Stakeholder Theory in Strategic Management: A Retrospective

This chapter will provide a description of the personal journey of the author who, as a newly graduated Ph.D. in strategic management in 1985, embraced stakeholder theory. Perhaps one of the interesting aspects of this narrative is that the field of strategic management itself was in its infancy at the time of my graduation. So I have “grown up” in the strategy field while simultaneously observing and to some extent participating in the development of what we now call stakeholder theory. Over the past two and a half decades I have frequently found myself frustrated by my strategy colleagues’ lack of understanding of the stakeholder concept and their inability to comprehend its potential to address many of the most important problems in the strategy field. My own attempts to remedy this situation while continuing to do mainstream strategy research are described herein. Of course, in recent years the stakeholder concept has begun to gain greater acceptance in the strategy field. At the end of the chapter I will describe some potentially fruitful applications of the stakeholder concept in strategic management research

LBOs Slash R&D: So What?

This article translates the research conducted by William Long and David Ravenscraft concerning the impact of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) on research and development (R&D) expenditures and performance. The author examines debt levels associated with LBOs and reductions in R&D spending as well as the importance of reductions in R&D. The researchers believed that LBOs would be associated with reductions in R&D, which they did find; however, their findings indicated that these reductions may not have been significant in all instances

Towards a More Productive Dialogue Between Stakeholder Theory and Strategic Management

This chapter highlights some of the tensions and most promising points of convergence between the strategic management and stakeholder theory literatures. We briefly examine the early development of both areas, identifying some of the background assumptions and choices that informed how the fields evolved, and how these factors led the two fields to engage in scholarly pursuits that seldom intersected for a period of years, followed by a renewal of interest among strategists in themes that are central to stakeholder theory. From this discussion, we develop a larger agenda with specific topics as examples of areas that offer promise for integrative research that can advance knowledge in both fields. Our vision of the future is one in which the larger aspirations of scholars in strategy and stakeholder theory are more fully realized with human purposes, broadly defined, as the focal point

Stakeholder Management: A Managerial Perspective

Scholars and practitioners have acknowledged the practical relevance of stakeholder theory as it has been applied to management. This chapter provides a brief foundation for understanding the basic principles of stakeholder management and some of its best known tools, including the development of an enterprise strategy, identification and prioritization of stakeholders, and measurement of the value firms create with and for stakeholders. We then share insights about implementation of stakeholder management based on interviews with high-level executives from a variety of well-known companies. We found that stakeholder principles have been applied in a variety of ways and under various labels. The chapter ends with a list of eight important questions to advance research on stakeholder management

How Much is Too Much? The Limits to Generous Treatment of Stakeholders

Firms must allocate some minimum amount of value to stakeholders in order to retain access to the resources they provide. Stakeholder theory suggests managers optimize firm-level performance by allocating more than this minimum amount. However, how much is too much? This article addresses the misleading notion that more is always better when it comes to the treatment of stakeholders and, in doing so, provides needed refinement of the boundary of stakeholder theory\u27s predictions. The upside for managers is guidance in distinguishing between the types of value-allocating behaviors that will lead to greater value creation in their firms and actions that are likely to reduce value overall

Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance

This paper argues that the notion of value has been overly simplified and narrowed to focus on economic returns. Stakeholder theory provides an appropriate lens for considering a more complex perspective of the value that stakeholders seek as well as new ways to measure it. We develop a four-factor perspective for defining value that includes, but extends beyond, the economic value stakeholders seek. To highlight its distinctiveness, we compare this perspective to three other popular performance perspectives. Recommendations are made regarding performance measurement for both academic researchers and practitioners. The stakeholder perspective on value offered in this paper draws attention to those factors that are most closely associated with building more value for stakeholders, and in so doing, allows academics to better measure it and enhances managerial ability to create it

Stakeholder Theory at the Crossroads

The stakeholder perspective has provided a rich forum for a variety of debates at the intersection of business and society. Scholars gathered for two consecutive years, first in North American, and then in Europe, to discuss the major issues surrounding what has come to be known as stakeholder theory, to attempt to find common ground, and to uncover areas in need of further inquiry. Those meetings led to a list of “tensions” and a call for papers for this special issue to help address them. In this article we introduce the resulting articles and provide some brief commentary on their importance. We end with a few of our own observations about the stakeholder perspective and stakeholder research

Is Organizational Democracy Worth the Effort?

Organizational democracy is frequently associated with increased employee involvement and satisfaction, higher levels of innovation, increased stakeholder commitment, and, ultimately, enhanced organizational performance. However, democratic processes can also absorb significant time and other organizational resources and bog down decisions, which may lead to reduced efficiency. This article summarizes the pros and cons of organizational democracy. It also introduces and integrates ideas from the three other articles in this special forum. In the end, we conclude that although the economic arguments for organizational democracy may be mixed, increased stakeholder participation in value creation and organizational governance can benefit both society and corporations. In fact, the corporation itself may be envisioned as a system of self-governance and the voluntary cooperation of stakeholders

Summary -- Entrepreneurial Uncertainty: What Do Stakeholders Look For?

This paper proposes that in the early stages of a venture entrepreneurs can reduce uncertainty for stakeholders -- and raise the probability of attracting desirable stakeholders -- by exhibiting behaviors associated with fairness and justice. Actors base their reciprocal behaviors -- both positive and negative -- on their subjective perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Thus, entrepreneurs can influence perceptions of fairness in early interactions with stakeholders. This paper extends the logic of reciprocity and fairness to the setting in which entrepreneurial firms are seeking to attract desirable stakeholders in order to commercialize innovations

Corporate Social Performance and Economic Cycles

Do firms respond to changes in economic growth by altering their corporate social responsibility programs? If they do respond, are their responses simply neglect of areas associated with corporate social performance (CSP) or do they also cut back on positive programs such as profit sharing, public/private housing programs, or charitable contributions? In this paper we argue that because CSP-related actions and programs tend to be discretionary, they are likely to receive less attention during tough economic times, a result of cost-cutting efforts. However, the various CSP performance areas vary in terms of their resource requirements and their influence on financial performance (short- and long-term), which suggests that firms may respond differently depending on area. Consequently, in addition to examining CSP concerns separately from positive actions and programs (CSP strengths), we also examine the influence of economic growth across the five areas of diversity, employee relations, the environment, product quality/safety, and the community. Based on data from 837 firms over fifteen years, our results suggest that firms neglect some areas associated with CSP during economic downturns, resulting in increased concerns about community and employee relations, product safety/quality, and the environment. However, this relationship does not apply to positive actions and programs. Instead, firms tend to increase their positive CSP programs in areas such as diversity, employee relations, and the environment during periods of slow economic growth and reduce them when the economy picks up. We offer potential explanations for our findings and discuss their importance to research on CSP