Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Future of Stakeholder Management Theory: A Temporal Perspective

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

Abstract

We propose adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory, and assess the implications thereof for firm-level competitive advantage. We argue that a firm’s competitive advantage fundamentally depends on its capacity for stakeholder management related, transformational adaptation over time. Our new temporal stakeholder management approach builds upon insights from both the resource-based view (RBV) in strategic management and institutional theory. Stakeholder agendas and their relative salience to the firm evolve over time, a phenomenon well understood in the literature, and requiring what we call level 1 adaptation. However, the dominant direction of stakeholder pressures can also change, namely, from supporting resource heterogeneity at the firm level to fostering industry homogeneity, and vice versa. When dominant stakeholder pressures shift from supporting heterogeneity towards stimulating homogeneity in industry, the firm must engage in level 2 or transformational adaptation. Stakeholders typically provide valuable resources to the firm in an early stage. Without these resources, which foster heterogeneity (in line with RBV thinking), the firm would not exist. At a later stage, stakeholders also contribute to inter-firm homogeneity via isomorphism pressures (in line with institutional theory thinking). Adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory has far reaching implications for this theory’s practical relevance to senior level management in business.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation management strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 1093–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 31, 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 124–188). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartkus, B. R., & Glassman, M. (2008). Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Surroca, J., & Tribo, J. A. (2007). Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firm performance: A test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance’. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2009). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (7th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organizational economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, R., & Joppe, M. (2005). CSR in the tourism industry? The status of and potential for certification, codes of conduct and guidelines. Washington: World Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, R. (2007). The good, the bad and the unfamiliar: the challenges of reputation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A. (1994). Minding the competition: From mapping to mastery. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. C. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, R. (1988). The persistence of abnormal returns. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, J., & Thomas, H. (1986). Strategic groups: Theory research, and taxonomy. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society Review, 1, 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murillo, D., & Lozano, J. M. (2006). SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR in their own words. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why to patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1225–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78, 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg, M., & Verbeke, A. (1999). The strategic management of high technology contracts: The case of CERN. London: Pergamon—Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2010). ‘Corporations civil society, and stakeholders: An organizational conceptualization’. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parket, I., & Eibert, H. (1975). Social responsibility: The underlying factors. Business Horizons, 18, 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. L. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26, 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15, 88–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Amit, R. H. (1994). Investment in strategic assets: Industry and firm-level perspectives. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol. 10 (pp. 3–33). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. (1999). Skill-biased technological change: Evidence from a firm-level study. Kalamzoo: Upjohn Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business relationships. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1988). Technological change and the nature of the firm. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 256–281). New York: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: Implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of Management Review, 16, 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1990). Introduction. In S. Zukin & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy (pp. 1–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McCaig Chair in Management, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Alain Verbeke

  2. Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Vincent Tung

  3. Solvay Business School, University of Brussels (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Alain Verbeke

Authors
  1. Alain Verbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Tung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alain Verbeke.

Additional information

Alain Verbeke and Vincent Tung contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verbeke, A., Tung, V. The Future of Stakeholder Management Theory: A Temporal Perspective. J Bus Ethics 112, 529–543 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1276-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1276-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation