stakeholder = 'a party with any sort of interest whatsoever' (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Mullins, Bill AMRDEC]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I compared stockholders to stakeholders because they sound alike, and
didn't mean to limit discussion of "stakeholders" to contexts in which
"stockholders" would also be pertinent.

The last five articles in Newsbank in which "stakeholders" appears seem
to support my claim, which I will restate more generically:

"Stakeholders" is used be speakers who wish to include people in a
discussion, whom they wish to placate or acknowledge, but who may not
actually have any real stake in the discussion (or at least, may not
have any significant ownership interest, or decision-making or veto
authority, or any other interest other than having bothered to show up).
Since "stakeholders" sounds similar to "stockholders", it has an air of
importance; it is better to be a "stakeholder" than it is to be just an
interested observer.

Or, (restated), "stakeholders" is used as a meaningless word that means
"everybody who may be peripherally interested".  It could often be
replaced with "voters", "customers", "citizens", or other group names
that include so many people that the specific interest represented by
those people as individuals is diluted.  In general, a "stakeholder"
doesn't in fact "hold" anything of value, and can't be distinguished
from people who are not designated as stakeholders.


1.  Contract Notice: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Issues Request for Proposals for Rail and Development Plan Services [a
press release?]
US Fed News (USA) - March 1, 2011
" ...transportation issues of importance to the state, partner agencies,
stakeholders and the people of California. Insurance is required..."

Here, stakeholders is meaningless.

2.  World Trade
Agweek - Monday, February 7, 2011
" CALGARY, Alberta - Agrium Inc. says it has reached a deal to sell most
of the grain business it just acquired in a purchase of Australian
company AWB Ltd. to Cargill Inc. for about $870 million. "Agrium
indicated from the outset that we would conduct a thorough review of the
commodity business with AWB management, and we believe that this is the
best course of action for all stakeholders involved." "

Stakeholders appears to include everyone who is interested, and is not
limited to those who are actually participating in the business deal.

3.  Ready to go to work - New Minnesota age commissioner takes his place
Agweek - Monday, February 7, 2011
" I will honor that support by serving all our stakeholders to the best
of my ability."

Here, stakeholder means anyone who produces or uses agricultural
products.  Meaningless.


4.  Trade group disapproves of alfalfa ruling - Organic Trade
Association says Roundup Ready alfalfa ruling will affect organic
farmers
Agweek - Monday, February 7, 2011
" While USDA, for the first time, took a step and acknowledged organic
and IP agriculture as a stakeholder in decisions around the release of
GE crops, it is a small step for organic alongside giant steps toward
accelerated decisions to deregulate many new GE crops awaiting review by
USDA."

Here, the USDA has endorsed a plan to allow genetically modified
alfalfa. The "stakeholders" are a trade group of Organic farmers, and
since they are on the losing side of the decision, it's apparent that
their "stake" is one which may be ignored.  But at least they are
acknowledged.

5.  Thales Joins Cloud Security Alliance
Business Wire - Monday, February 7, 2011
" The Cloud Security Alliance is led by a broad coalition of industry
practitioners, corporations, associations and other key stakeholders."

Stakeholders is a meaningless placeholder word here.

Continued reading of the next 10 articles shows the same themes --
"stakeholders" are either members of such a large group that identifying
them is not possible (and thus their interests don't have to be
addressed); or they are in fact members of a smaller group, but they are
only acknowledged and identified, and their interests are in fact
ignored.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf Of
> Victor Steinbok
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:01 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: stakeholder = 'a party with any sort of interest
whatsoever'
> (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
----------------------
> -
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: stakeholder = 'a party with any sort of interest
whatsoever'
>               (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> -
>
> Sorry, no. I've considered commenting earlier, but it seemed to be
going
> swimmingly without my double-penny contribution.
>
> The "stakeholder" terminology has become fairly common in
> law-and-economics environment. It is specifically used to
differentiate
> between stockholders (or shareholders) and stakeholders, but not
exactly
> along the lines you suggest. For example, in some regimes, management
is
> prohibited from owning stock in the company, in other regimes (US) it
is
> encouraged. So in one case you have stockholders, in the other merely
> stakeholders. Generally, stakeholders include stockholders plus
> directors, employees, management and any other groups directly
> associated with the business. But in common use, this would exclude
> stockholders--in a way, similar to Congressman and Senator that was
> discussed here earlier. [Also note that, in some contexts, the meaning
> of "management" gets fuzzy as well--e.g., is the "board of directors"
> management? owners who happen to have a direct hand in the running of
> the business? I've seen several papers on corporate responsibility
where
> "directors" and "owners" are not included in "management".] Creditors
> are sometimes included even when they have no ownership collateral.
> Unions (as an organization, not as representatives of a specific group
> of employees), environmental groups, etc., are not direct
stakeholders,
> although corporate decision-making does affect them indirectly. The
> reason for creating new nomenclature is the differences in traditional
> management structures in US, Japan, Germany, France, UK and Italy
(that
> covers almost every model, believe it or not). As I said, what's
> encouraged in some regimes is proscribed in others, so it makes for
some
> very interesting comparisons.
>
>      VS-)
>
> On 2/7/2011 1:10 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC wrote:
> > As the use of "stakeholder" has grown, I've assumed it was so that
the
> > speaker could justify giving credence to the opinions/desires of
third
> > parties who really shouldn't be listened to.
> >
> > If you have a stockholder's meeting, you can limit input to those
who
> > own stock.  Once you include stakeholders, then you gotta listen to
the
> > Sierra Club, ACLU, labor unions, organic lettuce farmers, etc.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org