For the last 30 years a growing number of scholars and practitioners have been experimenting with concepts and models that facilitate our understanding of the complexities of today’s business challenges. Among these, “stakeholder theory” or “stakeholder thinking” has emerged as a new narrative to understand and remedy three interconnected business problems—the problem of understanding how value is created and traded, the problem of connecting ethics and capitalism, and the problem of helping managers think about management such that the first two problems are addressed. In this article, we review the major uses and adaptations of stakeholder theory across a broad array of disciplines such as business ethics, corporate strategy, finance, accounting, management, and marketing. We also evaluate and suggest future directions in which research on stakeholder theory can continue to provide useful insights into the practice of sustainable and ethical value creation.

/pdf/stakeholder-theory-the-state-of-the-art-1nh0kst686.pdf

Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

This paper compares the environmental performance of family and nonfamily public corporations between 1998 and 2002, using a sample of 194 U.S. firms required to report their emissions. We found that family-controlled public firms protect their socioemotional wealth by having a better environmental performance than their nonfamily counterparts, particularly at the local level, and that for the nonfamily firms, stock ownership by the chief executive officer (CEO) has a negative environmental impact. We also found that the positive effect of family ownership on environmental performance persists independently of whether the CEO is a family member or serves both as CEO and board chair.

Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less?:

Organizations are increasingly subject to conflicting demands imposed by their institutional environments. This makes compliance impossible to achieve, because satisfying some demands requires defying others. Prior work simply suggests that organizations develop strategic responses in such situations. Our key contribution is to provide a more precise model of organizational responses that takes into account intraorganizational political processes. As a result, we identify situations in which conflicting institutional demands may lead to organizational paralysis or breakup.

/pdf/when-worlds-collide-the-internal-dynamics-of-organizational-13pbhr70vf.pdf

When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands

Empirical analyses of the determinants of environmental innovations were rarely able to distinguish between different areas of environmental impacts. The paper tries to close this gap by employing a new and unique dataset based on the German Community Innovation Survey conducted in 2009. The main purpose of the paper is to test whether different types of eco-innovations (according to their environmental impacts) are driven by different factors. Besides a complex set of different supply, firm specific and demand factors, the literature on the determinants of environmental innovations accentuates the important role of regulation, cost savings and customer benefits. We find that current and expected government regulation is particularly important for pushing firms to reduce air (e.g. CO2, SO2 or NOx) as well as water or noise emissions, avoid hazardous substances and increase recyclability of products. Cost savings are an important motivation for reducing energy and material use, pointing to the role of energy and raw materials prices as well as taxation as drivers for eco-innovation. Customer requirements are another important source for eco-innovations, particularly with regard to products with improved environmental performance and process innovations that increase material efficiency, reduce energy consumption and waste and the use of dangerous substances. Firms confirm a high importance of expected future regulations for all environmental product innovations.

/pdf/determinants-of-eco-innovations-by-type-of-environmental-58w5bshg8y.pdf

Determinants of Eco-innovations by Type of Environmental Impact: The Role of Regulatory Push/Pull, Technology Push and Market Pull

The objective of this article is to analyze the strategies or patterns of adaptation of firms for responding to environmental requirements or expectations. We specifically analyze the influence of the different pressure agents or stakeholders on the degree of proactivity of these patterns. We therefore propose and validate four types of environmental response pattern, representing particular configurations of both the scope of environmental objectives and their allocation of internal resources. The analysis, which is focused on a sample of 240 industrial firms, provides empirical evidence enabling us to identify, understand, and evaluate the impact of stakeholders on the choice of environmental response pattern. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20142092.pdf

Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders' pressure approach

Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies

Purpose – This study aims to learn more about the relationship between managers' perception of stakeholder pressure related to environmental matters and the degree of proactivity of firms' environmental strategies. It seeks to analyse the moderating effect that managers' perception of environmental issues as competitive advantage opportunities can have on this relationship.Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling (SEM) is applied to verify the research framework.Findings – The results indicate that, only in the least polluting firms, managers' competitive advantage expectations derived from environmental management moderate the relationship between the degree of environmental proactivity and stakeholder pressure. However, it is not effective in high polluting firms, perhaps as a consequence of the high degree of stakeholders' environmental pressure perceived by managers.Practical implications – The results highlight the relevance of managers' subjective perceptions of the potential of en...

Stakeholder pressure and environmental proactivity

The main purpose of this work is to analyse whether ISO 14001 certification is interpreted by the capital market as a sign of environmental responsibility, modifying long-term efficiency expectations and the profitability of firms. Under competing assumptions that ISO 14001 certification is adopted by firms either proactively or reactively, we test competing hypotheses about how this certification affects the market value of firms. The analysis is based on a sample of 80 environmental certifications of the plant systems or processes of large Spanish firms which traded on the continuous market of the Madrid Stock Exchange from 1996 to 2002. Using event study methodology, we found that ISO 14001 certification has a negative effect on the market value of certain firms. Specifically, the results obtained seem to show that the market negatively views the allocation of resources to ISO 14001 certification in the case of less polluting and less internationalised firms. On the other hand, the results obtained do not suggest clear evidence that the economic impact of ISO 14001 certification is negative for more polluting and more internationalised firms.

Concepción Garcés-Ayerbe

Papers

Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders' pressure approach

Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies

Stakeholder pressure and environmental proactivity

ISO 14001 Environmental Certification: A Sign Valued by the Market?

The impact of information technologies on firm productivity: Empirical evidence from Spain