The word “stakeholder” seemed to catch on in Mission statements a decade or more ago; then it entered everyday business parlance with varying degrees of relevance. Most employers probably have a general understanding that this is a useful shorthand description for people and organizations of some importance to our work. Should we be more aware of our stakeholders than this?

We emphatically should. Why?

First of all, from a marketing point of view. Business success stems from much more than sales to customers (who are, in effect, stakeholders). We build reputation and develop products through those who see or hear about us; who uses our products; who provides the channels through which we communicate or distribute; who comment in the media. We are commercially viable thanks to suppliers, banks, shareholders and accountants. We rely on the wider community that provides us with staff and consumers. We make use of the infrastructure provided by political institutions and other companies. We are all part of the same environment.

In return, we can consider that we owe them something, to help maintain their ability to do what we need. This is why self-interest requires stakeholder involvement. This is also why the Companies Act 2006 obliges company directors to take into account the interests of all stakeholders in running a company and not just those of the shareholders. Some commentators have blamed the overriding priority given to shareholder value by some banks for the credit crunch. The failure of regulators and other authorities to enforce compliance with the Companies Act with respect to the interests of stakeholders can be seen as another factor. Corporate Social Responsibility may be seen as a concern for large companies with Corporate Affairs departments but, as a phrase, it describes the broader stakeholder agenda expected of directors.

Let’s explore some different categories of stakeholders that business leaders might need to consider and why:

• Shareholders: As owners of the company, if they are not satisfied with the way things are being run, they can dispose of the management or the shares. They provide the capital, so they want to decide what constitutes satisfactory returns, even in terms of eccentric agendas.

• Customers: Not much needs to be said, except that they are top priority as our lifeblood. They provide revenue, but also feedback to help us stay competitive.

• Suppliers: in manufacturing or supply businesses, they are the cornerstone, giving us the means to add value. Unique relationships count as assets to be massaged and sustained. Neglect them and innovation can run out; or they may prefer to deal with competitors.

• Supply Chain – While both suppliers and customers are included, it can also include the actual drivers of the acceptance criteria. For example, if a major retailer mandates a lower carbon footprint, the rest of the supply chain will have to respond to retain listings.

• Community: Every employer is located somewhere among other people, recruiting, buying services, transporting goods on the roads. In other words, even if customers are elsewhere, neighbors are affected by the presence of a business. Teachers, shopkeepers, family and friends affect staff and their attitudes towards employers.

• Politics: those who decide on investment in infrastructure; those who campaign on the environment; rights lobbyists – all of these can be considered stakeholders in a business, with whom it is important to engage if only for fear of negative behavior.

However, to return to the everyday world of small (=most) companies, should we see this as something only for distant cousins ​​of large companies or can we learn something for ourselves? As suggested above, there is not only a legal imperative to consider stakeholders when determining how a business is run, but also a commercial imperative. Understanding what shareholders want is important, but consideration of the company’s reputation is just as valid. So shouldn’t those of us who run small businesses act in such a way that those we affect think well of us? Surely if we get this right, our suppliers will want to treat us more fairly; our local communities will want to be employed by us; our clients will stay with us. Just look at the Cadbury sale protest if you need an example.

None of this means that any category of stakeholders should be paramount; Not all interests can always be served. Striking the right balance between the interests of different stakeholders can be a challenge, but this does not excuse us from trying, if only because we need them to be on our side. So why not, when you’re thinking about surveying customers or staff (both stakeholder groups), think about whether other influencers need to be surveyed as well? Periodically, it can be fruitful for directors to review which stakeholders they need to engage with; and the best way to do this.