Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new stakeholder theory (NST) grapples with two canonical questions: Which stakeholders are enfranchised in organizations? How is the value created through stakeholder collaboration distributed and experienced by stakeholders? This paper first describes how the NST builds on original stakeholder theory to ask these two specific questions. The defining features of the NST are (i) a broad range of dependent variables, (ii) descriptiveness, (iii) formalized analysis, (iv) boundaries on stakeholder enfranchisement, and (v) analytic links to other established theories. The paper then assesses the assumptions and implications of this theory for understanding organizational purpose. A primary idea is that the NST conceptualizes purpose as originating in the goals, needs, and interests of stakeholders as complex, nuanced actors. Under the NST, the organization is conceived of as a tool—a functionalized construction—through which enfranchised stakeholders pursue a shared purpose that leads to experiences of stakeholder value in terms that are defined by the relevant stakeholders themselves. The survival and profitability of an organization depends on its effectiveness and efficiency as a tool for accomplishing mutual stakeholder aims, which are what define organizational purpose. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose. Funding: Funded by Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".