Reviewing the Stakeholder Value Creation Literature: Towards a Sustainability Approach

Open Access
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


The purpose of this study is to examine distinctive narratives of stakeholder value creation and discuss how they consider sustainability. Based on an extensive research review spanning over three decades of material, we present four categories of the stakeholder value creation literature: (1) a focal firm orientation with an economic value perspective, (2) a stakeholder orientation with an economic value perspective, (3) a focal firm orientation with a multiple value perspective, and (4) a stakeholder orientation with a multiple value perspective. In each of these categories, we identified several narratives of stakeholders, value creation, and sustainability. This study reveals an increased interest in sustainability issues and their more coherent incorporation into stakeholder research in recent years. We suggest that, with respect to sustainability, future research should consider the dynamic, systemic, and multilevel nature of stakeholder relationships and collaboration. Additionally, a more versatile understanding of value and value creation, as well as a broader comprehension of stakeholders and their needs, should be incorporated into future research. Finally, conceptualising sustainability and the normative core of sustainable business, as well as elaborating on the purpose and role of business regarding sustainability, are interesting focus areas for future research.


Stakeholder theory Value creation Sustainability Research review 

1 Introduction

Stakeholder theory is one of the main management frameworks used to discuss social responsibility issues in business. As stakeholder theory perceives stakeholders broadly, referring to those who can affect or are affected by a firm’s operations (Freeman 1984), the theory has acquired a prominent place as a framework that addresses social responsibility issues as a natural part of business. Moreover, stakeholder theory has been described as a management theory of the 21st century suitable for understanding and redefining the role of business and value creation in society (Freeman 2010). Freeman et al. (2010) argue that stakeholder theory is fundamentally ‘about value creation and trade and how to manage a business effectively. “Effective” can be seen as “create as much value as possible”.’ However, academics and business practitioners have given sustainability increased attention, leading to calls for management scholars to rethink extant management theories and their underlying assumptions in the context of sustainability (e.g., Derry 2012; Starik and Kanashiro 2013). Stakeholder theory has also been advanced directly regarding sustainability. In effect, Hörisch et al. (2014) examined the applicability of stakeholder theory in sustainability management and developed a conceptual framework to enhance the theory’s application in the context of sustainability. Scholars have particularly emphasised the need to incorporate sustainability management into conventional management theories to have an impact on more sustainable business decisions instead of building distinctive theories and new languages to learn for this purpose (ibid.).

Stakeholder theory has served to analyse and understand multiple phenomena in various fields of the organisational sciences, such as strategic management (e.g., Freeman 1984; Haksever et al. 2004; Strand and Freeman 2015), corporate responsibility (e.g., Brower and Mahajan 2013; Sachs and Maurer 2009; Smith and Rönnegard 2016; Strand et al. 2015), business ethics (e.g., Phillips 1997; Purnell and Freeman 2012; Wicks 1996), and international business (e.g., Ansari et al. 2013; Christmann 2004; Lehtimaki and Kujala 2015). Moreover, stakeholder value creation has been used in many recent studies to better understand stakeholder concerns and cooperation (e.g., Garcia-Castro and Aguilera 2015; Garriga 2014; Harrison and Wicks 2013; Rühli et al. 2017; Schneider and Sachs 2015; Tantalo and Priem 2016). Therefore, we need a comprehensive understanding of what stakeholder value creation means in the organisational sciences and what value means in the stakeholder literature.

While stakeholder theory was not originally developed to address complex sustainability issues, its potential for further development has been acknowledged and acted on (Freeman 1994; Hörisch et al. 2014), and it has served as a traditional management theory in research on corporate sustainability to some extent (Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos 2014). However, stakeholder theory, like other management theories, has been criticised quite heavily for being too focused on economic, firm-centric value creation with anthropocentric premises in the context of sustainability (e.g., Banerjee 2000, 2001; Clifton and Amran 2011). Starik and Kanashiro (2013) have also criticised management theorists as lacking a systematic examination of sustainable development, which has been the case in stakeholder research. In essence, calls have been made for researchers to pay attention to the premises of their research, including research questions, assumptions, and broader paradigms followed in their studies (e.g., Derry 2012).

The purpose of this study is to examine distinctive narratives of stakeholder value creation and discuss how they consider sustainability. Analysing the stakeholder value creation literature from the sustainability viewpoint allows researchers and practitioners to become more aware of the various uses of the concepts and of the impacts different research questions, settings, and ontological and epistemological assumptions have on research findings. Hence, the findings of this study help us better understand how the chosen approaches influence the development of management theories and business practices.

Sustainability, or sustainable development, is understood in this study via its most profound definition, which refers to ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ and consists of economic, social, and environmental dimensions (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Sustainability has been regarded as somewhat difficult to translate and implement in traditional businesses (e.g., Gallo and Christensen 2011), and compromises have often been made between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Gallo and Christensen 2011). For true sustainability, though, all three dimensions should be considered equally and acted upon (Bansal 2005). Studies on strong sustainability take the issue even further and suggest that concerns related to the natural environment should be considered as an elementary part of all studies related to management and organisations (Heikkinen et al. 2018; Heikkurinen 2017). Relating to the idea of strong sustainability, this chapter discusses how the studies on stakeholder value creation contribute to sustainability when considered an important issue affecting organisations and society today.

The remainder of the chapter is organised as follows. In the next section, we will explain the collection and analysis of studies on stakeholder value creation. Then, based on an inductive categorisation, we will present the findings of our review in four categories according to their orientation toward stakeholders (i.e., focal firm or stakeholder orientation) and value (i.e., economic or multiple value perspective). In each of these categories, we identify several narratives of stakeholders, value creation, and sustainability. The chapter is concluded by discussing the stakeholder value creation narratives and their relation to sustainability.

2 Collection and Analysis of Studies on Stakeholder Value Creation

To examine the distinctive narratives of stakeholder value creation, we reviewed articles published in leading management journals from 1985 to 2015 and found 210 related scholarly articles for our review. We followed the advice given by Short (2009) and focused our search on eleven high-quality management journals including both top journals, such as Academy of Management Review and Academy of Management Journal, and specialty journals, such as Business & Society and Journal of Business Ethics. The journal choice was made with an objective to allow discussion with the mainstream management theories instead of concentrating on more conditioned journals, where the importance of sustainability issues would be more acknowledged (ibid.). In essence, we are participating in efforts to incorporate sustainability into conventional business thinking and language.

The research process was iterative in nature. It started by searching for and identifying relevant articles in the chosen journals. Altogether, three search rounds were conducted: in November–December of 2015, February–March of 2016, and September–November of 2016. Each search round was followed by a close reading and analysis of the articles, as well as the development and refinement of the inductive categorisation and distinctive narratives and documenting the findings. The analysis was finalised in 2018 after crosschecking and fine-tuning the findings, resulting in the final version of the article.

To identify and select relevant articles, we read the titles and abstracts of articles and, when necessary, their introductions and conclusions. We based the selection of articles on the following criteria: they had to examine value creation in a way that emphasised stakeholders and stakeholder relationships and needed to recognise that value could be created for one or more stakeholders other than shareholders. We chose these criteria based on the premises and main thesis of the stakeholder theory, which considers cooperation between various actors to be important (e.g., Freeman et al. 2007). We also chose these criteria based on the assumption that sustainability views value creation as extending beyond economic returns and shareholder value maximisation to achieving environmental and social benefits (e.g., Starik and Kanashiro 2013). Table 1 presents a summary of the selected articles.
Table 1

Summary of the stakeholder value creation articles in this review



Academy of Management Review


Academy of Management Journal


Strategic Management Journal


Journal of Management


Administrative Science Quarterly


Journal of Management Studies


Organization Science


Journal of Business Ethics


Business & Society


Business Ethics Quarterly


Organization & Environment




After collecting the articles, we began our analysis by closely reading articles published in the top management journals. Based on our reading, we performed an inductive categorisation by paying attention to the perception of value in the articles and how each of the articles approached stakeholder issues. Consequently, we positioned the articles on two different dimensions, which ranged from a single value perspective to a multiple value perspective and from a focal firm orientation to a stakeholder orientation. We then extended our analysis to articles published in specialty journals. These articles confirmed our inductive categorisation and convinced us to proceed accordingly. As a result, we divided all 210 articles into four categories along with the dimensions of a focal firm versus stakeholder orientation and an economic value versus multiple value perspective. To conduct a systematic examination of the articles, we used qualitative content analysis as a method of investigation (Krippendorff 2004; Weber 1990). This methodology allowed us to inductively develop a unified coding system and systematically analyse and extract relevant information from the articles. Table 2 presents the content classification system for coding and analysis.
Table 2

Content classification system for coding and analysis




Publication year


Name of the authors


Title of the article


Name of the journal

Research questions

Explicitly stated research questions


Theories used within the study

Empirical methods and setting

Empirical method, data collection, and description of data source

Key findings

Explicitly stated key findings in the article

View on stakeholders

Focal firm orientation or stakeholder orientation

View on value

A single value perspective or a multiple value perspective

View on sustainability

Explicit or implicit reference and view on sustainability

Finally, we paid attention to the different views of sustainability in each of these categories. In general, we noted the clear (i.e., the article mentioned sustainability or sustainable development explicitly) and embedded sustainability references (i.e., the article did not use sustainability or sustainable development as a concept directly but used the social or environmental dimension implicitly) in the articles. In the next section, we will explain the results of our analysis in more detail and depict the four categories and their different narratives of stakeholders, value creation, and sustainability in each category.

3 Narratives of Stakeholder Value Creation

Our examination shows that authors have studied stakeholder value creation quite extensively and that the literature has widely acknowledged the responsibilities of business and the creation of versatile value beyond economic measures. We divided the previous studies on stakeholder value creation into four categories: (1) a focal firm orientation with an economic value perspective (25 articles), (2) a stakeholder orientation with an economic value perspective (20 articles), (3) a focal firm orientation with a multiple value perspective (84 articles), and (4) a stakeholder orientation with a multiple value perspective (81 articles) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Categories of stakeholder value creation articles

Our examination indicates that interest in sustainability issues and theory development within stakeholder value creation studies has increased recently. The fourth category, stakeholder orientation with a multiple value perspective, consisted of articles that widely acknowledge the responsibilities of businesses in society, the importance of stakeholder cooperation, and collaboration for versatile value creation and value beyond economic measures. Therefore, the fourth category shows the most potential to address the question of how stakeholder value creation relates to sustainability. We will now present the different narratives of stakeholder value creation within in each category in more detail. A more detailed description of the literature related to each category and narrative is presented in the Appendix.

3.1 Focal Firm Orientation and the Economic Value Perspective

The first category represents an instrumental view of stakeholder value creation, placing the focal firm and business performance in the centre of the study. Although over half of the articles referred to sustainability issues implicitly or explicitly—mainly in the form of common social performance measures, such as KLD or sustainability ratings—sustainability issues and measurements were treated as subordinate to traditional strategic issues and performance measures. Studies in this category criticise the stakeholder approach to value creation and capture for its lack of guidance for managers in situations in which trade-offs need to be made between stakeholders. Instead, some argued that the single objective function, with the primacy of the firm’s long-term value maximisation, should always guide managerial decision-making (e.g., Jensen 2002). In a similar fashion, Sundaram and Inkpen (2004a) defended shareholder value maximisation as the primary corporate objective function, arguing that it is the only objective that will profit all stakeholders in the end. Hence, this category instrumentally investigates whether and how sustainability or stakeholder issues should be dealt with and follows the prevailing economic paradigm. Furthermore, scholars emphasised that stakeholder theory has not provided enough empirical evidence for its stakeholder value maximisation claim (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004b). The three stakeholder value creation narratives within this category were (1) the narrative of stakeholder identification, (2) the narrative of stakeholder management influencing firm performance, and (3) the narrative of value creation and capture. In the following paragraphs, we will explain them in more detail.

3.1.1 The Narrative of Stakeholder Identification

Studies using this narrative show interest in the identification of stakeholders and analysing how and why companies respond to pressures from different stakeholders. Firm-stakeholder relationships were examined from the managerial or organisational perspective, as well as through understanding the accrued effects of the networks in which firms participate. Factors affecting salience and decisions regarding different stakeholder issues were linked to, for example, stakeholder status (Perrault 2017), directors’ personal values and roles (Adams et al. 2011), and the organisational life cycle (Jawahar and McLaughlin 2001). Rowley (1997), however, built on social network analysis and stated that firms resist stakeholder demands based on the simultaneous effects of the stakeholder network density and the firm’s centrality within this network.

3.1.2 The Narrative of Stakeholder Management Influencing Firm Performance

The studies using this narrative are interested in the relationship between stakeholder management and firm performance. They showed contradictory results concerning whether attending stakeholder concerns can be beneficial for a firm and what should come first in the managerial agenda. To start with, Berman et al. (1999) argued that firms address stakeholder concerns when they expect positive effects on financial performance. The studies that showed evidence of positive effects examined impacts on shareholder value (Hillman and Keim 2001), financial performance (Choi and Wang 2009), and long-term shareholder value (Garcia-Castro et al. 2011). Furthermore, Ogden and Watson (1999) examined whether a firm is able to improve the interests of shareholders and stakeholders simultaneously and showed that it is possible to align the interests of different stakeholders, at least to some extent, without compromising shareholder returns, although Garcia-Castro and Francoeur (2016) found that additional investments in stakeholders do not necessarily benefit firms linearly and can also become costly. Additionally, Wang et al. (2008) depicted the relationship between corporate philanthropy and financial performance in the form of an inverse U-shape, showing positive effects on financial performance in the beginning but negative effects after a certain point.

Innovations and temporal aspects were also taken into consideration within the studies trying to show the link between stakeholder management and competitive advantage. For example, the interconnections between innovations, stakeholder relationships, and competitive advantage were examined, underlining the importance of cultural and industry contexts when choosing the most efficient stakeholder management approach to create a competitive advantage through innovations (Harting et al. 2006). It was also argued that achieving a competitive advantage depends on a firm’s ability to adapt and transform its stakeholder management practices over time (Verbeke and Tung 2013).

Finally, the studies regarding CEOs, stakeholder management, and business performance revealed, for instance, how it might be disadvantageous for a CEO to pursue stakeholder-related initiatives, as they can have negative effects on CEO compensation, even if there are financial improvements (Coombs and Gilley 2005). A newly appointed CEO may sacrifice long-term stakeholder value, such as pension funds, research and development (R&D) investments, and capital equipment investments, while attempting to create short-term profits in their self-interest (Harrison and Fiet 1999). It also seemed that the economic performance of a firm has a moderating effect on the CEO’s stakeholder concerns (Dooley and Lerner 1994).

3.1.3 The Narrative of Dynamics in Value Creation

The dynamics of value creation were of interest in quite a few studies. For example, Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2014) showed that the heterogeneity of stakeholders allows firms to create sustained market value with both fairness and an arms-length approach to stakeholder management. Additionally, the roles of different stakeholders and environments in economic value creation were focused on, for example, through exploring the strategies to manage consumer benefited experiences (Priem 2007), examining the firm’s political environment (Oliver and Holzinger 2008), and analysing the secondary stakeholders in the socially complex cases of product diversification (Su and Tsang 2015). Some of the studies approached value creation through the examination of who finally captures the value. As an example, Blyler and Coff (2003) suggested that, in the context of dynamic capability, internal stakeholders with social capital may capture the economic rents for their personal gain before they appear in traditional performance measures. To improve the management of stakeholder claims and value capture, Crane et al. (2015) argued that stakeholder accounting and financialising stakeholder claims could be helpful.

3.2 Stakeholder Orientation and the Economic Value Perspective

The second category, along with focusing on economic or business value, drew attention to the importance of stakeholder relationships and cooperation for business success and value creation. This view is also instrumental in nature; for example, the studies on instrumental stakeholder theory are situated within this category. These studies examined concepts such as trust in cooperation networks, the consequences of blurring organisational boundaries, and value creation and capture logics in multiple stakeholder settings. As the economic value creation function of firms was emphasised in this category, only a few articles either implicitly or explicitly referred to sustainability. Three stakeholder value creation narratives within this category were (1) trust in cooperation networks, (2) blurring organisational boundaries, and (3) value creation and capture logics. In the following paragraphs, we will explain them in more detail.

3.2.1 The Narrative of Trust in Cooperation Networks

An overriding issue that many of the articles in this category discussed was trust. In effect, several articles based on instrumental stakeholder theory emphasised the role of trust and cooperation in creating organisational wealth and a competitive advantage (e.g., Jones 1995; Preston and Donaldson 1999). The influence of trust in stakeholder relationships was elaborated on even further by Wicks et al. (1999), who stated that the optimal level of trust in stakeholder relationships positively affects firm performance. Furthermore, Pirson and Malhotra (2011) contended that different organisational stakeholders appreciate different dimensions of trustworthiness. The studies on strategic partnerships (Ireland et al. 2002), innovation networks (Dhanaraj and Parkhe 2006), and interorganisational relationships (e.g., Barringer and Harrison 2000; Connelly et al. 2015) highlighted the fact that productive and cost-efficient cooperation and value creation require building trust into these relationships.

3.2.2 The Narrative of Blurring Organisational Boundaries

Another major narrative concerns the consequences of blurring organisational boundaries and roles of different actors in multi-stakeholder networks. Due to the blurring of organisational boundaries, understanding the role of different stakeholders in value creation was regarded as important. As an example, Korschun (2015) investigated the important role of employees and concluded that a strong identification with the company leads to adversarial stakeholder relationships, while a collectivistic organisational identity and seeing stakeholders as organisational members supports a cooperative approach. Kochan and Rubinstein (2000) emphasised the importance of employees, too, by giving employees a prominent place in value creation and improving the organisational performance of American organisations. The cognitive side of value creation and construction of a competitive advantage were also focused on, as using and exchanging resources within firm-constituent interactions would require ‘communication about and interpretations of those exchanges’ (Rindova and Fombrun 1999). Other contexts in which different stakeholder groups were examined included, for example, leaders and stakeholder management in radix organisations (Schneider 2002), external stakeholder engagement in creating sustainable shareholder value (Henisz et al. 2014), and cooperation between isolated firms and stakeholders with the help of government support institutions in the case of product upgrading in emerging markets (McDermott et al. 2009).

3.2.3 The Narrative of Value Creation and Capture Logics

Again, value creation and capture logics emerged as an important narrative. Garcia-Castro and Aguilera (2015) presented a conceptual framework of incremental value creation and appropriation, which expands the concept of value and value capture to consider all stakeholders of the firm. The scholars argued that value creation and appropriation should be viewed dynamically, as multiple stakeholders participate in value creation processes with their resources and capabilities, meriting their proportion of the economic rents created (ibid.). Priem et al. (2013) emphasised the role of consumers and stated that it is necessary to pay attention to value creation opportunities for consumers and corresponding business models and ecosystems.

However, some of the studies showed how value creation in stakeholder relationships may harm the value capture of a firm or an individual stakeholder group. For instance, Coff (2010) examined how different stakeholders participating in capability development may use their bargaining power for rent appropriation in different stages of the capability life cycle, causing direct effects on firm performance. Kivleniece and Quelin (2012) examined value creation and capture in public-private collaboration and stated that private actors’ involvement might be jeopardised if public partner opportunism or external stakeholder activism restrained private actors’ value capture. The empirical results of Poulain-Rehm and Lepers’ (2013) study did not support the hypothesis that employee share ownership plans and employees’ growing role in company decision-making would enhance value creation and capture for either shareholders or stakeholders. Finally, Bridoux et al. (2011) emphasised that a firm should adapt its motivational system to the heterogeneous motives of different employees to enhance collective value creation and interfirm performance.

3.3 Focal Firm Orientation and the Multiple Value Perspective

The third category approaches value creation mainly from the focal firm perspective but recognises the social or environmental responsibilities of companies in addition to economic value creation. Most of the studies in this category recognised the need to expand the view of stakeholder value creation further and challenged the current paradigm to develop more sustainable business practices. In effect, most of the articles in this category had either explicit or implicit sustainability references. However, the conceptions of sustainability-related values were not coherent, as some of the studies solely examined environmental value, while others more broadly discussed social or stakeholder value considerations but without further specifying value conception. The common themes emerged around five narratives: (1) challenging the traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach, (2) stakeholder identification and salience, (3) stakeholder management practices, (4) an expanded view of value creation, (5) environmental and sustainability management. In the following paragraphs, we will explain these five narratives in more detail.

3.3.1 The Narrative of Challenging the Traditional CSR Approach

The first narrative in this category criticises the traditional CSR and corporate social performance (CSP) approaches by aiming to understand responsible business practices through stakeholder theory (e.g., Clarkson 1995; Jamali 2008; Rowley and Berman 2000; Sachs and Maurer 2009; Smith and Rönnegard 2016). Sachs and Maurer (2009), for instance, argued that CSR research should move toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility and should not artificially distinguish between economic and social responsibilities. Smith and Rönnegard (2016) even implied that stakeholder theory could be set as a paradigm for business and business responsibilities in the future. To challenge the traditional view of CSR, O’Riordan and Fairbrass (2014) provided a practical model for organisational decision-makers to conceive their firms as inherently linked with society and to address collective value creation for all stakeholders within the value chain. Furthermore, Margolis and Walsh (2003) encouraged researchers to set aside persistent attempts to explain the relationship between a firm’s social and economic performance and concentrate instead on the question of when firm activities could be beneficial to society. In addition, Kroeger and Weber (2014) introduced a conceptual framework to measure the benefits of social value creation.

Other CSR- and CSP-related studies concentrated on the effects of good CSP on accessing finance (Cheng et al. 2014), the stakeholder landscape and its impacts on the breadth of corporate social performance (Brower and Mahajan 2013), and differences in firms’ CSR responses to institutional pressures (Crilly et al. 2012). Moreover, some scholars studied firms’ identity orientation toward stakeholders in explaining CSP activity (Bingham et al. 2011), the effects of the sociocognitive factors of the top management team and organisational decision-making structures on corporate social performance (Wong et al. 2011), and the impacts of changes in CSP on financial performance (Ruf et al. 2001). Additionally, some articles scrutinised stakeholder reactions and stakeholder relationships. Crilly et al. (2016) examined stakeholder evaluations and reactions to the social responsibility activities of multinational corporations, while Madsen and Rodgers (2015) investigated stakeholder attention to firm CSR activities and its effects on corporate financial performance, and Bendheim et al. (1998) concentrated on the best practices in firm-stakeholder relationships.

3.3.2 The Narrative of Stakeholder Identification and Salience

Identifying relevant stakeholders is a special narrative within the stakeholder literature. Probably the best-known model of stakeholder identification and salience was presented by Mitchell et al. (1997), who defined three relationship attributes (i.e., power, legitimacy, and urgency) as relevant in defining stakeholder salience through managerial perception. To support this theory, Agle et al. (1999) found evidence for the attribute-salience relationships, while Bundy et al. (2013) examined how organisational identity and strategic frames guide managerial interpretations of issue salience. Whereas the studies mainly focused on manager-led processes of stakeholder identification, Tashman and Raelin (2013) suggested that stakeholder salience should move beyond managerial perceptions, as they might ignore important stakeholders due to market frictions. Other studies examined stakeholder identification based on the social identity of stakeholders (Crane and Ruebottom 2011), stakeholder salience in family business settings (Mitchell et al. 2011), stakeholder legitimacy (Phillips 2003), and the role of stakeholder culture in stakeholder-related decisions (Jones et al. 2007). Moreover, scholars have investigated firms’ responses to conflicting institutional demands (Pache and Santos 2010) and secondary stakeholder action (Eesley and Lenox 2006), instrumental and normative perspectives on understanding why firms respond to stakeholders (Welcomer et al. 2003), and stakeholder orientations of boards of directors (Wang and Dewhirst 1992).

3.3.3 The Narrative of Stakeholder Management Practices

In this narrative, attention is drawn to the stakeholder management practices of focal firms. Managerial cognition and its effects on stakeholder management was identified as a research gap in the stakeholder literature (Laplume et al. 2008) and was examined by various scholars (e.g., Crilly and Sloan 2012). Moreover, De Luque et al. (2008) showed how managers’ stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Minoja (2012) called for an ambidextrous approach for stakeholder management to ensure stakeholder cooperation and long-term firm performance, while Kaufman (2002) argued that stakeholder management approaches should include a double fiduciary duty consisting of loyalty to corporate stakeholders, as well as loyalty to fair bargaining and freedom. Organisational factors such as organisational architecture (Crilly and Sloan 2013) and enterprise strategy (Crilly 2013) were also identified as influencing stakeholder management practices. Wheeler et al. (2002) highlighted the difficulties an organisation might face when developing more stakeholder-responsive orientations related to environmental and social issues throughout the organisation. Meanwhile, Winn (2001) examined what a multiple stakeholder decision-making model would look like. Some articles paid attention to stakeholder activism, for example, through the study of CEO ideology and its effects on social activism (Briscoe et al. 2014), as well as through the examination of differences in firms’ responses to activism (Waldron et al. 2013).

3.3.4 The Narrative of an Expanded View on Value Creation

An expanded view of value creation was the fourth main narrative within this category. In this narrative, the traditional view of economic value creation is challenged, for instance, by arguing that value creation and capture, and what is of value are contingent and subjective, and these arguments should be considered in the research related to value creation and capture (Lepak et al. 2007). Haksever et al. (2004) showed how firms and their managers may, through their decisions, create or even destroy value for their stakeholders in different dimensions. The long-term success of the firms was sought by creating happiness and well-being for all stakeholders instead of following the objective function of shareholder wealth maximisation (e.g., Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009; Jones and Felps 2013a, b). Although the traditional view of the firm was challenged to a great extent, and business was suggested to be defined with regard to its ability to create common good (Shankman 1999), a strategic approach to social value creation was considered superior regarding social outcomes than a purely altruistic approach (Husted and de Jesus Salazar 2006).

Research on social entrepreneurship and social enterprises also took an extended view on value creation, by combining social problems with economic value creation. The studies investigated, for example, entrepreneurs’ motivation to engage in social entrepreneurship (Fauchart and Gruber 2011; Miller et al. 2012). It was even argued that the role of entrepreneurship in society should be defined as naturally considering blended value creation, including financial, social, and environmental aspects (Zahra and Wright 2015). McMullen and Warnick (2015) regarded the blended value creation objective at its best as an ideal model, which should not be normative or a legal obligation for all new entrepreneurial ventures. In effect, the tensions between social missions and business objectives were recognised, and stakeholder theory was seen as a possible solution to manage them (Smith et al. 2013).

3.3.5 The Narrative of Environmental and Sustainability Management

Over the years, stakeholder theorists have been arguing whether the natural environment should have a stakeholder status. Although nature has been ascribed a stakeholder status (Starik 1995) or even given primacy in the stakeholder identification and salience processes based on its relationship attribute of proximity (Driscoll and Starik 2004), it has been argued that the environment does not need a stakeholder status as environmental issues are considered through other legitimate stakeholders. (e.g., Phillips and Reichart 2000). In either case, stakeholder value creation studies have been widely interested in expanding the value creation to also include environmental issues.

Many scholars have shown interest in what drives companies toward environmentally friendly practices and how environmental friendliness is reflected in stakeholder relationships. Companies were regarded as changing their behaviour mostly due to external pressures from their operating environment. For example, Fineman and Clarke (1996) identified campaigners and regulators as external stakeholders that manage to evoke pro-environmental responses within companies. As managers were accused of perceiving corporate environmentalism and their firm’s relationship with the environment through an economic rationale that focuses on how environmental initiatives benefit the firm financially, regulatory forces and stakeholder activity were presented as central in advancing environmentally friendly activities (Banerjee 2001). Regarding climate change, the temporal orientations of managers were argued to be future-oriented but rely heavily on public policy development (Sarasini and Jacob 2014). It was even argued that companies would enter partnerships to address environmental problems (e.g., with the government) based on a threat or an opportunity and being dependent on a firm’s resources and positioning (Lin 2014).

Generally, environmental management was examined from three different perspectives. Some of the studies investigated the influences of external stakeholders on environmental management practices, for instance, by studying the effect of shareholder activists’ status and reputation on firm responsiveness to environmental issues (Perrault and Clark 2015), or more generally, stakeholder impacts on choosing environmental response patterns (Murillo-Luna et al. 2008). Meanwhile, other scholars focused on examining the internal factors affecting firm responses to environmental management. These studies shed light on a number of issues, such as entrepreneurs’ disengagement with pro-environmental values (Shepherd et al. 2013), the effects a firm’s size has on its stakeholder responsiveness and the adoption of proactive environmental strategies (Darnall et al. 2010), the determinants of multinationals’ global environmental policies (Christmann 2004), stakeholder management and proactive environmental strategies (Buysse and Verbeke 2003), the ecological responsiveness model (Bansal and Roth 2000), the influence of supervisory support and environmental policies on employees’ eco-initiatives (Ramus and Steger 2000), and the role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability (Shrivastava 1995a, b). Finally, some studies examined environmental management and value creation from an institutional viewpoint by focusing on a number of topics, such as the role of national context in explaining how green innovation can enhance firm-level financial performance (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana 2013), the legal environment and its effect on a firm’s self-regulation (Short and Toffel 2010), the effects of public and private politics on corporate climate change strategies (Reid and Toffel 2009), and community and regulatory stakeholder pressures and the environmental performance of companies (Kassinis and Vafeas 2006).

Studies focusing on sustainability management followed similar kinds of patterns and research interests as environmentally oriented studies. For example, Sharma and Henriques (2005) argued that the resources of a firm’s social, ecological, and economic stakeholders influence the adoption of sustainability practices. Hahn et al. (2014) were interested in how the cognitive frames of managers affect managerial sensemaking in sustainability issues, and Zollo et al. (2013) stated that sustainability research should direct attention toward companies’ internal learning and change processes instead of concentrating on external stakeholders. Furthermore, Gallo and Christensen (2011) highlighted that firm size, ownership, and industry are related to behaviours firms adopt regarding sustainability, and a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development conducted by Bansal (2005) showed how both institutional and resource-based factors have influenced the adoption of firms’ sustainability activities.

Stakeholder theory and management practices were also criticised regarding sustainability. Gladwin et al. (1995) stated that attempting to adapt to sustainability while relying on the current anthropocentric worldview, which is the basis for most management theories, including stakeholder theory, is insufficient. Instead, a shift is needed to sustain centrism, which considers both environmental and social sustainability as important. According to Clifton and Amran (2011), the stakeholder approach fails in advancing sustainability both in terms of its normative principles and in management practices. Banerjee (2000) also expressed a critical viewpoint on sustainability-related issues and posited that current stakeholder theories and management practices follow Western economic rationality, which leads to neglecting marginalised stakeholders and their needs.

3.4 Stakeholder Orientation and the Multiple Value Perspective

This category consists of traditional stakeholder studies, which are built around the narrative of cooperative and trusting relationships between firms and their stakeholders (e.g., Donaldson and Preston 1995; Freeman 1984; Jones and Wicks 1999) with a broad view of value (e.g., Harrison et al. 2010; Harrison and Wicks 2013). However, our analysis revealed that the original design of stakeholder theory does not address broader sustainability issues, although some scholars argue that the theory could potentially be expanded due to its normative core, its consideration of those who affect and are affected by business, and its pluralistic nature. In effect, stakeholder theory’s applicability in sustainability management was advanced just recently (Hörisch et al. 2014). The sustainability-oriented approach is prominent in ecologically oriented studies, studies related to multi-stakeholder settings that address ‘wicked’ socioeconomic problems, and in more recent research streams, such as the development of sustainable business models.

Our analysis reveals that few articles explicitly discuss value considerations regarding sustainability. Although the researchers recognised the importance of stakeholder welfare and value creation beyond economic measures, the main focus was on those stakeholders who contribute to the value creation processes of organisations. This category consists of three narratives: (1) grounds for responsible business behaviour, (2) defining value, and (3) the principles and mechanisms of how value is created. In the following paragraphs, we will explain these three narratives in more detail.

3.4.1 The Narrative of Grounds for Responsible Business Behaviour

This narrative focuses on the intertwined connections between business and ethics and the role of business in society. While scholars argue for the grounds of responsible business from different perspectives, the primary focus is on determining why firms should engage in responsible business practices. For instance, Phillips (1997) relied on the principle of fairness, whereas Burton and Dunn (1996) built upon the principles of caring derived from feminist ethics. Various stakeholder theorists asserted that it is not meaningful to discuss business and ethics separately and that value creation and trade call for moral decision-making influenced by personal values (e.g., Freeman 2000; Harris and Freeman 2008; Purnell and Freeman 2012; Wicks 1996). Donaldson (1999) suggested that there are both ethical and economic reasons to address multiple stakeholder interests. Moreover, Harrison and Freeman (1999) argued that economic and social issues should be viewed jointly rather than separately, and Argandoña (1998) asserted that responsible business behaviour could rely on the objective of creating common good for all stakeholders.

Due to the environmental, social, and ethical challenges businesses face today, scholars also contend that it is necessary to expand management theory and business strategies to achieve more responsible business practices (Hahn et al. 2010; Strand and Freeman 2015). Gibson (2012) advocated promoting sustainability through stakeholder management and collaboration and perceived sustainability as the guiding principle in business. Indeed, scholars have noticed the growing interest in understanding sustainability and social responsibility within business contexts. Shrivastava (1995a, b) defined the main goals of ecocentric management as sustainability, quality of life, and stakeholder welfare. Additionally, Marcus et al. (2010) argued that, because of systemic limits and the existential dependency of business and society on nature, it is necessary to consider the natural environment in business-society relationships. However, only a few articles use sustainability objectives as justification for responsible behaviour. It is even argued that stakeholder theory connects to organisational ethics without intending to answer all moral questions, including those related to sustainability (Phillips et al. 2003). Nevertheless, stakeholder theory emphasises that business and ethics are inseparable, and many researchers have acknowledged the need for expanding the theory to include sustainability issues (e.g., Agle et al. 2008; Freeman 1994).

3.4.2 The Narrative of Defining Value

This narrative is devoted to defining what ‘value’ means within stakeholder value creation. Griesinger (1990) proposed a subjective viewpoint, arguing that individuals’ motivations for participating in cooperative exchange within organisational relationships are for reasons other than economic interests, such as interpersonal resources and the expectation of personal betterment. The subjective nature of value was also supported by Ramirez (1999), who stated that value cannot be defined by a single metric. Furthermore, Harrison and Wicks (2013) defined value as the utility that stakeholders seek from a company, concluding that stakeholders’ perceived utility consists of four factors, but these factors do not directly consider social or environmental concerns. Garriga (2014) viewed stakeholder utility and welfare through the lens of stakeholder capability and brought at least environmental concerns to direct attention through the capability of being green.

The special issue on stakeholder accounting in Journal of Management Studies published in 2015 further advanced stakeholder value considerations. In this issue, Hall et al. (2015) examined the use of social return on investment as an accounting methodology that allows managers to manage and communicate about the social value created for different stakeholders. Including different stakeholders in organisational decision-making was also considered important (ibid.). Mitchell et al. (2015) introduced a theory of value-creation stakeholder accounting, emphasising the role of stakeholder partnerships in value creation processes, as well as in sharing risks. Furthermore, Brown and Dillard (2015) presented dialogic accountings and related technologies as solutions to go beyond economically and managerially focused accounting practices to offer stakeholders all necessary information concerning organisational impacts related to environmental, political, cultural, economic, and financial value. Finally, it was posited that public accounting professionals should engage in the development of more responsible accounting practices that consider the variety of different stakeholders and provide them with information regarding their risk management needs (Harrison and Van der Laan Smith 2015).

3.4.3 The Narrative of Principles and Mechanisms of How Value Is Created

The most recent narrative of stakeholder value creation addresses the question of how value is created in cooperative relationships. Researchers have studied innovation in multi-stakeholder settings (Rühli et al. 2017), value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks (Schneider and Sachs 2015), collaboration among non-profit stakeholders (Butterfield et al. 2004), interdependencies of public and private interests (Mahoney et al. 2009), cross-sector partnerships (Dentoni et al. 2016; Koschmann et al. 2012), and value creation in public-private ventures (York et al. 2013). Moreover, scholars have studied the sensemaking of ethical complexity in a multi-stakeholder setting (Reinecke and Ansari 2015a); multi-stakeholder learning dialogues (Payne and Calton 2004); value creation at the intersection of markets and developments (Reinecke and Ansari 2015b); cooperation between nation-states, NGOs, and multinationals (Ansari et al. 2013); and multi-stakeholder partnerships in addressing climate change and sustainable development (Pinkse and Kolk 2012).

Recently, many scholars have focused on stakeholder value creation in multi-stakeholder settings that target wicked socioeconomic issues. For example, Rühli et al. (2017) found that the design of social interaction processes, such as participative stakeholder innovation in healthcare, is crucial for mutual value creation. Similarly, Schneider and Sachs (2015) proposed that the process of inductive identity salience supports cooperation and value creation within an issue-based stakeholder network. Additionally, Dentoni et al. (2016) argued that the dynamic capabilities of sensing, interacting with, learning from, and changing based on stakeholders are beneficial in cross-sector partnerships, as they may help to solve wicked sustainability issues.

Traditionally, researchers have linked successful stakeholder value creation to creating and maintaining mutually trusting and cooperative stakeholder relationships (e.g., Jones and Wicks 1999). Instead of concentrating on trade-offs, value creation involves stakeholders being able to jointly satisfy their needs (Freeman 2010). This line of thinking relies strongly on the principles of stakeholder capitalism, such as stakeholder cooperation, stakeholder engagement, and continuous creation (Freeman et al. 2007), as well as freedom and voluntary action (Freeman and Phillips 2002; Freeman et al. 2004). Harrison et al. (2010) emphasised that managing stakeholder utility functions and allocating more value to legitimate stakeholders than necessary are essential to enhance value creation opportunities. Moreover, Tantalo and Priem (2016) posited that, by concentrating on stakeholder synergy and stakeholders’ multi-attribute utility functions, novel and innovative value creation possibilities can be identified, and versatile value can be created for several stakeholders simultaneously. More recently, Mitchell et al. (2016) suggested the reconceptualisation of companies as multi-objective corporations in which managers can consider better social welfare when making decisions.

Various studies on stakeholder value creation emphasised the importance of justice and trust in stakeholder relationships (e.g., Bosse et al. 2009; Harrison et al. 2010; Myllykangas et al. 2011). Bosse et al. (2009) asserted that firms whose stakeholders perceive them as fair create more value based on reciprocal relationships and cooperation. Additionally, Myllykangas et al. (2011) found that trust, along with the potential of stakeholders to learn, the history of the relationships, the objectives of the stakeholders, and the amount of interaction and information sharing in the relationships, influence the dynamics of stakeholder relations and value creation. Researchers have also acknowledged the use of language in shaping stakeholder relationships and their dynamics (Lehtimaki and Kujala 2015; Prasad and Elmes 2005). Brickson (2005, 2007), in contrast, argued that one’s orientation toward social value creation and stakeholder relations varies according to one’s organisational identity orientation, resulting in an individualistic identity orientation with a motivational basis in organisational self-interest, a relational identity orientation with a motivational basis in another’s benefits or a collectivistic identity orientation with a motivational basis in the welfare of a greater collective. The role of firms’ internal change agents in enhancing social value creation (Sonenshein 2016) and the importance of incorporating responsibility and the creation of shared value to a firm’s everyday operations (Szmigin and Rutherford 2013) have also been emphasised.

Studies connecting value creation directly to sustainability drew attention, for example, to multilevel and multi-systemic organisational relationships (Starik and Rands 1995), the importance of firms addressing the complex nature of climate change through interconnections and collaboration (Slawinski and Bansal 2015), the necessity of stakeholder relations management to tackle economic, social, and environmental stakeholder claims (Steurer et al. 2005), and responsible leadership understood as a relational and moral phenomenon in which leaders create mutually beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, enabling the creation of social capital that contributes to both business and the common good (Maak 2007). Furthermore, Hörisch et al. (2014) argued that companies need to concentrate on developing sustainability as a common value for their stakeholders.

As cooperation around sustainability often meets certain challenges and conflicts while also being beneficial for all parties, paying attention to firm-stakeholder relationships and analysing why and how these relationships change is regarded as important (Friedman and Miles 2002). The studies related to sustainable strategic management and sustainable business models present concrete approaches to sustainability, advancing management theory at both the strategic and operational levels of sustainability. Dyllick and Muff (2015) approached the strategic level of sustainable business by defining a truly sustainable business as a business that ‘shifts its perspective from seeking to minimise its negative impacts to understanding how it can create a significant positive impact in critical and relevant areas for society and the planet’. Collaborative strategies, including social and environmental value considerations, are regarded as central for sustainable value creation at the strategic level (e.g., Tencati and Zsolnai 2009; Stead and Stead 2000). Furthermore, Stead and Stead (2013) defined sustainable strategic management activities to consider different needs in the global markets and emphasised the role of business ecosystems in creating social, environmental, and economic value within undeveloped, developing, and developed markets.

Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) wrote the seminal article on sustainable business model conceptualisation, arguing that organisations need to move beyond neoclassical economic assumptions and strive for sustainability and collaboration with key stakeholders by developing their internal structural and cultural capabilities. More recently, Upward and Jones (2015) defined an ontology for strongly sustainable business models that provides guidelines for the development of an entire enterprise aligned with the social and natural sciences. Business model transformations were called for, requiring changes in a firm’s value proposition considering all stakeholders, as well as a firm’s value creation and capture logics (Abdelkafi and Täuscher 2016; Schaltegger et al. 2016) Finally, it is argued that distinct, random solutions to sustainability are not enough; rather, a fundamental shift is necessary for defining the purpose of a business and its value creation logic, which would hence redefine the business model for sustainability (Gauthier and Gilomen 2016). Purpose-driven urban entrepreneurship aiming to enhance the quality of life of citizens locally (e.g., Cohen and Muñoz 2015) and hybrid organisations drawing attention from profits and growth to social and environmental systems (e.g., Haigh and Hoffman 2014) are examples of truly sustainable and collaborative business models.

On a meta-level, researchers have argued that responsible value creation with and for stakeholders requires changes in the mindsets of organisational and academic actors (e.g., Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005; Derry 2012). Researchers argue that, by questioning the dominating stakeholder models and changing the language and narratives we use to describe business and stakeholders, it is possible to expand the view of different stakeholders and their needs (Derry 2012; Jensen and Sandström 2013). For example, Hummels (1998) criticised the domination of manager-oriented perspectives, stating that the primary job of managers is to facilitate debates between stakeholders with different positions and interests to obtain satisfying and sustainable outcomes. Buchholz and Rosenthal (2005) proposed that to create nurturing and harmonious relationships with stakeholders, organisations should not see themselves as separate or isolated from their stakeholders. Similarly, Derry (2012) called for scholars to carefully consider research models and questions in the context of sustainability to challenge the traditional firm-centric and manager-oriented perspectives. Finally, Waddock (2011) suggested that the Earth should be the focal entity that all living beings and ecosystems are dependent on, and she perceived them as the stakeholders of the Earth. She concluded that to advance sustainability, the interdependencies between all stakeholders and the Earth should be given much more emphasis and thought in business (ibid.).

4 Discussion

The presented categorisation and the related narratives on stakeholder value creation show that organisational scholars have paid a lot of attention to stakeholder relationships and collaboration and acknowledged the importance of these factors in creating economic, social, and environmental value. They have also examined multi-stakeholder settings and systems, especially within the sustainability-related studies. However, this study shows that, while researchers have approached stakeholder value creation from many different perspectives, there is no coherent conception of how sustainability issues should be defined and addressed when studying value creation in business contexts. Hence, the narratives of stakeholder value creation studies differ in both depth and breadth, especially in relation to sustainability. Therefore, we suggest that the presented narratives can offer scholars from different organisation research streams a possibility to become aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their own and others’ approaches and theories and gain insights from different research streams regarding stakeholder value creation and sustainability.

This chapter indicates, first of all, that scholars can examine and conceive stakeholder value creation through either a strong focal firm orientation or a more stakeholder-orientated approach. The focal firm orientation emphasises the central role of a firm in managing stakeholder relationships to either benefit the firm and its economic commitments or create value for various stakeholders and contribute to social and environmental well-being. Stakeholder orientation, in turn, draws attention to the importance of stakeholder cooperation and relationship dynamics within value creation for either mainly economic reasons or broader value creation purposes. In either case, most of the studies on stakeholder value creation still follow the current economic paradigm and anthropocentric worldview, which do not question the dominating position of traditional economic performance assumptions behind business success and human-centric starting points.

As the presented narratives have illustrated, there is great variance in understanding and defining stakeholder value creation, as well as value itself, in the previous literature. Stakeholder value creation studies vary between narrow and broad conceptualisations of who creates value, what kind of value is created, and with and for whom it is created. For example, researchers regard value creation differently depending on whether the value benefits stakeholders who contribute to firm value creation processes or stakeholders who otherwise affect or are affected by a firm’s operations. Financial measures can help define stakeholder value, but the definition of stakeholder value often considers nonfinancial values or even extends further to social, environmental, or sustainable value considerations.

Moreover, our analysis shows that there is no common conceptualisation of sustainability issues or social responsibilities of business within stakeholder value creation studies. The stakeholder approach, in its original form, did not address the complex sustainability issues but instead aimed to illustrate possibilities for effective, responsible management of companies beyond shareholder value maximisation. Hence, sustainability is not a matter of interest in many stakeholder studies. However, it is important to note that most stakeholder value creation studies refer to or incorporate sustainability or social responsibility to some extent. The continuously increasing interest in sustainability and the role of business in responding to sustainability challenges puts organisational scholars in a position where they need to embrace sustainability. Thus, scholars need to decide whether they want to participate in discussion and theory development regarding sustainable business.

If the variance between narratives within stakeholder value creation studies is taken into the context of sustainability (i.e., sustainability is considered as if it mattered) the following questions become crucial: What does “stakeholder value creation” mean in the context of sustainability? What does sustainable “value” mean, and whom does it benefit? How should we perceive and understand sustainability and sustainable value creation? Moreover, researchers should closely consider and explicate which value creation narrative and assumptions they relate and contribute to. As many sustainability-focused value creation studies highlight, the current Western, economic, and firm-centric paradigm serves sustainability-oriented value creation poorly. This problem creates a need to question current stakeholder value creation approaches and identify influences from, for example, studies concentrating on systemic approaches and sustainable business models. Such studies have managed to challenge the current economic paradigm by incorporating sustainability into the core of the business models and value creation, expanding the views of different actors in sustainable value creation, highlighting the importance of collective effort and collaboration, and accepting the complexities and contradictories inherent in sustainability to enhance their management.

Sustainability management may also require researchers to question and redefine the role and purpose of the firm and its dominating position within value creation research. This proposition creates a call for transformational thinking in both business practice and research. As this study shows, researchers do not define sustainability univocally within business studies. To develop management theories for true sustainability, which considers the complex social, environmental, and economic challenges touching both current and future generations locally and globally, we must see the variances in current definitions and strive for more common and shared definitions of the firm and its role in society.

Our study also has some managerial implications. First, the presented categorisation and narratives related to stakeholder value creation reveal the breadth of management theories and approaches that guide and influence business decision-makers in their strategic and operational-level business conduct. Stakeholder value creation studies highlight the possible unproductive effects of the shareholder maximisation objective and the firm-centric approach, and these studies show how to view business strategically from stakeholder perspectives, too. Moreover, most of the stakeholder value creation studies encourage managers to examine the moral value considerations inherent in business decisions and take a stand on what kind of role their business plays within stakeholder networks, in either a narrow or broad sense. Additionally, some studies provide managers with ideas on how to conceive value creation through stakeholder networks instead of traditional value chain thinking. Many studies also offer examples of how to promote and manage stakeholder cooperation within these networks.

Regarding sustainable business practices, our study shows how the realities and objectives of traditional business firms differ from the realities and objectives of those who promote, for example, environmental sustainability. Many studies offer insights and tools for managers to, first of all, examine their own behaviour inside their firms and participate more efficiently in discussions and activities to promote sustainability. At the strategic level, firms and their managers can choose how they want to participate in enhancing sustainability and organise firm operations accordingly. For example, research on sustainable business models has described how companies can transform their business models at both the strategic and operational levels. Furthermore, studies on the dynamics in multi-stakeholder settings give guidance on how to manage and promote cooperation between different actors within blurring organisational boundaries. In sum, firm managers can decide to participate in the long-term development of their business models to correspond with the objectives of sustainable development based on either moral or business reasons, or they may reap all the benefits now and let regulations and other external factors influence the future state of their business.

This study has at least the following limitations. First, as the objective was to conduct a research review, we have scrutinised a broad range of journal articles and showed example studies from the various narratives. This process has both advantages and disadvantages. It brings together a great deal of research around the selected theme, but it does not necessarily further deepen and advance the discussions. However, we have attempted to find the most topical issues from the vast amount of literature and elucidate directions for future research avenues accordingly. Moreover, we admit that there certainly are alternatives to our inductively developed categorisation and the narratives we have identified. Yet, our objective was not to make the categorisation normative or recommend its use in the future but to present the studies and their perspectives within this research theme for readers. Whether we have succeeded in achieving this objective remains up to the reader’s justification. Finally, the task of analysing sustainability views in each study turned out to be quite challenging, which confirmed the arguments presented in earlier studies that the definition and understanding of business sustainability are not unequivocal, and therefore, more research needs to be done in this important field.

5 Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine distinctive narratives of stakeholder value creation and discuss how they consider sustainability. Based on an extensive research review spanning over three decades of material, we contribute to the stakeholder value creation literature and advancement of social responsibility and sustainability in business by showing how stakeholder theory as a management theory provides us with different approaches to value creation, depending on their orientation towards stakeholders (i.e., focal firm vs. stakeholder orientation), and value (i.e., the economic perspective vs. the multiple value perspective). While the study reveals an increased interest in sustainability issues and their more coherent incorporation into stakeholder research in recent years, the study also extends our knowledge of the existing variance within this research stream and the different narratives a chosen approach generates about stakeholders, value creation, and sustainability. The different approaches used in the research naturally lead to affecting the development of conventional management theory and business practices in different ways. Hence, with our research, we implicitly or explicitly participate in developing business language, which either increases or decreases business involvement in tackling social responsibility and sustainability issues.

As sustainability is the most important aspect affecting our society and planet today, it requires stronger involvement from businesses and organisations and positive solutions instead of trade-offs or minimising strategies. Therefore, we renew the calls to challenge existing stakeholder research to involve sustainability more consistently and reframe the purpose towards addressing sustainability objectives in value creation. We suggest that, with respect to sustainability, future research should consider the dynamic, systemic, and multilevel nature of stakeholder relationships and collaboration. Moreover, a more versatile understanding of value and value creation, as well as a broader understanding of stakeholders and their needs, should be incorporated into future research. To conclude, the conceptualisation of sustainability, the normative core of sustainable business, and elaboration on the purpose and role of business regarding sustainability serve as important and interesting focus areas for future research.



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Academy of Finland (Decision no. 298663).


  1. Abdelkafi N, Täuscher K (2016) Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. Organ Environ 29:74–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams RB, Licht AN, Sagiv L (2011) Shareholders and stakeholders: how do directors decide? Strat Manag J 32(12):1331–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agle BR, Mitchell RK, Sonnenfeld JA (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Acad Manag J 42(5):507–525Google Scholar
  4. Agle BR, Donaldson T, Freeman RE, Jensen MC, Mitchell RK, Wood DJ (2008) Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Quart 18(02):153–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aguilera-Caracuel J, Ortiz-de-Mandojana N (2013) Green innovation and financial performance an institutional approach. Organ Environ 26(4):365–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ansari S, Wijen F, Gray B (2013) Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Organ Sci 24(4):1014–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Argandoña A (1998) The stakeholder theory and the common good. J Bus Ethics 17(9–10):1093–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee SB (2000) Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses. The case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organ Environ 13(1):3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banerjee SB (2001) Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. J Manag Stud 38(4):489–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strat Manag J 26(3):197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manag J 43(4):717–736Google Scholar
  12. Barringer BR, Harrison JS (2000) Walking a tightrope: creating value through interorganizational relationships. J Manag 26:367–403Google Scholar
  13. Bendheim CL, Waddock SA, Graves SB (1998) Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis: an industry-level study. Bus Soc 37(3):306–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):488–506Google Scholar
  15. Bingham JB, Dyer WG Jr, Smith I, Adams GL (2011) A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. J Bus Ethics 99(4):565–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blyler M, Coff RW (2003) Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: ties that split pies. Strat Manag J 24:677–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bosse DA, Phillips RA, Harrison JS (2009) Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strat Manag J 30(4):447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brickson SL (2005) Organizational identity orientation: forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Adm Sci Q 50(4):576–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brickson SL (2007) Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Acad Manag Rev 32(3):864–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2014) Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strat Manag J 35(1):107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bridoux F, Coeurderoy R, Durand R (2011) Heterogeneous motives and the collective creation of value. Acad Manag Rev 36(4):711–730Google Scholar
  22. Briscoe F, Chin MK, Hambrick DC (2014) CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Acad Manag J 57(6):1786–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brower J, Mahajan V (2013) Driven to be good: a stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. J Bus Ethics 117(2):313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brown J, Dillard J (2015) Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: on opening up and closing down participatory governance. J Manag Stud 52(7):961–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Buchholz RA, Rosenthal SB (2005) Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. J Bus Ethics 58:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bundy J, Shropshire C, Buchholtz AK (2013) Strategic cognition and issue salience: toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Acad Manag Rev 38(3):352–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Burton BK, Dunn CP (1996) Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 6(02):133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Butterfield KD, Reed R, Lemak DJ (2004) An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Bus Soc 43(2):162–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Buysse K, Verbeke A (2003) Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strat Manag J 24:453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cheng B, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strat Manag J 35(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Choi J, Wang H (2009) Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strat Manag J 30(8):895–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Christmann P (2004) Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global environmental policy. Acad Manag J 47(5):747–760Google Scholar
  33. Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Clifton D, Amran A (2011) The stakeholder approach: a sustainability perspective. J Bus Ethics 98(1):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Coff RW (2010) The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development. Strat Manag J 31(7):711–733Google Scholar
  36. Cohen B, Muñoz P (2015) Toward a theory of purpose-driven urban entrepreneurship. Organ Environ 28(3):264–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Connelly BL, Crook TR, Combs JG, Ketchen DJ, Aguinis H (2015) Competence- and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: which matters more? J Manag 44(3):919–945Google Scholar
  38. Coombs JE, Gilley KM (2005) Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strat Manag J 26(9):827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Crane A, Ruebottom T (2011) Stakeholder theory and social identity: rethinking stakeholder identification. J Bus Ethics 102(1):77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Crane A, Graham C, Himick D (2015) Financializing stakeholder claims. J Manag Stud 52(7):878–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Crilly D (2013) Recasting enterprise strategy: towards stakeholder research that matters to general managers. J Manag Stud 50(8):1427–1447Google Scholar
  42. Crilly D, Sloan P (2012) Enterprise logic: explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’. Strat Manag J 33(10):1174–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Crilly D, Sloan P (2013) Autonomy or control? Organizational architecture and corporate attention to stakeholders. Organ Sci 25(2):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Crilly D, Zollo M, Hansen MT (2012) Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Acad Manag J 55(6):1429–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Crilly D, Ni N, Jiang Y (2016) Do-no-harm versus do-good social responsibility: attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strat Manag J 37:1316–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Darnall N, Henriques I, Sadorsky P (2010) Adopting proactive environmental strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. J Manag Stud 47(6):1072–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. de Luque MS, Washburn NT, Waldman DA, House RJ (2008) Unrequited profit: how stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Adm Sci Q 53(4):626–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Dentoni D, Bitzer V, Pascucci S (2016) Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. J Bus Ethics 135(1):35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Derry R (2012) Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. J Bus Ethics 111:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Dhanaraj C, Parkhe A (2006) Orchestrating innovation networks. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Dierksmeier C, Pirson M (2009) Oikonomia versus chrematistike: learning from Aristotle about the future orientation of business management. J Bus Ethics 88(3):417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Donaldson T (1999) Making stakeholder theory whole. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):237–241Google Scholar
  53. Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Dooley RS, Lerner LD (1994) Pollution, profits, and stakeholders: the constraining effect of economic performance on CEO concern with stakeholder expectations. J Bus Ethics 13(9):701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Driscoll C, Starik M (2004) The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. J Bus Ethics 49(1):55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dyllick T, Muff K (2015) Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ Environ 29(2):156–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Eesley C, Lenox MJ (2006) Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strat Manag J 27(8):765–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Egri CP, Herman S (2000) Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Acad Manag J 43(4):571–604Google Scholar
  59. Fauchart E, Gruber M (2011) Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Acad Manag J 54(5):935–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Fineman S, Clarke K (1996) Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response. J Manag Stud 33(6):715–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Marshfield, MAGoogle Scholar
  62. Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Bus Ethics Q 4(04):409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Freeman RE (1999) Divergent stakeholder theory. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):233–236Google Scholar
  64. Freeman RE (2000) Business ethics at the millennium. Bus Ethics Q 10(01):169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Freeman RE (2010) Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation. J Bus Ethics 96:7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Freeman RE, Phillips RA (2002) Stakeholder theory: a libertarian defense. Bus Ethics Q 12(03):331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B (2004) Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate objective revisited’. Organ Sci 15(3):364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Freeman RE, Martin K, Parmar B (2007) Stakeholder capitalism. J Bus Ethics 74(4):303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Freeman E, Harrison JE, Wicks A, Parmar B, Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of art. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  70. Friedman AL, Miles S (2002) Developing stakeholder theory. J Manag Stud 39(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Gallo PJ, Christensen LJ (2011) Firm size matters: an empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Bus Soc 50(2):315–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Garcia-Castro R, Aguilera RV (2015) Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. Strat Manag J 36(1):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Garcia-Castro R, Francoeur C (2016) When more is not better: complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strat Manag J 37(2):406–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Garcia-Castro R, Ariño MA, Canela MA (2011) Over the long-run? Short-run impact and long-run consequences of stakeholder management. Bus Soc 50(3):428–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Garriga E (2014) Beyond stakeholder utility function: stakeholder capability in the value creation process. J Bus Ethics 120(4):489–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gauthier C, Gilomen B (2016) Business models for sustainability energy efficiency in urban districts. Organ Environ 29:124–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Gibson K (2012) Stakeholders and sustainability: an evolving theory. J Bus Ethics 109(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):874–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Griesinger DW (1990) The human side of economic organization. Acad Manag Rev 15(3):478–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hahn T, Kolk A, Winn M (2010) A new future for business? Rethinking management theory and business strategy. Bus Soc 49(3):385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Acad Manag Rev 39(4):463–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Haigh N, Hoffman AJ (2014) The new heretics hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to corporate sustainability. Organ Environ 27(3):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Haksever C, Chaganti R, Cook RG (2004) A model of value creation: strategic view. J Bus Ethics 49(3):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hall M, Millo Y, Barman E (2015) Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value. J Manag Stud 52(7):907–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Harris JD, Freeman RE (2008) The impossibility of the separation thesis: a response to Joakim Sandberg. Bus Ethics Q 18(04):541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Harrison JS, Fiet JO (1999) New CEOs pursue their own self-interests by sacrificing stakeholder value. J Bus Ethics 19(3):301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Harrison JS, Freeman RE (1999) Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Acad Manag J 42(5):479–485Google Scholar
  88. Harrison JS, Van der Laan Smith J (2015) Responsible accounting for stakeholders. J Manag Stud 52(7):935–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Harrison JS, Wicks AC (2013) Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus Ethics Q 23(1):97–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Harrison JS, Bosse DA, Phillips RA (2010) Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility function, and competitive advantage. Strat Manag J 31(1):58–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Harting TR, Harmeling SS, Venkataraman S (2006) Innovative stakeholder relations: when ‘ethics pays’ (and when it doesn’t). Bus Ethics Q 16(01):43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Heikkinen A, Kujala J, Mäkelä H, Nieminen J, Jokinen A, Rekola H (2018) Urban ecosystem services and stakeholders: towards a sustainable capability approach. In: Bonnedahl KJ, Heikkurinen P (eds) Strongly sustainable societies. Organising human activities on a hot and full Earth. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 116–133Google Scholar
  93. Heikkurinen P (ed) (2017) Sustainability and peaceful coexistence for the Anthropocene. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  94. Henisz WJ, Dorobantu S, Nartey LJ (2014) Spinning gold: the financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strat Manag J 35(12):1727–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1999) The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad Manag J 42(1):87–99Google Scholar
  96. Hillman AJ, Keim GD (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strat Manag J 22(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Hörisch J, Freeman RE, Schaltegger S (2014) Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organ Environ 27(4):328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Hosseini JC, Brenner SN (1992) The stakeholder theory of the firm: a methodology to generate value matrix weights. Bus Ethics Q 2(02):99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Hummels H (1998) Organizing ethics: a stakeholder debate. J Bus Ethics 17(13):1403–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Husted BW, de Jesus Salazar J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance. J Manag Stud 43(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Vaidyanath D (2002) Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. J Manag 28(3):413–446Google Scholar
  102. Jamali D (2008) A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice. J Bus Ethics 82(1):213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Jawahar M, McLaughlin G (2001) Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Jensen MC (2002) Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus Ethics Q 12(2):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Jensen T, Sandström J (2013) In defence of stakeholder pragmatism. J Bus Ethics 114(2):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Jones TM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):404–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Jones TM, Felps W (2013a) Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: a utilitarian critique. Bus Ethics Q 23:207–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Jones TM, Felps W (2013b) Stakeholder happiness enhancement: a neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation. Bus Ethics Q 23(03):349–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Jones TM, Wicks AC (1999) Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Jones TM, Felps W, Bigley GA (2007) Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Kassinis G, Vafeas N (2006) Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Acad Manag J 49(1):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Kaufman A (2002) Managers’ double fiduciary duty: to stakeholders and to freedom. Bus Ethics Q 12(02):189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Kivleniece I, Quelin BV (2012) Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: a private actor’s perspective. Acad Manag Rev 37(2):272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Kochan TA, Rubinstein SA (2000) Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: the Saturn partnership. Organ Sci 11(4):367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Korschun D (2015) Boundary-spanning employees and relationships with external stakeholders: a social identity approach. Acad Manag Rev 40(4):611–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Koschmann MA, Kuhn TR, Pfarrer MD (2012) A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):332–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  118. Kroeger A, Weber C (2014) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad Manag Rev 39(4):513–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Laplume AO, Sonpar K, Litz RA (2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J Manag 34(6):1152–1189Google Scholar
  120. Lehtimaki H, Kujala J (2015) Framing dynamically changing firm–stakeholder relationships in an international dispute over a foreign investment. A discursive analysis approach. Bus Soc 56(3):487–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Lepak DP, Smith KG, Taylor MS (2007) Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Lin H (2014) Government–business partnership formation for environmental improvements. Organ Environ 27(4):383–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Maak T (2007) Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. J Bus Ethics 74(4):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Madsen PM, Rodgers ZJ (2015) Looking good by doing good: the antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief. Strat Manag J 36(5):776–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2009) Perspective—the interdependence of private and public interests. Organ Sci 20(6):1034–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Marcus J, Kurucz EC, Colbert BA (2010) Conceptions of the business–society–nature interface: implications for management scholarship. Bus Soc 49(3):402–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm Sci Q 48:268–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. McDermott GA, Corredoira RA, Kruse G (2009) Public-private institutions as catalysts of upgrading in emerging market societies. Acad Manag J 52(6):1270–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. McMullen JS, Warnick BJ (2015) Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid organization? J Manag Stud 53(4):630–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Miller TL, Grimes MG, McMullen JS, Vogus TJ (2012) Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Acad Manag Rev 37(4):616–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Minoja M (2012) Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. J Bus Ethics 109(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Chrisman JJ, Spence LJ (2011) Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Bus Ethics Q 21(02):235–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Mitchell RK, Van Buren HJ, Greenwood M, Freeman RE (2015) Stakeholder inclusion and accounting for stakeholders. J Manag Stud 52(7):851–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Mitchell RK, Weaver GR, Agle BR, Bailey AD, Carlson J (2016) Stakeholder agency and social welfare: pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Acad Manag Rev 41(2):252–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Montiel I, Delgado-Ceballos J (2014) Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: are we there yet? Organ Environ 27:113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Murillo-Luna JL, Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P (2008) Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strat Manag J 29(11):1225–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Myllykangas P, Kujala J, Lehtimäki H (2011) Analyzing the essence of stakeholder relationships: what do we need in addition to power, legitimacy, and urgency? J Bus Ethics 96:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. O’Riordan L, Fairbrass J (2014) Managing CSR stakeholder engagement: a new conceptual framework. J Bus Ethics 125(1):121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Ogden S, Watson R (1999) Corporate performance and stakeholder management: balancing shareholder and customer interests in the UK privatized water industry. Acad Manag J 42(5):526–538Google Scholar
  141. Oliver C, Holzinger I (2008) The effectiveness of strategic political management: a dynamic capabilities framework. Acad Manag Rev 33(2):496–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Pache AC, Santos F (2010) When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad Manag Rev 35(3):455–476Google Scholar
  143. Payne SL, Calton JM (2004) Exploring research potentials and applications for multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. J Bus Ethics 55(1):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Perrault EA (2017) ‘Names-and-faces approach’ to stakeholder identification and salience: a matter of status. J Bus Ethics 146(1):25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Perrault E, Clark C (2015) Environmental shareholder activism considering status and reputation in firm responsiveness. Organ Environ 29(2):194–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Phillips RA (1997) Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Bus Ethics Q 7(01):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder legitimacy. Bus Ethics Q 13(01):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Phillips RA, Reichart J (2000) The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. J Bus Ethics 23(2):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Phillips R, Freeman RE, Wicks AC (2003) What stakeholder theory is not. Bus Ethics Q 13(04):479–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Pinkse J, Kolk A (2012) Addressing the climate change sustainable development nexus: the role of multistakeholder partnerships. Bus Soc 51(1):176–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Pirson M, Malhotra D (2011) Foundations of organizational trust: what matters to different stakeholders? Organ Sci 22(4):1087–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Poulain-Rehm T, Lepers X (2013) Does employee ownership benefit value creation? The case of France (2001–2005). J Bus Ethics 112(2):325–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Prasad P, Elmes M (2005) In the name of the practical: unearthing the hegemony of pragmatics in the discourse of environmental management. J Manag Stud 42(4):845–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Preston LE, Donaldson T (1999) Dialogue. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):619–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Priem RL (2007) A consumer perspective on value creation. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Priem RL, Butler JE, Li S (2013) Toward reimagining strategy research: retrospection and prospection on the 2011 AMR decade award article. Acad Manag Rev 38(4):471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Purnell LS, Freeman RE (2012) Stakeholder theory, fact/value dichotomy, and the normative core: how Wall Street stops the ethics conversation. J Bus Ethics 109(1):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Ramirez R (1999) Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strat Manag J 20(1):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Ramus CA, Steger U (2000) The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge European companies. Acad Manag J 43(4):605–626Google Scholar
  160. Reid EM, Toffel MW (2009) Responding to public and private politics: corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strat Manag J 30(11):1157–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Reinecke J, Ansari S (2015a) What is a ‘fair’ price? Ethics as sensemaking. Organ Sci 26(3):867–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Reinecke J, Ansari S (2015b) When times collide: temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Acad Manag J 58(2):618–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Rindova VP, Fombrun CJ (1999) Constructing competitive advantage: the role of firm-constituent interactions. Strat Manag J 20(8):691–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):887–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Rowley T, Berman S (2000) A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Bus Soc 39(4):397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown RM, Janney JJ, Paul K (2001) An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective. J Bus Ethics 32(2):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Rühli E, Sachs S, Schmitt R, Schneider T (2017) Innovation in multistakeholder settings: the case of a wicked issue in health care. J Bus Ethics 143(2):289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Sachs S, Maurer M (2009) Toward dynamic corporate stakeholder responsibility. J Bus Ethics 85(3):535–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Sarasini S, Jacob M (2014) Past, present, or future? Managers’ temporal orientations and corporate climate action in the Swedish electricity sector. Organ Environ 27(3):242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Schaltegger S, Hansen EG, Lüdeke-Freund F (2016) Business models for sustainability origins, present research, and future avenues. Organ Environ 29(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Schneider M (2002) A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organ Sci 13(2):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Schneider T, Sachs S (2015) The impact of stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks. J Bus Ethics 144(1):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Shankman NA (1999) Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. J Bus Ethics 19(4):319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strat Manag J 26(2):159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Shepherd DA, Patzelt H, Baron RA (2013) ‘I care about nature, but…’: disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Acad Manag J 56(5):1251–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Short J (2009) The art of writing a review article. J Manag 35(6):1312–1317Google Scholar
  177. Short JL, Toffel MW (2010) Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: the critical role of the legal environment. Adm Sci Q 55(3):361–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Shrivastava P (1995a) Ecocentric management for a risk society. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):118–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Shrivastava P (1995b) The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):936–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Slawinski N, Bansal P (2015) Short on time: intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organ Sci 26(2):531–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Smith NC, Rönnegard D (2016) Shareholder primacy, corporate social responsibility, and the role of business schools. J Bus Ethics 134(3):463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Smith WK, Gonin M, Besharov ML (2013) Managing social-business tensions: a review and research agenda for social enterprise. Bus Ethics Q 23(03):407–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Sonenshein S (2016) How corporations overcome issue illegitimacy and issue equivocality to address social welfare: the role of the social change agent. Acad Manag Rev 41(2):349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Starik M (1995) Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. J Bus Ethics 14(3):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Starik M, Kanashiro P (2013) Toward a theory of sustainability management: uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organ Environ 26(1):7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Starik M, Rands GP (1995) Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):908–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Stead JG, Stead E (2000) Eco-enterprise strategy: standing for sustainability. J Bus Ethics 24(4):313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Stead JG, Stead WE (2013) The coevolution of sustainable strategic management in the global marketplace. Organ Environ 26(2):162–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Steurer R, Langer ME, Konrad A, Martinuzzi A (2005) Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. J Bus Ethics 61(3):263–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Strand R, Freeman RE (2015) Scandinavian cooperative advantage: the theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. J Bus Ethics 127(1):65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Strand R, Freeman RE, Hockerts K (2015) Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: an overview. J Bus Ethics 127(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Stubbs W, Cocklin C (2008) Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model’. Organ Environ 21(2):103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Su W, Tsang EW (2015) Product diversification and financial performance: the moderating role of secondary stakeholders. Acad Manag J 58(4):1128–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Sundaram AK, Inkpen AC (2004a) The corporate objective revisited. Organ Sci 15(3):350–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Sundaram AK, Inkpen AC (2004b) Stakeholder theory and ‘The corporate objective revisited’: a reply. Organ Sci 15(3):370–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Szmigin I, Rutherford R (2013) Shared value and impartial spectator test. J Bus Ethics 114:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Tantalo C, Priem RL (2016) Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strat Manag J 37(2):314–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Tashman P, Raelin J (2013) Who and what really matters to the firm: moving stakeholder salience beyond managerial perceptions. Bus Ethics Q 23(04):591–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Tencati A, Zsolnai L (2009) The collaborative enterprise. J Bus Ethics 85(3):367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  201. Upward A, Jones P (2015) An ontology for strongly sustainable business models defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science. Organ Environ 29(1):97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Verbeke A, Tung V (2013) The future of stakeholder management theory: a temporal perspective. J Bus Ethics 112(3):529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Waddock S (2011) We are all stakeholders of Gaia: a normative perspective on stakeholder thinking. Organ Environ 24(2):192–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Waldron TL, Navis C, Fisher G (2013) Explaining differences in firms’ responses to activism. Acad Manag Rev 38(3):397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Walls JL, Paquin RL (2015) Organizational perspectives of industrial symbiosis: a review and synthesis. Organ Environ 28:32–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Wang J, Dewhirst HD (1992) Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. J Bus Ethics 11(2):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Wang H, Choi J, Li J (2008) Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organ Sci 19(1):143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Welcomer SA, Cochran PL, Rands G, Haggerty M (2003) Constructing a Web effects of power and social responsiveness on firm-stakeholder relationships. Bus Soc 42(1):43–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Wheeler D, Fabig H, Boele R (2002) Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. J Bus Ethics 39(3):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Wicks AC (1996) Overcoming the separation thesis. The need for a reconsideration of business and society research. Bus Soc 35(1):89–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Wicks AC, Berman SL, Jones TM (1999) The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. Acad Manag Rev 24(1):99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Winn MI (2001) Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Bus Soc 40(2):133–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Wong EM, Ormiston ME, Tetlock PE (2011) The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralised decision making on corporate social performance. Acad Manag J 54(6):1207–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. York JG, Sarasvathy SD, Wicks AC (2013) An entrepreneurial perspective on value creation in public-private ventures. Acad Manag Rev 38(2):307–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Zahra SA, Wright M (2015) Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. J Manag Stud 53(4):610–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Zollo M, Cennamo C, Neumann K (2013) Beyond what and why understanding organisational evolution towards sustainable enterprise models. Organ Environ 26(3):241–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations