The Nature of Nature as a Stakeholder



There is a longstanding debate in the stakeholder literature as to who and what really counts as the stakeholders of the firm. Likewise, there have been discussions on whether nature should be considered a stakeholder of the firm. However, one seldom encounters any definitions of the key concepts, that is of nature or the natural environment. We seek to contribute to the debate by taking a closer look at what this thing called nature actually is. In addition, we discuss the implications of this conceptual refinement for the stakeholder model. In order to reinforce the status of the natural environment in the stakeholder model, we propose that any visualisation of a stakeholder network should be embedded in the natural environment.


Natural environment Nature Stakeholder 



This article stems from the author’s discussions with the late Professor Juha Näsi, whose input on an early version of this article is gratefully acknowledged. The usual caveat still applies.


  1. Ahlstedt, L., & Jahnukainen, I. (1971). Yritysorganisaatio yhteistoiminnan ohjausjärjestelmänä [in Finnish: The organization of a firm as a management system for co-operation]. Helsinki: Weilin and Göös.Google Scholar
  2. Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.Google Scholar
  8. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. K., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.Google Scholar
  9. Haigh, N., & Griffiths, A. (2009). The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(6), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haila, Y. (2000). Beyond the nature–culture dualism. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haila, Y., & Dyke, C. (Eds.). (2006). How nature speaks? The dynamics of the human ecological condition. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haila, Y., & and Lähde, V. (2003), Luonnon poliittisuus: mikä on uutta? [in Finnish: The political nature of nature: what is new?]. In Y. Haila & V. Lähde (Eds.), Luonnon politiikka [in Finnish: Politics of nature]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder–agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lähde, V. (2008). Rousseau’s rhetoric ofnature’. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1344. Academic Dissertation, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  16. Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  18. Näsi, J. (1979), Yrityksen suunnittelun perusteet [in Finnish: The basis of corporate planning]. Tampere: University of Tampere, School of Business Administration, Series A1: 15, Google Scholar
  19. Näsi, J. (1980). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. A paper presented at the Turku Conference on Social Responsibility in Marketing, May 1980.Google Scholar
  20. Näsi, J. (1982). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. In Social responsibility in marketing. Turku: Publication of the Turku School of Economics, Series A-2.Google Scholar
  21. Näsi, J., Näsi, S., & Savage, G. T. (1998). Nature as a stakeholder: One more speculation. In J. Calton & K. Rehbein, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the international association for business and society (pp. 509–512). Kailua-Kona, HI.Google Scholar
  22. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.Google Scholar
  25. Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Towards an ecocentric organization paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089.Google Scholar
  27. Rhenman, E., & Stymne, B. (1965). Företagsledning I en föränderlig värld [in Swedish: Corporate management in a changing world]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.Google Scholar
  28. Shrivastava, P. (1994). CASTRATED environment: GREENING organization studies. Organization Studies, 15(5), 705–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.Google Scholar
  30. Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1996). Management for a small planet (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Stead, J. G., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world. Changing attitudes in England 1500–1800. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  34. Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation. London: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Williams, R. (1980). Ideas of nature. In R. Williams (Ed.), Problems in materialism and culture. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations