From Power to Knowledge Relationships: Stakeholder Interactions as Learning Partnerships

  • Elena P. Antonacopoulou
  • Jérôme Meric


Since it progressively became a major topic in Management Science from the late 1980s, the word ‘tradition’ can be used today to best describe stakeholder theory. Relations between the firm and stakeholders are ‘traditionally’ conceived on a single opposition axis introducing two main patterns of relations. On the one hand, stakeholders can intensify pressure over the firm thus, creating conflict. On the other hand, dialogue and partnership can be set through different methods, like the participation of NGOs in decision processes and strategic actions. In both cases, the patterns of relations are assumed to take place in the context of conflicting interests. This mode of conceptualizing stakeholder relations places power as a core dimension shaping stakeholder relationships. It could be argued that power relations seem to be the only imaginable relationships between the firm and those with whom it interacts — its ‘interactors’. In such a context, institutionalizing ‘fair contracts’ seems to be the only solution to overcome conflicting power relations. However, if such contracts are to be defined, it seems necessary to consider their possible content and the stakeholder relations they imply.


Social Capital Stakeholder Theory Contractual Relation Stakeholder Relationship Stakeholder View 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Méric, J. (2005) ‘A Critique of Stake-holder Theory: Management Science or a Sophisticated Ideology of Control?’, Corporate Governance, vol. 5, no. 2 (Bradford: Emerald Group), pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
  2. Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Chiva, R. (2005) ‘Social Complex Evolving Systems: Implications for Organizational Learning’, under review.Google Scholar
  3. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2002) ‘Learning as Space: Implications for Organisational Learning’, Manchester Business School Research Paper series, no. 443.Google Scholar
  4. Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Papamichail, K.N. (2004) ‘Learning-Supported Decision-Making: ICTs as Feedback Systems’, in G. Doukidis, N. Mylonopoulos and M. Pouloudi, (eds), Information Society or Information Economy? A Combined Perspective on the Digital Era (Manchester: Idea Group Publishing), pp. 271–88.Google Scholar
  5. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2004) ‘The Dynamics of Reflexive Practice: The Relationship between Learning and Changing’, in M. Reynolds and R. Vince (eds), Organizing Reflection (London: Ashgate), pp. 47–64.Google Scholar
  6. Beamish, P. and Berdrow, I. (2003) ‘Learning from IJVs: The Unintended Outcome’, Long Range Planning, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson-Rea, M. and Wilson, H. (2003) ‘Networks, Learning and the Lifecycle’, European Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 588–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berends, T.L., Boersma, K. and Weggeman, M. (2003) ‘The Structuration of Organizational Learning’, Human Relations, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 1035–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday).Google Scholar
  10. Bergquist, W., Betwee, J. and Meuel, D. (1995) Building Strategic Relationships (San Francisco: Jossey Bass).Google Scholar
  11. Boatright, J.R. (2002) ‘Contractors as Stakeholders: Reconciling Stakeholder Theory with the Nexus-of-contracts Firm’, Journal of Banking and Finance, vol. 26, pp. 1837–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouquet, C., Morrison, A. and Beck, A. (2000) ‘Global Strategy, Attention Management and Company Performance’, Academy of International Business Annual Meeting (Phoenix).Google Scholar
  13. Bradenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1996) Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation: The Game Theory Strategy That’s Changing the Game of Business (New York: Doubleday).Google Scholar
  14. Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (2001) ‘Knowledge and Organization: A Social Practice Perspective’, Organization Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton, B.K. and Dunn, C.P. (1996) ‘Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carmona, S. and Grönlund, A. (1998) ‘Learning From Forgetting: An Experiential Study of Two European Car Manufacturers’, Management Learning, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, A. (1993) Associative Engines: Connectionism, Concepts, and Representational Change (Boston: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  18. Coase, R.H. (1937) The Nature of the Firm (Paris: Economica).Google Scholar
  19. Drucker, P.F. (1954) The Practice of Management (Harper).Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, R.E. and Reed, D. (1983) ‘Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance’, in C. Huizinga (ed), Corporate Governance: A Definitive Exploration of the Issues (Los Angeles: University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, E.R. and Evan, W. (1990) ‘Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 337–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, E.R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman).Google Scholar
  23. Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78. no. 6, pp. 1360–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Granovetter, M. (1985) ‘Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenley, G.E. and Foxall, G.R. (1998) ‘External Moderation of Associations among Stakeholder Orientations and Company Performance’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 15, pp. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation (Newbury Park, Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  27. Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T.B. (2003) ‘Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The Organizational Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hibbert, P. and Huxham, C. (2004) ‘Collaborating to Know? Inter-organizational Engagement and Learning’, AIM Working Paper Series.
  29. Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, T.H. (1992) ‘Stakeholder — Agency Theory’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 131–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Inkpen, A. (2002) ‘Learning, Knowledge Management and Strategic Alliances: So Many Studies, So Many Unanswered Questions’, in P. Lorange and F. Contractor (eds), Cooperative Strategies and Alliances (London: Pergamon), pp. 267–89.Google Scholar
  31. Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005) ‘Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 146–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976) ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, pp. 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966) The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley).Google Scholar
  34. Koll, O. (2003) ‘Stakeholder Value Creation and Firm Success’, Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, vol. 12, pp. 141–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leanna, C.R. and Rousseau, D.M. (2000) (eds), Relational Wealth (Oxford).Google Scholar
  38. Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt, R. (2001) Social Capital: Theory and Research (Aldine De Gruyter).Google Scholar
  39. Lorenz, K. (1981) The Foundations of Ethology (Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar
  40. Lozano, J.M. (2005) ‘Towards the Relational Corporation: from Managing Stakeholder Relationships to Building Stakeholder Relationships’, Corporate Governance, vol. 5, no. 2 (Emerald Group), pp. 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  42. Méric, J. (2003) ‘L’émergence d’un discourse de l’innovation managériale — le cas du Balanced Scorecard’, Comptabilité, Contrôle, Audit, special issue (May), pp. 129–45.Google Scholar
  43. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Towards a Theory of Stakeholder Identification: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 853–86.Google Scholar
  44. Mothe, C. and Quélin, B. (2000) ‘Creating Competencies Through Collaboration: The Case of Eureka R&D Consortia’, European Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) ‘Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the OrganizationOrganisational Advantage’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242–66.Google Scholar
  46. Neely, A. and Adams, C. (2002) ‘Perspectives on Performance: The Performance Prism’, working paper,
  47. Neely, A., Adams, C. and Kennerley, M. (2002) The Performance Prism — The Score-card for Measuring and Managing Business Success (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
  48. Nooteboom, B. (2000) ‘Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance’, Journal of Management and Governance, vol. 4, pp. 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ouchi, W.G. (1980) ‘Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 25 (March), pp. 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Post, J.E. Preston, L.E. and Sachs, S. (2002) ‘Managing the Extended Entreprise: The New Stakeholder View’, California Management Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosch, E. (1978) ‘Principles of Categorization’ in E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds), Cognition and Categorization (Hillsdale), pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  52. Rousseau, J.-J. (1968) Le Contrat Social, Translated by M. Cranston (London: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
  53. Simon, H.A. (1957) Models of Man, (New York: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
  54. Sutton, S.G. and Arnold, V. (1998) ‘Deconstructing Economic Stakeholder Theories or Is Might really Right?’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 9, pp. 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. (2002) ‘What is Organizational Knowledge?’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 973–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wellman, B. (1999) Networks in the Global Village (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  58. Wenger, E. (2000) ‘Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems’, Organization, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Windsor, D. (1998) ‘The Definition of Stakeholder Status’, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Business and Society, (IABS), Kona-Kailua, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  60. Zollo, M., Reuer, J.J. and Singh, H. (2002) ‘Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances’, Organization Science, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 701–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Elena P. Antonacopoulou and Jérôme Meric 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena P. Antonacopoulou
  • Jérôme Meric

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations