In the intricate web of business relationships, the equitable treatment of stakeholders is paramount. Favouritism, defined as granting undue preferential treatment to specific stakeholders based on personal biases or relationships rather than merit or objective criteria, can manifest in various forms. These include nepotism (favouring family members), cronyism (favouring friends or close associates), and in-group favouritism (preferring stakeholders who share similar characteristics or beliefs). While some may argue that favouritism can lead to a more harmonious working environment among favoured stakeholders, any perceived short-term benefits are often outweighed by significant drawbacks.

A notable instance of favouritism occurred at Samsung Electronics. The company was criticised when Lee Jae-yong, the chairman’s son, was appointed vice chairman. Critics argued that this decision was influenced more by familial ties than by merit, leading to concerns about governance and fairness within the organisation. This example underscores how favouritism can lead to perceptions of unfairness and potential reputational damage.

In contrast, companies like Patagonia exemplify the benefits of equitable stakeholder engagement. Patagonia has built a reputation for its commitment to environmental sustainability and ethical practices. Patagonia has fostered trust and loyalty by treating all stakeholders—employees, customers, suppliers, and the environment—equally respected and considered, leading to sustained business success. This approach highlights the advantages of fairness and transparency in stakeholder relations.

In conclusion, while favouritism might offer short-term ease in stakeholder interactions, it poses significant risks to trust, morale, and overall organisational effectiveness. Organisations should strive for transparent, merit-based stakeholder management practices to ensure long-term success and sustainability.