Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stakeholder theory scholars have recently addressed two crucial calls: the first is for the integration of strategy and ethics, of stakeholder theory and strategic management, and the second call is for the development of a dynamic approach to stakeholder management. I have attempted to answer these calls by developing a theoretical framework that links together stakeholder management, stakeholder commitment to cooperate with the firm, key decision makers’ ethical commitment, and firm strategy. Starting from the basic assumption that managers cannot meet all stakeholders’ demands immediately and in a tailored manner, I contend, first, that an ambidextrous approach to stakeholder management is conducive to stakeholders’ commitment to cooperate for the sustainable well-being of the firm and, second, that firm strategy and key decision makers’ ethical commitment moderate the relationship between an ambidextrous stakeholder management and stakeholder commitment to cooperate. Furthermore, drawing on this theoretical framework, I attempt to address the call for the integration of strategy and ethics by proposing a three-level conceptual model that distinguishes the objectives, the field, and the levers of integration. Finally, I outline a set of propositions that, taken together, represent a first attempt to develop a dynamic approach to stakeholder management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argandoña, A. (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1994). Changing the role of top management: Beyond strategy to purpose. Harvard Business Review, 72(6), 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Hoy, F. (1984). Integrating corporate social policy into strategic management. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(3), 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coda, V. (1989). L’orientamento strategico di fondo delle imprese. Torino: UTET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coda, V., & Mollona, E. (2010). The feedback structure of the strategy process and top management’s role in shaping emerging strategic behaviour. In P. Mazzola & F. W. Kellermanns (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategy process (pp. 109–141). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, J. E., & Gilley, K. M. (2005). Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 827–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. (2009). The eye of the beholder: When symbolic compliance fails in the context of corporate social responsibility, working paper series, Centre for Research in Organization and Management, Bocconi University, Milano.

  • De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 262–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Crating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 701–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elms, H., Brammer, S., Harris, J. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). New directions in strategic management and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. (2006). Why smart executive fail: Four case histories of how people learn the wrong lessons from history. Business History, 48(2), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R., Jr. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Velamuri, S. R. (2006). A new approach to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility. In A. Kakabadse & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 9–23). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2010). Strategy and the business landscape (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall, NJ: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A. (1999). Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 228–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. D., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Corporate and stakeholder responsibility: Making business ethics a two-way conversation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 375–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harting, T. R., Harmeling, S. S., & Venkataraman, S. (2006). Innovative stakeholders relations: When ‘ethics pays’ (and when it doesn’t). Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, A. S. (1982). Industry influences on strategy reformulation. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Special issue), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C., & Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Executives, 18(3), 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, M., Zollo, M., & Coda, V. (2010). Stakeholder cohesion, innovation, and competitive advantage. Corporate Governance: An International Journal of Business in Society, 10(4), 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W. H. (1979). Commentary. In D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning (pp. 44–47). Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., & Minoja, M. (2008). Strategizing corporate social responsibility: Evidence from an Italian medium-sized, family-owned company. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy—Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S., & Maurer, M. (2009). Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(supplement 3), 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saparito, P. A., Chen, C. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (2004). The role of relational trust in bank-small firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 400–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2007). Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Signori, S., & Rusconi, G. (2009). Ethical thinking in traditional Italian Economia Aziendale and the stakeholder management theory: The search for possible interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(supplement 3), 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. T., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. I. I. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei-Skillern, J. (2003). Sustainable development at Shell (A). Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82, 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., Minoja, M., Casanova, L., Hockerts, K., Neergaard, P., Schneider, S., et al. (2009a). Towards an internal change management perspective of CSR: Evidence from project RESPONSE on the sources of cognitive alignment between managers and their stakeholders, and their implications for social performance. Corporate Governance: An International Journal of Business in Society, 9(4), 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., Minoja, M., & Coda, V. (2009b). Toward an integrated theory of strategy, working paper, Centre for Research in Organization and Management, Bocconi University, Milano.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author expresses his gratitude to Professor Vittorio Coda (Bocconi University) for his extraordinary and relentless support and guidance, to the Editors for conceiving and managing this special issue, and to two anonymous referees for their constructive and insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Mario Minoja

  2. Department of Management and Technology, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Mario Minoja

Authors
  1. Mario Minoja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Minoja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Minoja, M. Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity. J Bus Ethics 109, 67–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation