In the last
decades of the 20th century, the word "stakeholder" has become more
commonly used to mean a person or organization that has a legitimate interest
in a project or entity. In discussing the decision-making process for
institutions -- including large business corporations, government agencies, and
non-profit organizations -- the concept has been broadened to include everyone
with an interest (or "stake") in what the entity does. This includes
not only its vendors, employees, and customers, but even members of a community
where its offices or factory may affect the local economy or environment. In
this context, "stakeholder" includes not only the directors or
trustees on its governing board (who are stakeholders in the traditional sense
of the word) but also all persons who "paid in" the figurative stake
and the persons to whom it may be "paid out" (in the sense of a
"payoff" in game theory, meaning the outcome of the transaction).
In the field of
corporate governance and corporate responsibility, a major debate is ongoing
about whether the firm should be managed for stakeholders, stockholders, or
customers. Those who support the stakeholder view usually base their arguments
on the following four key assertions:
1)
Value can best be created by trying to maximize joint outcomes. For example,
according to this thinking, programs that satisfy both employees' needs and
stockholders' wants are doubly valuable because they address two legitimate
sets of stakeholders at the same time. There is even evidence that the combined
effects of such a policy are not only additive but even multiplicative. For
instance, by simultaneously addressing customer wishes in addition to employee
and stockholder interests, both of the latter two groups also benefit from
increased sales or benefit.
2) Supporters
also take issue with the preeminent role given to stockholders by many business
thinkers, especially in the past. The argument is that debt holders, employees,
and suppliers also make contributions and take risks in creating a successful
firm.
3) These
normative arguments would matter little if stockholders had complete control in
guiding the firm. However, many believe that due to certain kinds of board of
directors structures, top managers like CEOs are mostly in control of the firm.
4) The greatest
value of a company is its image and brand. By attempting to fulfill the needs
and wants of many different people ranging from the local population and
customers to their own employees and owners, companies can prevent damage to
their image and brand, prevent losing large amounts of sales and disgruntled
customers, and prevent costly legal expenses. While the stakeholder view has an
increased cost, many firms have decided that the concept improves their image,
increases sales, reduces the risks of liability for corporate negligence, and
makes them less likely to be targeted by pressure groups.
Types of stakeholders
·
People
who will be affected by an endeavor and can influence it but who are not
directly involved with doing the work. In the private sector, examples include
managers who are affected by a project, process owners, people who work with
the process under study, internal departments that support the process, the
financial department, suppliers, and even customers.
·
People
who are (or might be) affected by any action taken by an organization or group.
Examples are parents, children, customers, owners, employees, associates,
partners, contractors, suppliers, people that are related or located near by.
Any group or individual who can affect or who is affected by achievement of a
group's objectives.
·
An
individual or group with an interest in a group's or an organization's success
in delivering intended results and in maintaining the viability of the group or
the organization's product and/or service. Stakeholders influence programs,
products, and services.
·
Any
organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be
impacted by a given approach to environmental regulation, pollution prevention,
energy conservation, etc.
·
A
participant in a community mobilization effort, representing a particular
segment of society. School board members, environmental organizations, elected
officials, chamber of commerce representatives, neighborhood advisory council
members, and religious leaders are all examples of local stakeholders.
‘Mutual benefit’
is the key word. In considering multifaceted interests of stakeholder, an
organization has to set programs wisely.
Sometime people just did the easiest way, just decided from the ‘right’
and the ‘wrong’ items and yet it is not as simple as right-wrong question. It
needs a serial of thought and understanding to differentiate the ‘right’, the
‘good’, the ‘nice’ and the ‘appropriate’ ways.
Even we end up
with the best solution we still have to find ‘second opinion’ to assure that
the implementation of policies would have no negative impact to stakeholders,
especially to marginal people.
Sometimes we can
manipulate the real condition to meet the requirement of stakeholders,
sometimes we reengineer data and information and find out the most common sense
reason or argumentation, hence it seems everything has done appropriately and
properly, but cheating is still the biggest crime in civilized society and far
away from ethics and norms, particularly in educational institution. Therefore,
we should response to multiple key stakeholders with honest, realistic, and
accountable data. Let people decide with their opinion whether it is good or
bad things without any distortion.
