Abstract
As the reach of corporations increasingly extends across borders, a key research question is whether overseas subsidiaries adopt a shareholder-centric orientation, centred on maximizing shareholder wealth, or a stakeholder-centric orientation, centred on creating value for a broader range of stakeholders. Existing theories, addressing the corporate level of analysis, focus on forces exogenous to the firm: local resource pressures, and institutional norms. Using a combination of induction and fuzzy-set analysis, I draw on documentary evidence and 298 interviews with managers and stakeholders to build theory about the conditions that shape subsidiaries’ stakeholder orientations. Two major findings emerge. First, although theory emphasizes external stakeholders’ control over resources, internal control through the corporate parent can crowd out the voices of local stakeholders. Second, although institutional theory proposes isomorphism with local norms and standards, some corporations are subject to scrutiny by global stakeholders, and their subsidiaries face higher requirements for social engagement than their peers. These findings are the foundation of a mid-range theory that combines conventional explanations, focused on environmental factors, and an internal-stakeholder perspective, based around the roles of the parent corporation as owner and resource provider, to predict stakeholder orientation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
QCA is based on a paradigm with different assumptions from conventional quantitative methodology (see Fiss 2007; Rihoux and Ragin 2008). To be consistent with this paradigm, I adopt the terminology of QCA researchers. Readers may consider causal conditions to resemble independent variables, and outcomes to resemble dependent variables. Please see Ragin (2008a) for a detailed introduction to the method.
- 2.
References
Aguilera, R.V., D.E. Rupp, C.A. Williams, and J. Ganapathi. 2007. Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 836–863.
Ahmadjian, C.L., and G.E. Robbins. 2005. A clash of capitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate restructuring in 1990s Japan. American Sociological Review 70 (3): 451–471.
Akerlof, G.A., and R.E. Kranton. 2005. Identity and the economics of organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (1): 9–32.
Allen, W.T. 1992. Our schizophrenic conception of the business corporation. Cardozo Law Review 14 (2): 261–282.
Bagnoli, M., and S. Watts. 2003. Selling to socially responsible consumers: Competition and the private provision of public goods. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 12 (3): 419–445.
Bail, C.A. 2008. The configuration of symbolic boundaries against immigrants in Europe. American Sociological Review 73 (1): 37–59.
Bansal, P., and K. Roth. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 717–736.
Baron, D. 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10 (1): 7–45.
Berle, A.A. 1931. Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review 44 (7): 1049–1074.
Berman, S., A.C. Wicks, S. Kotha, and T. Jones. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 488–506.
Blair, M.M., and L. Stout. 1999. A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review 85 (2): 247–328.
Brannen, M.Y., and M.F. Peterson. 2009. Merging without alienating: Interventions promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of International Business Studies 40 (3): 468–489.
Brickson, S.L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (4): 576–609.
Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Dodd, E.M. 1932. For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review 45 (7): 1145–1163.
Donaldson, T., and L.E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–91.
Dore, R. 2008. Financialization of the global economy. Industrial and Corporate Change 17 (6): 1097–1112.
Dunning, J.H. 1993. Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment. Transnational Corporations 3 (1): 23–52.
———. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise. A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies 29 (1): 45–66.
Dyer, J.H., and H. Singh. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23 (4): 660–697.
Edwards, R., A. Ahmad, and S. Moss. 2002. Subsidiary autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies 33 (1): 183–191.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550.
Epstein, J., D. Duerr, L. Kenworthy, and C. Ragin. 2008. Comparative employment performance: A fuzzy-set analysis. In Method and substance in macrocomparative analysis, ed. L. Kenworth and A. Hicks, 67–90. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fama, E.F., and M.C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 301–325.
Fiss, P.C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1180–1198.
———. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal 54 (2): 393–420.
Fiss, P.C., and E.J. Zajac. 2004. The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (4): 501–534.
———. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal 49 (6): 1173–1193.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13: 122–126.
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 191–205.
Grandori, A., and S. Furnari. 2008. A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design. Organization Studies 29 (3): 459–485.
Greckhamer, T., V. Misangyi, H. Elms, and R. Lacey. 2008. Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods 11 (4): 695–726.
Hall, P.A., and D. Soskice. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, ed. P.A. Hall and D. Soskice, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hillman, A.J., and G.D. Keim. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22 (2): 125–139.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Husted, B.W., and D.B. Allen. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 838–849.
Hymer, S.H. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of foreign direct investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jensen, M.C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): 235–256.
Johnson, S., D. Kaufmann, and A. Shleifer. 1997. The unofficial economy in transition. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 159–239.
Kacperczyk, A. 2009. With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal 30 (3): 261–285.
Kostova, T., and K. Roth. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 215–233.
Kostova, T., and S. Zaheer. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 24 (1): 64–81.
Kostova, T., K. Roth, and M.T. Dacin. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review 33 (4): 994–1006.
Kuemmerle, W. 1999. The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies 30 (1): 1–24.
Maignan, I., and D.A. Ralston. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ selfpresentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33 (3): 497–514.
Margolis, J.D., and J.P. Walsh. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268–305.
McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21 (5): 603–609.
———. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–127.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood. 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.
Mudambi, R., and P. Navarra. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies 35 (5): 385–406.
Pajunen, K. 2008. Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies 39 (4): 652–669.
Pfeffer, J. 2009. Renaissance and renewal in management studies: Relevance regained. European Management Review 6 (3): 141–148.
Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Phillips, R.A., S.L. Berman, H. Elms, and M.E. Johnson-Cramer. 2010. Strategy, stakeholders, and managerial discretion. Strategic Organization 8 (2): 176–183.
Post, J.E., L.E. Preston, and S. Sachs. 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Prahalad, C.K., and Y. Doz. 1987. The multinational mission. New York: Free Press.
Pratt, M.G. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 856–862.
Ragin, C.C. 2006a. User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson: University of Arizona Department of Sociology.
———. 2006b. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis 14 (3): 291–310.
———. 2008a. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2008b. Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In The Oxford handbook of political methodology, ed. J. Box Steffensmeier, H. Brady, and D. Collier, 174–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ragin, C.C., and P. Fiss. 2008. Net effects versus configurations: An empirical demonstration. In Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond, ed. C.C. Ragin, 190–212. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C.C., K.A. Drass, and S. Davey. 2006. Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson: University of Arizona Department of Sociology.
Rihoux, B., and C.C. Ragin, eds. 2008. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. London: Sage.
Rowley, T.J., and M. Moldoveanu. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review 28 (2): 204–219.
Scherer, A.G., and G. Palazzo. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance and democracy. Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 899–931.
Schneider, C.Q., and C. Wagemann. 2006. Reducing complexity in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research 45 (5): 751–786.
Schneider, M., C. Schulze-Bentrop, and M. Paunescu. 2010. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 246–266.
Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.
Siegel, D.S., and D.F. Vitaliano. 2007. An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 16 (3): 773–792.
Singh, J.S. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal 29 (3): 562–585.
Stevens, J.M., H.K. Steensma, D.A. Harrison, and P.L. Cochran. 2005. Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives’ decisions. Strategic Management Journal 26 (2): 181–195.
UNDP. 2009. Human development report 2009. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vaisey, S. 2007. Structure, culture, and community: The search for belonging in 50 urban communities. American Sociological Review 72 (6): 851–873.
Vernon, R. 1998. In the hurricane’s eye: The troubled prospects of multinational enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, J.P., A.D. Meyer, and C.B. Schoonhoven. 2006. A future for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science 17 (5): 657–671.
Weaver, G.R., L.K. Trevino, and P.L. Cochran. 1999. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal 42 (1): 41–57.
Williams, C.A., and R.V. Aguilera. 2008. Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, ed. A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D.S. Siegel, 452–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Witt, M.A., and G. Redding. 2009. Culture, meaning, and institutions: Executive rationale in Germany and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies 40 (5): 859–885.
Wood, D.J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16 (4): 691–718.
Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 (3): 338–353.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a grant provided by the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research). I am indebted to the Social Innovation Center at INSEAD, and to Lourdes Casanova, Kai Hockerts, Mario Minoja, Peter Neergaard, Esben Pedersen, Francesco Perrini, Susan Schneider, Pamela Sloan, Antonio Tencati, and Maurizio Zollo for contributing to the data collection. I thank Subi Rangan, Javier Gimeno, JIBS editor Julian Birkinshaw, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors and omissions are my responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Extract of Interview Protocol for Managers
-
(1)
What do you think the responsibilities of multinationals towards society are?
-
(2)
Why do you think that is the case?
-
(3)
What is the corporate responsibility of firms within your sector?
-
(4)
Does corporate responsibility play any role in competing within this sector? Is it a strategic issue?
-
(5)
Some see responsible behaviour as a pure cost factor. What do you think?
The Relevance of Corporate Responsibility
-
(6)
How is corporate responsibility relevant for your day-to-day work? How important an issue is it for you? If so, provide examples of how you integrate these issues in your day-to-day work.
The Firm’s Stakeholders
-
(7)
Name the most relevant stakeholders for your company or business unit.
-
(8)
How would you rank them on their impact on your company (business unit)?
-
(9)
How would you rank them based on your company’s (business unit’s) impact on their well-being?
Consider each stakeholder one at a time (repeat for each stakeholder):
-
(10)
What is your company’s responsibility vis-à -vis stakeholder X?
-
(11)
How does your company (unit) try to meet its responsibilities with X? Which initiatives have been taken?
Day-to-Day Management Processes
-
(12)
Are socially motivated decisions or initiatives recognized in your performance evaluation?
-
(13)
In your part of the organization, is there a requirement to include an evaluation of the social impact of investment plans in order to decide on project proposals and resource allocation?
Appendix 2: Extract of Interview Protocol for Stakeholders
-
(1)
What is the corporate responsibility of firms within sector X?
-
(2)
Which standards should a multinational follow, home and/or country based?
-
(3)
The firm in comparison with others:
-
(3.1)
Benchmark how good firm X is in honouring its responsibilities.
-
(3.2)
How do you evaluate the firm’s ability to honour its responsibilities?
-
(3.3)
Name the firm’s most important competitors. Where would you position its competitors (or the industry average)?
-
(3.4)
On what basis do you decide who is better or worse?
-
(3.1)
The Company and You
-
(4)
How important is firm X to your organizational goals?
-
(5)
Tell us the specific story of your interaction with firm X.
-
(a)
What is your organization doing to impact the firm?
-
(b)
How often do you interact with the firm? When did you last meet?
-
(c)
Have you noticed any changes arising from this interaction?
-
(a)
The Internal Organization
-
(6)
What are the strengths and weaknesses in the way firm X has organized to handle its responsibilities towards stakeholders?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crilly, D. (2020). Predicting Stakeholder Orientation in the Multinational Enterprise: A Mid-Range Theory. In: Eden, L., Nielsen, B.B., Verbeke, A. (eds) Research Methods in International Business. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22112-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22113-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)