is problematic for both theoretical and empirical analysis. This article explores whether this lack of consensus is conceptual confusion, which would benefit from further debate to try to reach a higher degree of elucidation, or whether the stakeholder concept is essentially contested, rendering the quest to seek a singular definition unfeasible. The theory of essentially contested concepts was proposed by Gallie (Proc Aristot Soc 56:167?C198, 1956). The seven criteria Gallie prescribes for evaluating essentially contested concepts are applied to the stakeholder concept. The analysis suggests that this concept is an essentially contested concept and this explains the degree of definitional variation.     

The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment

This article furthers the argument for a stakeholder theory that integrates into managerial decision-making the relationship between business organizations and the natural environment. The authors review the literature on stakeholder theory and the debate over whom or what should count as a stakeholder. The authors also critique and expand the stakeholder identification and salience model developed by Mitchell and Wood (1997) by reconceptualizing the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, as well as by developing a fourth stakeholder attribute: proximity. In this way, the authors provide a stronger basis for arguing for the salience of the natural environment as the primary and primordial stakeholder of the firm.     

Beyond Stakeholder Utility Function: Stakeholder Capability in the Value Creation Process

In spite of the thousands of articles on stakeholder theory, research on value creation has had a shorter history and narrower breadth. Only a few studies have researched value creation from stakeholder perspective looking at how stakeholders appropiate value or the processes or activities by which stakeholders create value. Consequently to date, certain questions still remain unanswered regarding how a firm should treat stakeholders in order to create value. Several questions arise specifically from the stakeholder's side: What does "value" mean for a particular group of stakeholders and how do firms create these different types of value? How do we measure the value created by stakeholders? The purpose of this paper is to answer these questions from Amartya Sen's Capability Approach, identifying and measuring stakeholders' capabilities in the value creation process. Stakeholder Capability is the adequate concept for understanding stakeholder welfare rather than the utility function concept. The empirical evidence comes from an in-depth case study of the company The Grobo Group and its stakeholders. According to the results, the following stakeholder capabilities are relevant to value creation: being employable, being autonomus, being innovative, being entreprenurial, being responsive, being socially integrated, being emphatic, being "green" and being healthy.     

Complexity in business environments

This article analyzes the concept of complexity from an epistemological point of view, drawing a distinction between complexity (contextual complexity) and complication (procedural complexity). This article explores some organizational consequences of increasing complexity in organizational environments as management must cope with complexity at three different levels — internal, transactional environment, and contextual environment. The authors propose a model of managerial competencies in terms of complexity requirements and overview some consequences of this model for organizational learning and competence building processes.     

Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: Introduction to the special section

This article introduces the special section on reciprocal co-creation of stakeholder and brand identities. Branding research and practice traditionally focus on the managerial creation and implementation of brand identity. Based on recent paradigmatic shifts from managerial to co-creative branding and from consumer to multi-stakeholder approaches in marketing, this special section develops a dynamic, process-oriented perspective on brand identity. Brand identity continuously emerges as a dynamic outcome of social processes of stakeholder interaction. Reciprocally, brand identity plays a potentially important role in ongoing interactive identity development processes of stakeholders. The special section contributes to deepening the understanding of this reciprocal co-creation of stakeholder and brand identities, through a series of conceptual and empirical articles. The Introduction reviews four articles as well as related commentaries and discusses their contributions towards establishing a new dynamic paradigm of co-created and reciprocal brand and stakeholder identities.     

The Stakeholder Corporation

The stakeholder debate continues unabated in Britain in various arenas of public life and activity. "While recognising the societal holism of the stakeholder concept this article concentrates on the debate at a business level, discussing whether stakeholding is ethical, attainable, or even appropriate to business corporations". The author is completing his MBA at London Business School and has a background of consulting in organisational and IT analysis.     

On Firms and the Next Generations: Difficulties and Possibilities for Business Ethics Inquiry

Despite the centrality of the topic for the debate on sustainability, future generations have largely been ignored by business ethics. This neglect is in part due to the enormous philosophical challenges posed by the concepts of future generations and intergenerational duties. This article reviews some of these difficulties and defends that much clarity would be gained from making a distinction between future generations and the next generations. It also argues that the concept of next generations offers a better starting point for business ethics to incorporate the topic in its research agenda. We then suggest four potential pathways to explore this territory. The four approaches build on the notion of organizations as communities with memory and vision, on the narrative shape of organizational life, on the affinity of stakeholders with the next generation, and on systems of indirect reciprocity. These first two approaches are connected to communitarian approaches to business ethics, and the last two engage in a dialog with contractarian views and stakeholder theory. The article ends with some implications for theory and practice.     

God as a Managerial Stakeholder?

Can or should God be considered a managerial stakeholder? While at first glance such a proposition might seem beyond the norms of stakeholder management theory or traditional management practice, further investigation suggests that there might be both theoretical and practical support for such a notion. This paper will make the argument that God both is and should be considered a managerial stakeholder for those businesspeople and business firms that accept that God exists and can affect the world. In doing so, part one of the paper first discusses the growth of religion and spirituality within the business and academic communities. Part two raises several arguments based on stakeholder theory and business reality to support the notion of God as a managerial stakeholder. Part three addresses the arguments against God as a managerial stakeholder. Part four discusses the managerial implications of considering God as a managerial stakeholder. The paper concludes with its limitations.     

The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good

The theory of the social responsibility of the firm oscillates between two extremes: one that reduces the firm's responsibility to the obtainment of (the greatest possible) profit for its shareholders, and another that extends the firm's responsibility to include a wide range of actors with an interest or "stake" in the firm. The stakeholder theory of the social responsibility of business is more appealing from an ethical point of view, and yet it lacks a solid foundation that would be acceptable to a variety of schools of thought. In this paper I argue that the stakeholder theory could be founded on the concept of the common good. First, I explain the foundations of the theory of the common good, the concept itself, how it relates to the individual good, and its role in the firm. Following that, I explain how the theory of the common good could be applied to the stakeholder theory. Finally, I draw some conclusions.     

That Which Doesn’t Break Us: Identity Work by Local Indigenous ‘Stakeholders’

This article describes a case study on the Machiguenga, a remote Indigenous tribe affected by the Camisea Gas Project in the Peru. We introduce the anthropological concept of ‘glocalization’ and integrate this with organizational knowledge of ‘identity work’. Our findings demonstrate that identity work is a multi-faceted and boundary spanning process that significantly affects stakeholder relations and contributes to conflict between local communities and oil and gas companies. Indigenous identity can be both threatened and strengthened in response to natural gas development and is related to how individuals, communities and the Machiguenga (as a collective) engage in identity work. We also discuss broader implications for management ethics, including a discussion of how Indigenous self-identify processes create a challenge for stakeholder theory.     

Social influence and stakeholder engagement behavior conformity,compliance, and reactance

Following the proliferation of customer engagement behavior research, rising interest is observed in marketing-based stakeholder engagement behavior, which covers any stakeholder's—including a customer's, employee's, firm's, supplier's, competitor's, and so forth—behavioral engagement in his/her role-related interactions, activities, and relationships. However, despite its importance, understanding of the stakeholder engagement behavior concept remains tenuous, is therefore addressed in this paper. We first conceptualize stakeholder engagement behavior as a stakeholder's behavioral manifestation toward his/her role-related interactions, activities, and relationships, followed by an exploration of the effect of influencor-exerted social influence on an influencee's stakeholder engagement behavior. We argue this effect to manifest as stakeholder engagement behavior conformity, -compliance, or -reactance, depending on the influencee's level of acceptance of the influencor's exerted influence. In turn, we propose stakeholder engagement behavior conformity, -compliance, and -reactance to yield cooperation, coopetition, or competition in the influencor/influencee relationship, respectively, as depicted in a conceptual model and an associated set of propositions. By investigating the interface of social influence, stakeholder engagement behavior, and its prevailing relational consequences (i.e., cooperation, coopetition, and competition), our analyses offer novel theoretical acumen and actionable managerial insight.     

Are Alternative Organizational Forms the Solution to Limit Excessive Managerial Discretion?

Modern corporations have been widely accused of promoting values of managerial autonomy that can result in managerial waste and opportunistic behaviour, leading organizational theorists to suggest the adoption of alternative organizational forms that should normatively and structurally limit such autonomy. However, this mixed-methods study of an alternative organizational form – income trusts (1995–2005) – finds that income trusts were also characterized by excessive managerial autonomy. Managers strategically used the income trust form in discretionary ways such as by providing little information on important decisions to external parties, limiting investors’ right to oppose managerial actions and retaining firm earnings to a great extent. Thus, the article concludes that alternative organizational forms do not necessarily promote an ethical business culture since they are unable to overcome deeply institutionalized values of managerial autonomy.     

From command economy to market economy with a human face: The potential role of the stakeholder approach

This article questions the wisdom of the tendency to adopt managerial capitalism, in its purest form, as the only guiding principle of the new organizational philosophy now evolving in Eastern Europe. The article's main thesis is that following the demise of the command economy, the stakeholder approach can play a pivotal role in providing social legitimacy to organizations attempting to transform and revitalize in the newly created market economy in Eastern Europe. Rather than viewing maximization of profits to the stockholders as the enterprise's sole responsibility, this approach calls for a management strategy that matches the enterprise's “values” to the “values” of all its stakeholders optimizing, over the long-term, the net (social and economic) value added to society. © 1992 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

“Society is Out There,Organisation is in Here”: On the Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Held by Different Managerial Groups

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an increasingly significant managerial concept, yet the manager as an agent of corporate bureaucracy has been substantially missing from both the analytical and conceptual literature dealing with CSR. This article, which is both interpretative in nature and specific in reference to the U.K. cultural context, represents an attempt at addressing this lacuna by utilising qualitative data to explore the perceptions of managers working in corporations with developed CSR programmes. Exploring managerial perceptions of motives for CSR initiatives, methods of stakeholder engagement, organisational integration of CSR and its impact on managerial work, this study concludes that an instrumental approach dominates, which indicates an external–internal organisational paradox in the design and execution of CSR initiatives.     

The Social and Environmental Responsibilities of Multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Spar Case

This paper argues that multinational corporations face levels of environmental and social responsibility higher than their national counterparts. Drawing on the literatures of stakeholder salience, corporate reputation management, and evidence from the confrontation between Shell and Greenpeace over the Brent Spar, in 1995, two mechanisms – international reputation side effects, and foreign stakeholder salience – are identified and their contribution in creating an environment more restrictive, in terms of environmental and social responsibility, is elaborated on. The paper concludes with discussing the links of the work presented here with a number of ongoing debates within the filed of international business ethics, and the managerial implications of the two mechanisms identified.     

Market Orientation and Organizational Learning Capabilities

The platform of contemporary marketing thought is founded upon the marketing concept. While there has been much debate about the precise nature of this concept, related discussion concerning its manifestation, in the form of a firm's market orientation, has developed to suggest that it is a feature exhibited by organizations possessing superior skills in understanding and satisfying customer needs. Despite the favourable externalities likely to accrue to an organization that is market oriented, it has been claimed that for a firm to achieve its full potential to learn about the marketplace, instilling a market orientation is only a first principle. While market orientation provides the norms for responding to the marketplace, this needs to be complemented by appropriate mechanisms and processes for higher-order learning to occur. This article examines such a conceptual argument and empirically investigates the relationship between two key constructs: market orientation and organizational learning capabilities. Data were generated from a survey of medium and large industrial firms and five dimensions of organizational learning capability items are tested against two different groups of firms in terms of their degree of market orientation. As contrasted with low market orientation firms, organizations characterized by high levels of market orientation perceived greater organizational learning capability with regard to the dimensions of strategic awareness, operational flexibility, strategic development processes and managerial skills. Discussion is given to these findings and implications are drawn for business executives and future research.     

Feeling Good by Doing Good: Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction, and the Role of Charismatic Leadership

Interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) is gaining momentum in academic and managerial circles. However, prior work in the area has paid little attention to how CSR initiatives should be implemented inside the organization. Against this backdrop, this study examines the impact of CSR initiatives on an important stakeholder group—employees. We build and test a comprehensive multilevel framework that focuses on whether employees derive job satisfaction from CSR programs. The proposed model predicts that a manager’s charismatic leadership influences employees’ interpretations about the motives underlying their companies’ engagement in CSR initiatives (intrinsic and extrinsic CSR-induced attributions) which, in turn, influence employee job satisfaction. Hierarchical linear modeling of data from 47 organizational units comprising 438 employees from three world-leading manufacturing organizations shows that when employees think that their manager possesses charismatic leadership qualities, they tend to attribute the organization’s motives for engaging in CSR activities to intrinsic values, which, in turn, are positively associated with job satisfaction. Also, the extent to which managers are perceived as charismatic leaders relates positively to job satisfaction. Interestingly, CSR-induced extrinsic attributions are neither explained by charismatic leadership nor do they predict job satisfaction. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.