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

Mon Feb 7 21:46:47 UTC 2011

Like I said, anybody who has or may have or may be thought to have any kind
of stake, financial or figurative, in any goddamned thing
whatsogoddamnedever.

JL

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC <
Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
> Subject:      Re: stakeholder = 'a party with any sort of interest
> whatsoever'
>              (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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