Search results

This study aims to help develop “business principles for stakeholder capitalism” in two steps. First, the study defines internal logic of three theories of capitalism and two variants within each theory. Second, it examines approaches to integration into modern democratic capitalism. Treating the three theories as substitutes identifies relative strengths and weaknesses; complementarity and partial overlap approaches to integration study the institutional settings within which stakeholder capitalism operates. Empirical outcomes reflect competition between market and stakeholder businesses for participants, with institutional conditions determining the scope of collective action.

The approach aligns three typologies in a unique conceptual arrangement defining the three theories of capitalism: forms of capitalism, potential failures of each form and associated types of goods. The first method examines the internal logic of each theory of capitalism. The second draws on traditional narrative review of references documenting each theory of capitalism and variants together with modern Marxist anti-capitalism.

Three typologies align uniquely with the theories of capitalism, each having two variants. Both variants of stakeholder capitalism are compatible with compassionate capitalism, constitutional government or polycentric governance but not with self-interest capitalism, dictatorship or Marxism. A theory of modern democratic capitalism allocates roles for private, club and social goods with empirically variable mixes occurring across countries. Competition among different types of enterprises provides an empirical test for comparative advantages of stakeholder capitalism. Future research should consider approaches for testing the proposed conceptual scheme in practice concerning capacity to deal with grand challenges, wicked problems and black swan events.

Research approach is limited to logical examination of theories and literature documentation without direct empirical confirmation. The study does not address practical implications for managers and public officials or social implications concerning private incentives, stakeholder cooperation or collective action.

Originality lies in shifting terms of debate about stakeholder capitalism from advocacy of substitute theories to understanding of its relationship to market capitalism and collective action capitalism. Value lies in explaining desirability of theoretical integration of three types of capitalism into a comprehensive framework for modern democratic capitalism.

The aim of this study is to examine the relationships between taking charge, bootlegging innovation and innovative job performance, and to explore the moderating roles of felt responsibility for constructive change (FRCC) and creative self-efficacy (CSE).

Data for this research was collected from 503 employees working in a chain company. Through a longitudinal study design, a three-wave survey with 397 valid data provided support for the proposed theoretical model.

The results maintain a positive association between taking charge, bootlegging innovation and innovative job performance, indicating the mediating effect of bootlegging innovation. Additionally, both the FRCC and CSE facilitate the indirect effect of taking charge on innovative job performance through bootlegging innovation. Furthermore, the integrated moderated mediation model analysis suggested that FRCC is more vital in improving employees' innovative job performance.

This research aims to break the black box between taking charge and innovative job performance, which has been relatively unexplored. Drawing from self-determination theory (SDT) and the proactive motivation model, the authors verify the bridge-building role of bootlegging innovation and the dual-facilitating effects of FRCC and CSE while employees conduct taking charge. This study’s results provide new insight for managers to foster, encourage and support employees' proactive behavior.