Summer Seminar in Stakeholder Theory 2025: Reflections on stakeholder theory and its evolution
- Lara Gonzalez Porras
- Aug 11
- 9 min read
Lara Gonzalez Porras
The Summer Seminar in Stakeholder Theory 2025 was organized by the University of Virginia Darden School of Business (USA) and Tampere University. This year, the seminar was held in Tampere, 30.7. – 5.8., and involved about 43 participants and 18 faculty members from all around the globe. This seminar aims to create a community of stakeholder theorist. The seminar offers possibilities to engage in academic discussions on latest research trends on the field, and to give and receive feedback on our academic work, as well as networking.
As a stakeholder theory researcher, I have participated in the seminar twice: once in 2019, and again in 2025. Through all these years, I have seen an evolution in stakeholder theory. The main takeaways from this year, in my opinion, were two: a greater interest in marginalized stakeholders and an openness towards a better recognition of the natural environment in stakeholder theory research. Thus, issues that were only partially discussed in 2019. I will cover these two issues in this blogpost, but let’s start from the beginning: What is stakeholder theory?
Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory is a managerial approach that moves beyond the traditional shareholder orientation and its focus on profit maximization (Freeman et al., 2020, 2010). This theory encourages firms to focus on stakeholder relationships and stakeholder engagement, as well as value creation with and for stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2020, 2010). Stakeholder theory supports the idea that business and ethics cannot be separated (Freeman et al., 2010).
This year, the seminar started with a thought-provoking discussion: What is Stakeholder Theory? Many ideas emerged: Stakeholder theory is a theory of organizations, a strategic management theory based on human relations that represents the backbone of business ethics. Stakeholder theory is also a new mindset that redefines the purpose of business to make business better. And, as human-based as it is, stakeholder theory is inherently complex. Stakeholder theory provides us with the vocabulary to discuss concepts such as ethics, value, and relationships in business. Stakeholder theory is alive, dynamic, and evolves over time. And finally, stakeholder theory is, simply, common sense.
Stakeholder theory is also a mindset
It was already in this first session when one of the key questions discussed during the seminar emerged: Who are the stakeholders? Where are the boundaries for stakeholder identification? And, who decides who the stakeholders are and whose interests matter?
Towards a better consideration of traditionally marginalized stakeholders
This year, many conversations addressed an important topic that needs further exploration in stakeholder theory: how to better recognize traditionally marginalized stakeholders?
During the seminar, Professor Jeff Harrison suggested in his presentation that, frequently, managers tend to prioritize top stakeholders holding key resources. This means that, on many occasions, managers fail to engage with those stakeholders perceived as the weakest, and as a result, business growth can be halted. Professor Harrison explained that, if we see the company as a system, we cannot simply emphasize one part of the system and neglect others: all stakeholders matter and, in words of Professor Harrison, “we need all the trees in the forest.” More concretely, Professor Harry Van Buren focused his presentation on invisible stakeholders who are marginalized and ignored, stating that this issue is generally a consequence of structural injustice and morally unacceptable.
All this conversation made me reflect on my own experience conducting doctoral research on firm-stakeholder relationships. During my fieldwork, I had the opportunity to talk to stakeholders who, while affected by a company’s megaproject, had not been included in the engagement efforts of the firm. Additionally, the stakeholders lacked the resources to initiate the engagement by themselves. The next time the company organized an informative session open to the public, I made sure to let them know: It was a perfect chance for those stakeholders to participate and raise their concerns. They never showed up to the meeting. When I phoned to ask the reasons for their absence, they just said: We know the company is going to ignore us anyway, as before. We are just powerless actors in this game. There is nothing we can do, so… why bother? It was heartbreaking to see how deeply those stakeholders had internalized and accepted their marginalized status, even affecting their behaviour and resulting in lack of action.
But, how to approach this recurring problem in business-stakeholder relationships and better recognize traditionally marginalized stakeholders? More research is needed. Acknowledging this problem is a first step. As stakeholder identification relies, after all, on managerial perceptions (Bundy & Buckkoltz, 2013), it is important for managers to stay open-minded and receptive to be able to identify not only the stakeholders, but also the engagement efforts initiated by stakeholders. Exploring inter-stakeholder relationships might also help managers identify stakeholders who were initially invisible, triggering a cascade effect. Stakeholders do not always knock at your door. It is important to be bold, keep your eyes open, go out there to the field, and get your hands dirty.
Towards a more nature-inclusive stakeholder theory
When talking about invisible stakeholders, it is inevitable to mention one: the natural environment. While during my participation in the seminar in 2019 the possibility of recognizing nature as a stakeholder was barely addressed, this year there was a full session on this topic, followed by several discussions throughout the seminar. The discussion on this topic is now reality.
There are different viewpoints on the recognition of nature as a stakeholder (see, for instance, Gulari et al., 2025; Kortetmäki et al., 2023; Laine, 2010; Phillips et al., 1997; Starik, 1995). Just to briefly summarize the conversation: Some authors say that nature, as a nonhuman, cannot be a stakeholder as it has no voice and thus requires human representation. Other authors claim that, in times of sustainability crisis, not recognizing nature in stakeholder theory neglects the intrinsic value of nature. Before, I challenged managers to be bold. Now, I will be bold myself: I do believe stakeholder theory would benefit from a better recognition of nature. The question that remains and that was raised during the seminar is: Nonhumans could be considered stakeholders…so what?
If nonhumans are considered as stakeholders, what then?
In the last years, there has been a rupture in the traditional human-nature relations (Richardson, 2025). The moment the relationship with our land and environment was broken, humans started to position themselves as dominants over nature (Kalita & Barsha, 2024). Nowadays, we need a new way to reconnect with our environment and give visibility to the inherent value of nature, as humans and nature cannot and should not be separated. We, ourselves, are nature, made of cells and organs. And we do exist thanks to nature: the giver of life. Thus, incorporating nature in the human-based stakeholder theory is the natural next step for me. Additionally, a better consideration of nature within stakeholder theory will provide us with the language to discuss environmental issues in business. A language to bring these issues closer to us and into the managerial scope (Heikkinen et al., 2023). After all, we establish better relationships with our surroundings when we can name them: it is not the same to live next to an unknown neighbour, as it is to live next to someone you can name, as already suggested by Mcvea and Freeman (2005) with their “names and faces” approach in stakeholder theory.
Recently, we have seen many cases of nature being granted a legal personhood. For instance, legal personhood was granted to the Whanganui River in New Zealand in 2017, and to the Spanish Mar Menor lagoon in 2022 (Kahui, 2024). In these cases, guardians were appointed, who can take legal action on behalf of nature (Kahui, 2024). Yes, humans giving voice to nature, recognizing its intrinsic value beyond economic value, because as mentioned before, humans and nature are interdependent and cannot be separated. Thus, granting nature a legal personhood and human representation are not exclusive, and go hand in hand instead.
Granting legal personhood to nature has many implications. First, it prevents the marginalization of indigenous and local communities in business-stakeholder relationships, as these groups, usually in closer relationship with nature, act as guardians (Kahui, 2024). These stakeholders are thus empowered to share their knowledge with governments and business, bringing environmental issues to the table, improving their involvement in decision-making, and improving environmental legislation and conservation efforts to protect nature (O'Donnell & Talbot-Jone, 2018; Whanganui, n.d.). Second, this has legal implications too. There are already successful court cases based on the Rights of Nature, such as the Vilcabamba River case in Ecuador (Berros, 2017; Greene, 2011). Ecuador recognizes Rights of Nature in its Constitution. This allowed local community representatives to present a case before the Provincial Court of Justice of Loja in 2011 against the Vilcabamba-Quinara road project, which was harming the Vilcabamba River. The Provincial Court of Loja ruled in favour of the Vilcabamba River, resulting in the stop of the project and nature restoration (Berros, 2017; Greene, 2011). Thus, granting legal personhood to nature can work as a method for nature-inclusivity in stakeholder theory, which, in turn, can enhance nature-inclusive stakeholder relationships and engagement (Kujala et al., 2019).
As final remark, I wonder: why do we fail to recognize marginalized stakeholders and nature in stakeholder theory? Stakeholders are defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p.46). Maybe, if we only focus on actors who can affect us, we fall in the trap of marginalizing important stakeholders who do not have power to influence firms. Perhaps, we could define stakeholders as groups or individuals who are in a position to relate to the organization; thus, moving the focus to relationships instead. After all, relationships have always been the backbone of stakeholder theory.
The Summer Seminar in Stakeholder Theory 2025 was intense and thought-provoking. We engaged in many wonderful discussions, and we also got some time to have fun and relax, of course, in Finnish sauna!
To end this blogpost, I must show my deepest gratitude to the Darden School of Business, and especially Professors Ed Freeman, Bobby Parmar and Rob Phillips, as well as the Tampere University team for organizing such a wonderful event. Especial thanks to Karen Musselman for organizing the seminar programme too. The event was organized free of charge and fully funded: the Darden School of Business covered the participants’ accommodation, and the Foundation for Economic Education funded the RESPMAN Research Group for further local arrangements. To all of you: thank you for making this seminar possible, and for offering a special opportunity to us, stakeholder theorists, to meet and make our work visible and valuable.
Lara Gonzalez Porras; Doctoral Researcher & University Teacher
Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University
References
Berros, M. V. (2017). Defending rivers: Vilcabamba in the South of Ecuador. RCC Perspectives, (6), 37–44.
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of management review, 38(3), 352–376.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2), 213–231.
Greene, N. (2011). The first successful case of the Rights of Nature implementation in Ecuador. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature. http://therightsofnatureorg/first-ron-case-ecuador
Gulari, N., Dziuba, A., Hannula, A., & Kujala, J. (2025). Artist-led practices for the inclusion of nonhuman stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 199(2), 231-253.
Heikkinen, A., Jokinen, A., & Kujala, J. (2023). Language Is Key to Catalyzing Biodiversity Action in Business. Amplify, 36(3), 8–15. https://www.cutter.com/article/language-key-catalyzing-biodiversity-action-business
Kahui, V. (2024, April 25). Granting legal ‘personhood’ to nature is a growing movement – can it stem biodiversity loss? https://theconversation.com/granting-legal-personhood-to-nature-is-a-growing-movement-can-it-stem-biodiversity-loss-227336
Kalita, M., & Barsha, J. (2024). Ecocentrism vs. anthropocentrism: reimagining humanity’s relationship with nature. International Journal of Humanities Social Science and Management, 4(6), 448-450.
Kortetmäki, T., Heikkinen, A., & Jokinen, A. (2023). Particularizing nonhuman nature in stakeholder theory: The recognition approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(1), 17-31.
Kujala, J., Heikkinen, A., Nieminen, J., Jokinen, A., Tapaninaho, R., & Mäkelä, H. (2019). Engaging with the natural environment: Examining the premises of nature-inclusive stakeholder relationships and engagement. In Ceranic Salinas, T., VanSandt C. V. & Van Maanen, R. (Eds.) Conference Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 30th Annual Meeting, (pp. 73–81). https://www.pdcnet.org/iabsproc.
Laine, M. (2010). The nature of nature as a stakeholder. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(Suppl 1), 73-78.
McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of management inquiry, 14(1), 57-69.
O'donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers. Ecology and Society, 23(1).
Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 185–197.
Richardson, M. (2025). Modelling Nature Connectedness Within Environmental Systems: Human-Nature Relationships from 1800 to 2020 and Beyond. Earth, 6(3), 82.
Starik, Mark. (1995) Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of business ethics 14(3), 207-217.
Whanganui. (n.d.). Te Awa Tupua - Whanganui River Settlement. https://www.whanganui.govt.nz/Community-and-Places/About-Whanganui/Our-District/Te-Awa-Tupua-Whanganui-River-Settlement