ABSTRACT
The terms “stakeholder” and “public” are often used interchangeably, despite what some public relations scholars claim are subtle differences (J. Grunig & Repper, 1992). Whether or not a distinction can be made between the two designations, the importance of the underlying concept they represent is undeniable. J. Grunig, L. Grunig, and Ehling (1992: 76) described these “organized bodies” as “the raison d’être for public relations.” In recent years, beyond the relatively narrow confines of the public relations literature, “stakeholder” has become the more widely favored expression. Numerous academic papers devoted to stakeholder theory have appeared, largely to be found in journals of management and the related fields of business ethics, and business and society (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Gibson, 2000). Few, if any, mention public relations or acknowledge the term “publics” as a plausible alternative to “stakeholders.” With some exceptions (e.g., Black & Hartel, 2004; Bronn & Bronn, 2003), public relations scholars have been relatively slow to take into account the burgeoning field of stakeholder theory in their own research despite its obvious relevance.
