Not to be pedantic, but I think you mean "shareholders".
In the context of software, the term "stakeholder" means anyone who will use the project being worked on.
In the context of business, "stakeholder" is an intentionally nebulous term designed to obfuscate who is supposed to be enriched by the actions of the company. Usually that term is a way of deceiving people into thinking the company's goal is to serve "the community", when in reality it's serving the shareholders at the expense of the well-being of the community.
Sometimes, it's a way of deceiving the shareholder for the benefit of the executives, e.g. some "DEI" bullshit that hurts the community, the shareholders, and most of the employees just to feed the HR department and the C-suite's insatiable lust for power.
EDIT - I'd like to add a comment about "shareholder" and "stakeholder" sounding so similar, but in practice meaning two mutually-incompatible things:
This is by design. You're not supposed to be conscientious of the difference in meaning.
You're supposed to hear "shareholder capitalism's kinder, gentler successor", not "corporate-owned feudalism".
>Usually that term is a way of deceiving people into thinking the company's goal is to serve "the community"
It can also encourage workers to consider the needs of customers and suppliers, the ignoring of which will tend to eventually harm the company and its shareholders. I.e., it is not always a weasel word.
It's almost always a weasel word because if you meant customer you would just say customer. Saying "stakeholder" permits a level of ambiguity about whose interests are being represented.
If I mean "customers, suppliers, neighboring businesses, employees, their families, investors and anyone else affected by my decision", should I write that out or should I just write "stakeholders"?
Like I said, that's the engineering context of the word.
In business managerial side of operations, "stakeholder" is definitely a weasel word.
The word "stakeholder" in "stakeholder capitalism" as used by the World Economic Forum literally means "every single person on Earth". Unless you think Klaus Schwab also considers the possibility of life in the Andromeda Galaxy, it doesn't get anymore nebulous than that. The word "nebulous" describes something cloudy and ginormous- like a nebula.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but the rarity of the exception justifies the rule.
In the context of software, the term "stakeholder" means anyone who will use the project being worked on.
In the context of business, "stakeholder" is an intentionally nebulous term designed to obfuscate who is supposed to be enriched by the actions of the company. Usually that term is a way of deceiving people into thinking the company's goal is to serve "the community", when in reality it's serving the shareholders at the expense of the well-being of the community.
Sometimes, it's a way of deceiving the shareholder for the benefit of the executives, e.g. some "DEI" bullshit that hurts the community, the shareholders, and most of the employees just to feed the HR department and the C-suite's insatiable lust for power.
EDIT - I'd like to add a comment about "shareholder" and "stakeholder" sounding so similar, but in practice meaning two mutually-incompatible things:
This is by design. You're not supposed to be conscientious of the difference in meaning.
You're supposed to hear "shareholder capitalism's kinder, gentler successor", not "corporate-owned feudalism".