Skip to main content

Institutional Roots of Stakeholder Interactions

  • Chapter
Stakeholder Theory
  • 603 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • 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 

  • Aldrich, H.E. (1979) Organizations and Environments (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, A. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management (London: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Child, J. and Rodriguez, S.B. (2004) ‘Repairing The Breach of Trust in Corporate Governance’, Corporate Governance, no. 12, pp. 143–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2002) ‘Developing Stakeholder Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, no. 39, pp. 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.M. (1992) ‘Stakeholder-agency Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, no. 29, pp. 131–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C. (1999) ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review, no. 24, pp. 206–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic Response to Institutional Processes’, Academy of Management Review, no. 16, pp. 145–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1992) ‘The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization’, Organization Studies, no. 13, pp. 563–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Parkhe, A. (2003) ‘Institutional Environments, Institutional Change and International Alliances’, Journal of International Management, no. 9, pp. 305–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parla, T. (1998) ‘Mercantile Militarism in Turkey 1960–1998’, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 19, pp. 19–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. and Thomsen, S. (1999) ‘Business Systems and Corporate Governance’, International Studies of Management and Organization, no. 29, pp. 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 32, pp. 493–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W.R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1996) ‘Institutionalism “Old” and “New”’, Administrative Science Quarterly, no. 41, pp. 270–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Whitley, R. (1991) ‘The Social Construction of Business Systems in East Asia’, Organization Studies, no. 12, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (1994) ‘Dominant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economics’, Organization Studies, no. 15, pp. 153–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Whitley, R. (1999b) Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zucker, L.G. (1987) ‘Institutional Theories of Organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, no. 13, pp. 443–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2005 Sibel Yamak

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yamak, S. (2005). Institutional Roots of Stakeholder Interactions. In: Bonnafous-Boucher, M., Pesqueux, Y. (eds) Stakeholder Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524224_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics