Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:56:09.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who and What Really Matters to the Firm: Moving Stakeholder Salience beyond Managerial Perceptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Pete Tashman  and
Jonathan Raelin
Pete Tashman
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Jonathan Raelin
Affiliation:
The George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

We develop the concept of stakeholder salience to account for stakeholders who should matter to the firm, even when managers do not perceive them as important. While managers are responsible for attributing salience to stakeholders, they can overlook or ignore stakeholder importance because of market frictions that affect managerial perceptions or induce opportunism. When this happens, corporate financial and social performance can suffer. Thus, we propose that the perceptions of organizational and societal stakeholders should also codetermine the salience of the focal stakeholder to the firm. We also propose that stakeholder dialogue can reduce the impacts that market frictions can have on managerial perceptions of stakeholder interests that should matter to the firm. Finally, we discuss how the refined conceptualization of stakeholder salience might have better predictive validity, be more normative, and make instrumental and normative stakeholder theory more convergent.

Keywords

stakeholder saliencestakeholder-agency theorymarket frictionsstakeholder dialogueconvergent stakeholder theory
Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 591 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agle, B.R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R.E., Jensen, M.C., Mitchell, R.K., & Wood, D.J. 2008. Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2): 153–90.http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200818214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., & Sonnenfeld, J.A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 507–22.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, C.C., Mahoney, J.M., & Mahoney, J.T. 2005. Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm. Journal of Management and Governance, 9: 5–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-005-1570-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S.B. 2000. Whose land is it anyway? Organization & Environment, 13(1): 3–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026600131001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. 2007. Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1):151–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, S., & Schwenk, C.,1991. Self-serving attributions, managerial cognition, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12(3): 219–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M.B.E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coff, R.W. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2): 119–33.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G., & Cobb, J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In C. Schoonhoven and F. Dobbin (Eds). Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 21–42. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 252–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, D., & Jonker, J. 2005. Stakeholder relationships: the dialogue of engagement. Corporate Governance, 5(5): 51–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510630059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.Google Scholar
Freeman, R.E., & Evan, W.M. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4): 337–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-5720(90)90022-YCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardberg, N., & Newburry, W. 2013. Who boycotts whom? Marginalization, company knowledge, and strategic issues. Business&Society, 52(2): 318–57.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650309352507Google Scholar
Gilbert, D., & Rasche, A. 2007. Discourse ethics and social accountability: The ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2): 187–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200717230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hart, O., & Moore, J. 1990. Incomplete contracts and renegotiation. Econometrica, 56: 755–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, J. 2001. Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1): 159–76.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, M. 2012. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2): 211–37.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C., & Jones, T. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 131–54.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6486.1992.tb00657.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingley, C., & Van Der Walt, N. 2004. Corporate governance, institutional investors and conflicts of interest. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4): 534–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678683.2004.00392.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T., & Wicks, A. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T.M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108(2): 203–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467–8594.00161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. 2006. Governance matters V: Governance indicators for 1996-2005. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4012Google Scholar
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. 2008. It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10): 70–77.Google ScholarPubMed
King, A., & Lenox, M. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 698–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24: 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, R., & Romis, M. 2007. Improving work conditions in a global supply chain. Sloan Management Review, 48(2): 54–62.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A., Begley, P. , & Zadek, S. 2007. The state of responsible competitiveness 2007, London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
Magness, V. 2008. Who are the stakeholders now? An empirical examination of the Mitchell, Agle and Wood theory of stakeholder salience. Journal of Business Ethics, 83: 177–92.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9610-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marano, V., & Tashman, P. 2012. MNE/NGO partnerships and the legitimacy of the firm. International Business Review, 21(6): 1122–30.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jibusrev.2011.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, J. 2004. Stakeholder salience, structural development, and firm performance: Structural and performance correlates of sociopolitical stakeholder management strategies. Business and Society, 43(1): 97–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650304263415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, M.A., & Salerno, J.A. 2010. Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human health, Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.K. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, B.A., & Menguc, B. 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 377–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0015-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmar, B., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A.C., Purnell, L., & Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 403–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.495581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A., & Johnson-Cramer, M.E. 2006. Ties that unwind: Dynamism in integrative social contracts theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3): 283–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9015-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2012. Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4): 679–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201222444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D. 1999. Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3): 453–83.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D. 2002. Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries: A critical theory perspective. Business&Society, 41(2): 166–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650302041002003Google Scholar
Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1096–1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.26585837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W.R. 2008. Institutions and organizations, (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1946. The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1): 53–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/973030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. 2005. Fairness communication and engagement: New developments in stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4): 711–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200515434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobczak, A. 2006. Are codes of conduct in global supply chains really voluntary? From soft law regulation of labour relations to consumer law. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16: 167–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq200616219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansbury, J. 2009. Reasoned moral agreement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1): 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq20091912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starik, M., & Rands, G. 1995. Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 908–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, D. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 506–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185: 1124–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Buren III, H.J. 2001. If fairness is the problem, is consent the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3: 481–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilanova, L. 2007. Neither shareholder nor stakeholder management: What happens when firms are run for their short-term salient stakeholder? European Management Journal, 25(2: 146–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D. 2010. The private regulation of global corporate conduct: Achievements and limitations. Business and Society, 49(1: 68–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650309343407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4: 303–17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economics institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar