High-status versus low-status stakeholders

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
H. Justin Pace
{"title":"High-status versus low-status stakeholders","authors":"H. Justin Pace","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The literature on stakeholder theory has largely ignored the difficult and central issue of how judges and firms should resolve disputes among stakeholders. When the issue is addressed, focus has largely been on the potential for management to use stakeholder theory as cover for rent-seeking or on disputes between classes of stakeholders. Sharply underappreciated is the potential for disparate interests within a stakeholder class. That potential is particularly acute due to a (largely education-driven) stark and growing class divide in the United States. There is a substantial difference between the interests of a highly educated professional and managerial elite and a pink-collar and blue-collar working class who mostly do not hold 4-year degrees. Despite their smaller numbers, the professional and managerial elite will frequently win out in intra-stakeholder disputes with working-class stakeholders due to their greater status, power, and influence. Because this class divide is cultural, social, and political, as well as economic, these disputes will go beyond financial pie-splitting to culture war issues. This threatens to be destabilizing for both the republic and individual firms and undermines both the practical and ethical arguments for the stakeholder theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"61 3","pages":"191-209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12248","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12248","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The literature on stakeholder theory has largely ignored the difficult and central issue of how judges and firms should resolve disputes among stakeholders. When the issue is addressed, focus has largely been on the potential for management to use stakeholder theory as cover for rent-seeking or on disputes between classes of stakeholders. Sharply underappreciated is the potential for disparate interests within a stakeholder class. That potential is particularly acute due to a (largely education-driven) stark and growing class divide in the United States. There is a substantial difference between the interests of a highly educated professional and managerial elite and a pink-collar and blue-collar working class who mostly do not hold 4-year degrees. Despite their smaller numbers, the professional and managerial elite will frequently win out in intra-stakeholder disputes with working-class stakeholders due to their greater status, power, and influence. Because this class divide is cultural, social, and political, as well as economic, these disputes will go beyond financial pie-splitting to culture war issues. This threatens to be destabilizing for both the republic and individual firms and undermines both the practical and ethical arguments for the stakeholder theory.

地位高与地位低的利益相关者
关于利益相关者理论的文献在很大程度上忽视了法官和公司应如何解决利益相关者之间争端这一棘手的核心问题。当这一问题被提及时,关注的焦点大多是管理层利用利益相关者理论进行寻租的可能性,或者是利益相关者类别之间的争端。而利益相关者群体内部可能存在的利益差异却被严重低估。在美国,由于阶级分化(主要是教育因素造成的)日益加剧,这种可能性尤为突出。受过高等教育的专业和管理精英与大多没有四年制学位的粉领和蓝领工人阶级之间的利益存在巨大差异。尽管专业和管理精英的人数较少,但由于他们的地位、权力和影响力更大,因此在利益相关者内部与工人阶级利益相关者的争端中,专业和管理精英往往会胜出。由于这种阶级分化既是文化、社会和政治方面的,也是经济方面的,因此,这些争端将超越经济分蛋糕的范畴,而涉及文化战争问题。这有可能破坏共和国和单个公司的稳定,并削弱利益相关者理论的实践和道德论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信