The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder

Author(s): Matias Laine

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96, Supplement 1: TRIBUTE TO JUHA NSI (2010),
pp. 73-78
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29789758
Accessed: 31-05-2016 03:14 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29789758?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business
Ethics

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2010) 96:73-78
DOI 10.1007/s 10551-011 -0936-4

The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder

Matias Laine

Published online: 6 July 2011

? Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract There is a longstanding debate in the stake? stakeholder of the firm (e.g. Starik 1995; Stead and Stead
holder literature as to who and what really counts as the 1996). However, in many cases, the natural environment
stakeholders of the firm. Likewise, there have been dis? has simply been positioned either as a stakeholder or a non
cussions on whether nature should be considered a stake? stakeholder, without any articulated arguments.
holder of the firm. However, one seldom encounters any The aim of this article is to take a closer look at what
definitions of the key concepts, that is of nature or the those things called nature' and the natural environment
natural environment. We seek to contribute to the debate really are. We first go briefly through some definitions of
by taking a closer look at what this thing called nature stakeholders proposed in the literature. Next, we proceed to
actually is. In addition, we discuss the implications of this the prior discussion regarding the status of the natural
conceptual refinement for the stakeholder model. In order environment in the stakeholder model together with the
to reinforce the status of the natural environment in the arguments presented in support of different conceptuali?
stakeholder model, we propose that any visualisation of a sations. Thereafter, we focus on the definitions of nature
stakeholder network should be embedded in the natural and the natural environment. In the final section, we dis?
environment. cuss the possible implications of these definitions for the
stakeholder model and draw some conclusions.
Keywords Natural environment ? Nature ? Stakeholder

Who and What Counts as a Stakeholder

Introduction There is a longstanding debate in the stakeholder literature

as to who and what really counts as the stakeholders of the
Stakeholder thinking has been a salient part of the aca? firm. Thus, before progressing to discussing the position of
demic management literature for decades (Freeman 1984, the natural environment in the stakeholder model, we take
see also Rhenman and Stymne 1965; Ahlstedt and Jahnu a brief look at the various definitions of stakeholders pro?
kainen 1971; N?si 1979). Over the years, the relationship posed so far in the literature. In general, a rough distinction
between business and the natural environment has attracted can be made between the broad and the narrow views of the
ever-increasing attention from both academia and the stakeholders (see Freeman and Reed 1983; also Fassin
society at large. Likewise, in the discussions concerning 2009; Mitchell et al. 1997). Freeman's (1984, p. 46) classic
stakeholder theories some authors have explicitly proposed definition is one of the broadest: 'A stakeholder in an
that the natural environment should be considered a
organization is (by definition) any group or individual who
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the orga?
nization's objectives'. According to Mitchell et al. (1997),
M. Laine (El) the broad view of stakeholders stems from the idea that
School of Management, University of Tampere, 33014 Tampere,
Finland organizations can indeed affect or be affected by virtually
e-mail: [email protected] anyone. Such a broad view has been criticised for being of

? Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
74 M. Laine

only limited practical value, because of both its enormous model. In an earlier article Starik (1995) goes through
complexity and virtual all-inclusiveness. Accordingly, arguments for and against stakeholder status and ends up
some scholars have attempted to define stakeholders in a maintaining that the natural environment should indeed be
more concrete and limited way. These definitions are considered a stakeholder. However, he admits that adding
likewise varied. Hill and Jones (1992, p. 133), for instance, the natural environment to the stakeholder map could be 4a
base their definition on claims: 'the term stakeholder refers daunting endeavour' (Starik 1995, p. 215). More recently,
to groups of constituents who have a legitimate claim on in a co-authored article Driscoll and Starik (2004) maintain
the firm'. Phillips (1997; also Phillips and Reichart 2000), that the natural environment should be considered to be the
in turn, approaches stakeholder identification by using the primordial stakeholder. Drawing on the seminal contribu?
principal of fairness. In a recent contribution, Fassin (2009, tion by Mitchell et al. (1997), Driscoll and Starik add
p. 116) refers to stakeholders as 'any individual or group proximity to the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy
that maintain a stake in an organisation in the way that a and urgency by Mitchell and colleagues. They further
shareholder possesses shares'. Moreover, Fassin (2009, discuss the four attributes and conclude that the natural
p. 121) elaborates on the stakeholder model and proposes a environment should be considered the primary and pri?
distinction between stakeholders, stakewatchers and mordial stakeholder of the firm (see also Haigh and
stakekeepers. For him, the stakeholders are 'essentially the Griffiths 2009). According to Driscoll and Starik (2004),
classic stakeholders in the original narrow model'. The the natural environment exists in a relation of reciprocal
stakekeepers, like pressure groups, 'do not really have a dependence with the business organisations. They maintain
stake themselves, but they protect the interests of real that the natural environment holds coercive power and has
stakeholders'. Finally, the stakewatchers, like the regula? attained legitimacy from the world's scientific community.
tors, 'have no stake in the firm but have influence and Moreover, Driscoll and Starik (2004, p. 61) argue that even
control'. though the model proposed by Mitchell, Agle and Wood
In short, there is a plethora of definitions for stakeholders does not focus 'on the subtle, the silent and the slowly
(see Mitchell et al. 1997). As Phillips et al. (2003, p. 479) evolving', the natural environment's claims are urgent
put it: 'the term means different things to different people'. through its holding of coercive power. In fact, Driscoll and
Likewise, the status of the natural environment also varies Starik (2004) argue that the limited conceptions of power
in the different conceptualisations. In this article we con? dominating the stakeholder thinking serve as a powerful
tend that the natural environment should be given a more blinder to the importance of many legitimate stakeholders,
prominent and visible position in the stakeholder model. including the natural environment.
Therefore, we now proceed to discuss how the natural Similarly Stead and Stead (1996) also consider the
environment has been positioned in earlier contributions. natural environment as a stakeholder of the firm. In their
view the natural environment should be seen as the ulti?
mate stakeholder, since it differs fundamentally from the
Perspectives Including the Natural Environment other stakeholder groups. For Stead and Stead the key
as a Stakeholder of the Firm concept is Earth, which is simultaneously the source of and
the sink for all human economic activity. The argument
One of the earliest accounts considering the natural envi? rests on two main reasons: first, the immense scope of the
ronment as a stakeholder of the firm was presented by N?si earth encompassing all human activities and, second, on
(1980, 1982). N?si's conceptualization is reproduced in the human proxies advancing earth's position as an
Fig. 1. In his contribution stakeholders are described as important entity for the firm. In a later article (Stead and
follows: 'Interest groups and interest systems consist of Stead 2000) they also note how taking care of the earth is a
individuals, groups, institutions, and of the natural envi? legitimate ethical stance for companies.
ronment which interact with the firm. All these systems Wheeler and Sillanp?? (1997) present yet another per?
have different expectations and demands on the firm and spective on the position of the natural environment. Their
the firm is also responsible for all these systems' (N?si description includes a fourfold typology dividing stake?
1980, 1982). However, in hindsight it may be noted that holders on the basis of social/non-social and primary/
nature has been positioned as a stakeholder without any secondary classifications. In this typology the natural
explicit argumentation as to why this is the case. Further, environment is given a primary non-social position. This
even though N?si uses the term natural environment in the entails that the natural environment has rights, which may
body of his text, in his figures (reproduced here as Fig. 1) be affected by the firm. However, as a non-social stake?
the term nature is used. holder the natural environment cannot directly communi?
Starik has actively argued in favour of giving the natural cate with the firm, but has to have human proxies to speak
environment a prominent position in the stakeholder on its behalf (see Fassin 2009).

Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder 75

Arguments as to Why the Natural Environment Should continued for quite some time. However, we maintain that
not be Included as a Stakeholder one seldom comes across any articulated definitions of the
phenomenon discussed in these articles. In addition, the
There are some main arguments based on which other concepts are often used more or less interchangeably.
commentators have maintained that the natural environ? Starik (1995) uses the concepts 'natural environment',
ment should not be accorded any status as a stakeholder. 'non-human nature', and at times also 'nature' virtually
Firstly, one of the most essential of these is the question indiscriminately. In their critique of Starik's article Phillips
regarding the theoretical rigour and clarity of the whole and Reichart (2000) refer to even more concepts, namely
stakeholder model. It has been argued (e.g. Phillips and 'the natural environment', 'non-human natural environ?
Reichart 2000; Orts and Strudler 2002; Fineman and ment', 'non-human nature', 'nature', 'the natural world',
Clarke 1996) that if the natural environment is given and 'the non-human natural entities'. Likewise, Orts and
stakeholder status, the whole concept of stakeholder Strudler (2002) employ the terms 'nature' and 'natural
becomes diluted. Phillips and Reichart (2000, p. 189; also environment' interchangeably, albeit without mentioning
Phillips 1997) even state that if the natural environment is this explicitly in their article. Thus, the articles appear to
considered a stakeholder through its presence within the assume that there is some kind of a common understanding
business environment of a firm, then everything existing in of the nature and of the natural environment the scientific
the firm's business environment also merits similar status. community and society at large subscribe to, making it
Secondly, commentators have questioned whether the superfluous to define these concepts. A somewhat clearer
human's moral obligations towards the natural environment position is taken in Driscoll and Starik (2004) and Stead
are valid reasons for giving the natural environment stake? and Stead (2000), to which we shall return later. As a
holder status. Phillips and Reichart (2000) maintain that the whole, however, we concede that the concepts are rather
natural environment may merit moral considerations of its complex and that taking a look at them in more detail is
own, but see this as an issue apart from its possible status as essential for further discussions on the position of the
a stakeholder. In their view the natural environment merits natural environment in the stakeholder model. Thus, it is
stakeholder considerations only instrumentally. this field to which the article next progresses.
Thirdly, it has been argued that stakeholder status
should be limited to humans. Orts and Strudler (2002), for
instance, argue that the natural environment cannot be a
What Is This Thing Called Nature?
stakeholder since it has neither a mind nor any needs as
humans understand them. Similarly, N?si et al. (1998)
All at once nature is innocent, is unprovided, is sure,
describe this line of argument by noting that 'nature cannot
is unsure, is fruitful, is destructive, is pure force and
speak'. Moreover, Phillips and Reichart (2000) point out
is tainted and cursed. (Williams 1980 p. 72)
that there are human proxies advocating for the natural
environment. Historically, humankind's relationship with nature has
All in all, the discussion regarding the position of the varied. Macnaghten and Urry (1998) describe how nature
natural environment in the stakeholder model has was long considered to be a goddess, a divine mother or an

? Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 M. Laine

absolute monarch. The developments of new sciences, such As a whole, many previous articles in this area make an
as physics, astronomy and mathematics, from around the implicit distinction between human society and nature. In
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onwards had major this perspective, humans are not in nature, but above it (see
effects on how nature was understood. Nature became to be Haila 2000). Presenting such a dichotomy in the stake?
seen through how it was materially constituted (Macnaghten holder model may in fact further widen the socially con?
and Urry 1998) Related to these developments, Williams structed gap between humankind and nature, causing
describes how nature came to be conceptualised in a new further problems in terms of our ability to live with and
way: Nature, in this new sense, was in another and different within nature (in the management literature, see, e.g.
way all that was not man: all that was not touched by man, Gladwin et al. 1995; Purser et al. 1995; Shrivastava 1994,
spoilt by man: nature as the lonely places, the wilderness 1995). Instead, the dichotomy further (re)constructs and
(Williams 1980, p. 77). Nature was 'out there', and thus reinforces the image of humans trying to manage nature.
became something else, 'the other', which is positioned in We now move on to the stakeholder framework and further
opposition and distinction to human society (see Haila discuss the possible implications of this conceptual refining
2000). on it.
However, what is it we talk about when we in modern
societies talk about nature? Defining nature appears to be
rather complex (see L?hde 2008). Still, one can assume that Nature and the Natural Environment
most humans have some kind of an understanding of nat? in the Stakeholder Model
ure. It is doubtful, however, whether it is possible to find
a universally applicable definition for it. For instance, To recap, some commentators have proposed that nature
Macnaghten and Urry (1998) argue that no singular nature should be given status of a stakeholder of the firm. How?
exists, only natures. They further maintain that all con? ever, once we understand human beings as being part of
ceptualisations of nature are historically, geographically nature, the situation becomes rather complex. If the human
and socially constructed (Macnaghten and Urry 1998, is a natural creature, is not everything humans do also
p. 15, see also Williams 1980). natural? Thus, it seems that all the actors in the stakeholder
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these model are parts of nature, implying that nature is omni?
developments in much more detail (but see Haila and Dyke present in the stakeholder model. Driscoll and Starik
2006; Macnaghten and Urry 1998; Williams 1980; Thomas (2004) argue that this is the reason to include nature among
1983). However, we wish to draw attention to one con? the stakeholders of the firm. However, we are not that
ceptual difference which, to the best of our knowledge, has convinced of this line of reasoning. If something is an
not been paid much attention in the stakeholder literature intrinsic part of the whole, how does this then make the
so far. We maintain there is an important distinction whole a stakeholder of the part? We would rather argue
between the concepts of nature and the natural environ? that in this case anything taking place around the part is
ment. The natural environment surrounds (Ingold 2000; see merely a small detail inside the whole, whereas considering
also Haila and L?hde 2003). This implies that there is the whole as a stakeholder of the part would construct the
something in the middle, which is then surrounded by the whole as something distinct of the part, further implying
natural environment. Nature, in turn, is not situated around that those parts are no longer within the whole, i.e. nature,
anything, but is present everywhere. Williams (1980, p. 75) but outside of it.
has argued that the most decisive question regarding the In addition, at the same time, nature was to be every?
definition of nature is whether humans are included in it. where, it would actually be nowhere in the model, since
The answer seems fairly obvious: humans are creatures of being pervasively present in all places is tantamount to
nature (Haila 2000). Even though this appears self-evident, being taken for granted, and hence invisible, perhaps
the matter has apparently not been paid much attention in unimportant. Further, what would be the point of thinking
previous presentations regarding the natural environment's how nature is represented in a stakeholder model if humans
possible position as a stakeholder. Exceptions to this are and human action were part of nature? Therefore, it
Driscoll and Starik (2004), who mention this matter, and appears to us that talking about nature as a stakeholder
Stead and Stead (2000), who briefly discuss the difference takes us nowhere.
between positioning humans with nature and humans over The case is rather different, once we look at the concept
nature. Still, Driscoll and Starik (2004), for instance, do of natural environment. As we noted earlier, the natural
talk about 'human nature', 'non-human nature', 'the natu? environment is something which surrounds something else.
ral environment' and 'nature', without exactly distin? Therefore, it ought to be considered as something sur?
guishing between the concepts. rounding the firm. Furthermore, one could claim that the

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder 77

natural environment is by definition around all the stake? We acknowledge the power of these models. Hence, in
holders of the firm. This conceptualisation would lead to order to reinforce the status of the natural environment in
positioning a particular stakeholder network in a timely and the stakeholder model, we propose that any visualisation of
spatially limited natural environment as in Fig. 2. a stakeholder network should be embedded in the natural
environment as in Fig. 2. By embedding the stakeholder
networks in the natural environment, our contribution gives
So What? Discussing the Implications the natural environment enhanced visibility as the sur?
rounding context in which all economic activity takes
Stakeholder thinking has been successful in providing tools place. In our view, such increased visibility could lead to
for managers to understand the broader social context in the natural environment also gaining more prominence in
which their organisations operate. Fassin (2008) argues that managerial considerations concerning the organisations'
this success is due to the power of the model's visual activities and interactions with the natural environment.
simplicity. The visual presentations portray a network of Moreover, this conceptualisation is not dependent on the
relations within which the organisation is positioned. way stakeholders are defined, as any representation of a
However, the stakeholder networks and practical concep? stakeholder network can be embedded in the natural
tualisations tend to portray organisations as operating environment.
within a social and economic network only. We maintain However, it is uncertain how well this conceptualisation
that all human activities are ultimately dependent on the of the position of the natural environment actually
natural environment (Driscoll and Starik 2004; Stead and improves the state of the environment in the long run. Once
Stead 1996) and suggest therefore that the natural envi? the natural environment is taken as the background of the
ronment should be taken into account by all human or? stakeholder network, it becomes in a sense relegated to the
ganisations. Driscoll and Starik (2004, p. 65) argue that periphery. Thus, in this way the natural environment would
'organizations must interact with the natural environment once again become the other. Some commentators have
for their physical survival, making nature a ubiquitous noted that such a dichotomy of culture-nature is harmful
stakeholder of all human organizations'. However, in line and should be abandoned (e.g. Haila 2000). Nevertheless,
with Phillips and Reichart (2000) and Orts and Strudler we concur with Driscoll and Starik (2004, p. 69) and argue
(2002) we maintain that the natural environment should not that 'the inherent interdependency between the global
be considered as a stakeholder as are human groups and economy and the global ecology' needs to be recognised.
individuals. In our view such an inclusion does not high? Therefore, we maintain that it is important to make the
light the special nature of the natural environment. natural environment somehow visible in the stakeholder
Fassin (2009) maintains that the stakeholder identifica? model, since if it is not there at all, it would not even be the
tion is only a first step in the process of evaluating how the other, but simply non-existent. Our take is embedding the
organisation subsequently interacts with its stakeholder stakeholder network in the natural environment. We
network. Elsewhere, Fassin (2008) has argued that graph? acknowledge that this brief article has not treated the
ical representations of stakeholder frameworks are sense subject exhaustively, and hope that others will further
making constructions, which inevitably simplify reality. develop the conversation.

Fig. 2 The stakeholder network

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
is surrounded by the natural Owners
environment
Management
Distributors
Personnel

FIRM

Rivals
Customers
State and local
authorities
Financiers
Suppliers
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 78 M. Laine

Acknowledgments This article stems from the author's discussions of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,
with the late Professor Juha N?si, whose input on an early version of 22(4), 853-886.
this article is gratefully acknowledged. The usual caveat still applies. N?si, J. (1979), Yrityksen suunnittelun perusteet [in Finnish: The basis
of corporate planning]. Tampere: University of Tampere, School
of Business Administration, Series Al: 15,
N?si, J. (1980). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social
References responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and meth?
odological frameworks for scientific research. A paper presented
Ahlstedt, L., & Jahnukainen, I. (1971). Yritysorganisaatio yhteisto at the Turku Conference on Social Responsibility in Marketing,
iminnan ohjausj?rjestelm?'n? [in Finnish: The organization of a May 1980.
firm as a management system for co-operation]. Helsinki: Weilin N?si, J. (1982). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social
and Goos. responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and meth?
Driscoll, C, & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: odological frameworks for scientific research. In Social respon?
Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for sibility in marketing. Turku: Publication of the Turku School of
the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55-73. Economics, Series A-2.
Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder N?si, J., N?si, S., & Savage, G. T. (1998). Nature as a stakeholder:
model's graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, One more speculation. In J. Calton & K. Rehbein, K. (Eds.),
879-888. Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the international
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business association for business and society (pp. 509-512). Kailua
Ethics, 84, 113-135. Kona, HI.
Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental
interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2),
33(6), 715-730. 215-233.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness.
approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51-66.
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What
A new perspective on corporate governance. California Man? stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4),
agement Review, 25(3), 88-106. 479-502.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. K., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a
paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for man? stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business
agement theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, Ethics, 23, 185-197.
20(4), 874-907. Purser, R. E., Park, C, & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropo
Haigh, N., & Griffiths, A. (2009). The natural environment as a centrism: Towards an ecocentric organization paradigm. Acad?
primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Business emy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053-1089.
Strategy and the Environment, 18(6), 347-359. Rhenman, E., & Stymne, B. (1965). Foretagsledning I en ford'nderlig
Haila, Y. (2000). Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biology and vd'rld [in Swedish: Corporate management in a changing world].
Philosophy, 15, 155-175. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.
Haila, Y., & Dyke, C. (Eds.). (2006). How nature speaks? The Shrivastava, P. (1994). CASTRATED environment: GREENING
dynamics of the human ecological condition. Durham: Duke organization studies. Organization Studies, 15(5), 705-726.
University Press. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society.
Haila, Y., & and Lahde, V. (2003), Luonnon poliittisuus: mik? on Academy of Management Review, 20(\), 118-137.
uutta? [in Finnish: The political nature of nature: what is new?]. Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward
In Y. Haila & V. L?hde (Eds.), Luonnon politiikka [in Finnish: stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business
Politics of nature]. Tampere: Vastapaino. Ethics, 14, 207-217.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1996). Management for a small planet
Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131-154. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of environment: Essays in Stead, J. G., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for
livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge. sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 313-329.
L?hde, V. (2008). Rousseau's rhetoric of'nature'. Acta Universitatis Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world. Changing attitudes in
Tamperensis 1344. Academic Dissertation, University of England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane.
Tampere. Wheeler, D., & Sillanp??, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation.
Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage. London: Pitman Publishing.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory Williams, R. (1980). Ideas of nature. In R. Williams (Ed.), Problems
of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle in materialism and culture. London: Verso.

Springer

This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms