Advertisement

Institutional Roots of Stakeholder Interactions

  • Sibel Yamak

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility is often studied through the lens of stakeholder theory. Although the initial studies in this tradition (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Swanson, 1999; Jones and Wicks, 1999) have focused more on bringing together descriptive, normative and instrumental parts of the theory, a recent concern has emerged for better understanding of the processes and outcomes related to stakeholder relationships (Mitchell et al., 1997; Harrison and Freeman, 1999; Agle et al., 1999; Friedman and Miles, 2002). In one of the studies following this trend, Harrison and Freeman (1999) point to the need to both identify differences within stakeholder groups and to understand the overall stakeholder relationship as a many-sided, complex phenomenon of corporate social responsibility. However, in a recent study, Friedman and Miles (2002) claim that the focus in many studies is still on defining the stakeholders of the firm, rather than the dynamics of the organization/stakeholder relationship. Therefore, the need to provide a consistent explanation of how, why and to what extent these relations change over time and in different contexts still exists. This chapter intends to contribute to the understanding of stakeholder relations by, first, investigating the limitations of the present thinking on stakeholder relations and, then, by offering alternative venues for the study of the topic.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Corporate Governance Institutional Environment Management Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999) ‘Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 42, pp. 479–87.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H.E. (1979) Organizations and Environments (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
  3. Alvesson, A. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  4. Beekun, R.I. and Ginn, G.O. (1993) ‘Strategic Positioning or Institutional Coercion? The Structure of Governing Boards’, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, no. 1, pp. 337–61.Google Scholar
  5. Blum, T.C. Fields, D.L. and J.S. Goodman, (1994) ‘Organization-Level Determinants of Women in Management’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 37 pp. 241–68.Google Scholar
  6. Bryman, A. (1999) ‘Leadership in Organizations’, in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (eds), Managing Organizations: Current Issues (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  7. Cespedes-Lorente, J. de Burgos-Jimenes, J. and Alvarez-Gill, M.J. (2003) ‘Stakeholder’s Environmental Influence: An Empirical Analysis in the Spanish Hotel Industry’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, no. 19, pp. 333–58.Google Scholar
  8. Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994) ‘Assessing the Relationship between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can You Be?’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 37, pp. 522–53.Google Scholar
  9. Child, J. and Rodriguez, S.B. (2004) ‘Repairing The Breach of Trust in Corporate Governance’, Corporate Governance, no. 12, pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
  10. Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W.R. (2002) ‘Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to The Special Research Forum’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 45, pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
  11. Damak-Ayadi, S. and Pesqueux, Y. (2004) ‘La théorie des parties prenantes en perspective’, Paper presented at the Seminar on the Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility. LIPSOR-CNAM (Paris).Google Scholar
  12. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality’, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  13. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995) ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review, no. 20, pp. 65–91.Google Scholar
  14. Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1990) ‘Top Management Team Tenure and Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 35, pp. 484–503.Google Scholar
  15. Foss, N.J. (1999) ‘The Challenge of Business Systems and the Challenge to Business Systems’, International Studies of Management and Organization, no. 29, pp. 9–24.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2002) ‘Developing Stakeholder Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, no. 39, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  19. Greewood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1996) ‘Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and New Institutionalism’, Academy of Management Review, no. 21, pp. 1022–1054..Google Scholar
  20. Greewood, R. Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C.R. (2002) ‘Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutional Fields’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 45, pp. 58–80.Google Scholar
  21. Hambrick, D.C. and Finkelstein, S. (1987) ‘Managerial Discretion: A Bridge between Polar Views on Organizations’, in L.L. Cummings and B.W. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9 (Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press).Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton, G.G. and Biggart, N.W. (1988) ‘Market, Culture, and Authority: A Comparative Analysis of Management and Organization in the Far East’, American Journal of Sociology, no. 94, pp. S52–S94.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, J.S. and Freeman, R.E. (1999) ‘Stakeholders, Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 42, pp. 479–88.Google Scholar
  24. Hartmann, M. (2000) ‘Class-specific Habitus and the Social Reproduction of the Business Elite in Germany and France’, Sociological Review, no. 48, pp. 241–61.Google Scholar
  25. Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  26. Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.M. (1992) ‘Stakeholder-agency Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, no. 29, pp. 131–54.Google Scholar
  27. Jawahar, I. and McLaughlin, G. (2001) ‘Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach’, Academy of Management Review, no. 26, pp. 397–414.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C. (1999) ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review, no. 24, pp. 206–21.Google Scholar
  29. Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. (2003) ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 48, pp. 268–305.Google Scholar
  30. Mellahi, K. and Wood, G. (2003) ‘The Role and Potential of Stakeholders in “Hollow Participation”: Conventional Stakeholder Theory and Institutionalist Alternatives’, Business and Society Review, no. 108, pp. 183–202..Google Scholar
  31. Mezias, S.J. (1990) ‘An Institutional Model of Organizational Practice: Financial Reporting at the Fortune 2000’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 35, pp. 431–57.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, R.K. Agle B.R. and 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, no. 22, 853–86.Google Scholar
  33. Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Response to Institutional Processes’, Academy of Management Review, no. 16, pp. 145–79.Google Scholar
  34. Oliver, C. (1992) ‘The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization’, Organization Studies, no. 13, pp. 563–88.Google Scholar
  35. Orts, E.W. and Strudler, A. (2002) ‘The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly, no. 12, pp. 215–34.Google Scholar
  36. Parkhe, A. (2003) ‘Institutional Environments, Institutional Change and International Alliances’, Journal of International Management, no. 9, pp. 305–16.Google Scholar
  37. Parla, T. (1998) ‘Mercantile Militarism in Turkey 1960–1998’, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 19, pp. 19–52.Google Scholar
  38. Pedersen, T. and Thomsen, S. (1999) ‘Business Systems and Corporate Governance’, International Studies of Management and Organization, no. 29, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
  39. Philips, R.A. and Reichart, J. (2000) ‘The Environment as a Stakeholder? A Fairness Based Approach’, Journal of Business Ethics, no. 23, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, W.R. and Meyer, J.W. (1991) ‘The Organization of Societal Sectors’, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  41. Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 32, pp. 493–511.Google Scholar
  42. Scott, W.R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  43. Selznick, P. (1996) ‘Institutionalism “Old” and “New”’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 41, pp. 270–77.Google Scholar
  44. Swanson, D.L. (1999) ‘Toward an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: A Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, no. 24, pp. 508–21.Google Scholar
  45. Whipp, R. (1999) ‘Creative Deconstruction: Strategy and Organizations’, in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.R. Nord (eds), Managing Organizations: Current Issues (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  46. Whitley, R. (1991) ‘The Social Construction of Business Systems in East Asia’, Organization Studies, no. 12, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  47. Whitley, R. (1994) ‘Dominant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economics’, Organization Studies, no. 15, pp. 153–82.Google Scholar
  48. Whitley, R. (1999a) ‘Competing Logics and Units of Analysis in The Comparative Study of Economic Organization’, International Studies of Management and Organization, no. 29, pp. 113–26.Google Scholar
  49. Whitley, R. (1999b) Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  50. Whitley, R. (2000) ‘The Institutional Structuring of Innovation Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical Change in Different Market Economics’, Organization Studies, no. 21, pp. 855–86.Google Scholar
  51. Zucker, L.G. (1987) ‘Institutional Theories of Organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, no. 13, pp. 443–464.Google Scholar
  52. Zucker, L.G. (1991) ‘Institutionalization and Cultural Persistence’, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sibel Yamak 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Yamak

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations