Search results

Sustainability has long been known to present an epistemic challenge. In the corporate setting, this challenge translates into the difficulties experienced by managers not only in devising solutions to corporate sustainability problems, but even in developing the awareness of the latter. The paper explores how these difficulties may be overcome by corporate stakeholder management policies.

The paper develops a conceptual framework that reconstructs the Hayekian theory of market process in the context of Williamson's (1996) distinction between autonomous and cooperative adaptation.

Applying the Hayekian theory of market process to the process of engagement and collaboration of corporate stakeholders, the paper shows how the latter process may address the epistemic challenge of corporate sustainability and derives implications for the design of business models for sustainability.

The paper informs stakeholder theory in two ways: first, stakeholder theory is given a novel justification in terms of reflecting the growing prominence of cooperative adaptation and second, corporate stakeholder management is shown to be crucial for maximizing not only economic but also sustainability performance.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature of the studies that have examined several theoretical perspectives on corporate social performance (CSP) and identify possible future research questions based on various theoretical viewpoints.

The study used systematic literature review analysis on a sample of 667 studies published in top A* and A category journals listed in the Australian Business Dean Council list. The present study derived articles between 1975 and 2023 from the SCOPUS database by using relevant keywords to identify research activities in CSP.

The findings suggest that many studies on CSP have been undertaken globally. But there is a lack of studies on various theoretical perspectives, including peer uncertainty evaluation, buyer–supplier sustainability links, the role of primary stakeholders (especially consumers, employees, suppliers and secondary stakeholders), the use of technology, firm-related heterogeneities, and the role of demographic and socio-economic factors. Future research areas are recommended.

The study investigates existing research gaps to identify possible future research questions and frameworks that can be explored to advance the research on CSP.

The research also provides implications for firms in terms of understanding diverse theoretical perspectives to develop strategies to improve a firm’s social performance.

The findings are derived from a systematic review of the literature in top-category studies that examined existing theories and frameworks in the CSP domain. This highlights the importance of other understudied complementary theories, such as complexity theory, spillover theory, critical mass theory, slack theory and so on, and related variables that can improve a firm’s social performance. Evaluation of existing theoretical perspectives is not included in other review studies.

This paper aims to show how organisation theory can be used to understand the controversy between the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives. Rationalistic and open system theories may enhance research on corporate governance by offering well-defined concepts and by specifying core relationships.

This paper applies descriptions of the two perspectives in organisation theory as a “method” for illustrating how they are linked to and support the shareholder versus the stakeholder perspectives.

The controversy stems from the fact that the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives address different relationships. The shareholder perspective captures two relationships that accord with rationalistic organisation theory: shareholders are managing the managers and the organisation, and managers are managing the corporation on behalf of the owners. The stakeholder perspective focuses on three relationships that are not concordant with system theory: managers are managing the shareholders (i.e. the symbolic management of stockholders), managers are managing the corporation (i.e. general management theory) and managers are managing the stakeholders.

Organisation theory provides suggestions for more fruitful definitions of the often-used concepts of direction, control, administration and influence. These terms may be substituted with the well-defined concepts of management, power and control.

Proponents of organisation theory find it theoretically difficult to deal with the topic of corporate governance, if they do at all. When they do, they do it only perfunctorily.

Organisation theory may strengthen research on corporate governance if we insist on both theoretical clarifications of major relationships and on the use of more strictly defined concepts.

Global investors demand, regulators require, and companies disclose their sustainability performance information, and scholars have started to conduct research on sustainability performance, reporting and assurance. The goal of firm value creation can be achieved when management considers the interests of all stakeholders and integrates all five economic, governance, social, ethical, and environmental (EGSEE) dimensions of sustainability performance into managerial strategies, actions and reporting. This paper provides a synthesis of research on sustainability and presents a theoretical framework consisting of theories and standards relevant to all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance and risks and their integration into corporate culture, business models and reporting in creating stakeholder value.

In this article a critique of stakeholder theory is presented. The analysis highlights several concerns regarding the scientific rigor of this body of knowledge revealing the assumptions and inconsistencies that underpin its main propositions. The discussion shows in particular some of the internal contradictions between, on the one hand, the ideology of social good, and on the other hand, the ideology of control which we argue is not fully accounted for in the way stakeholder theory was popularized in recent years. Our critique opens up more possibilities for engaging with stakeholder theory acknowledging the underlying values that are at stake, thus, revealing the political and value‐laden nature of the concept of stake‐holder. What we seek to draw particular attention to is the way stake‐holder analysis reveals the challenges when not only subjectivities but identities are at stake. This latter point we hope will encourage greater reflexivity among theorists and researchers in this field, recognizing that their personal biases and partialities influence their scholarship, and the way they shape the ideologies stakeholder theory is presented by.

This paper aims to construct a comprehensive theoretical framework for interpreting voluntary IC disclosure practices by organizations.

Four most‐commonly used theories in the area, namely agency theory, stakeholder theory, signalling theory, and legitimacy theory, were integrated in terms of the interrelated concepts relating to voluntary IC disclosure.

The constructed theoretical framework includes three concepts: to reduce information asymmetry; to discharge accountability to various stakeholders; and to signal organizational legitimacy and excellence (or superior quality) to society, which are seen as motivations for organizations to disclose their IC on a voluntary basis.

The framework ignores some other theoretical perspectives which are also relevant to voluntary IC disclosure; the framework is not justified by any empirical evidence.

This research is the first attempt to construct a comprehensive theoretical framework for the voluntary disclosure of IC; the constructed framework can be employed as a theoretical foundation for future empirical studies in relation to voluntary IC disclosure.

This study aims at presenting a normative approach in adaptation of the ethics of care approach and stakeholder theory. Therefore, it seeks to present a point‐of‐view regarding the related issues.

The study focuses on a theory‐based integration process, since it is designed on a normative basis and the current studies dealing with “ethic of care theory” still have some problems in practical terms.

It is observed that ethics of care and stakeholder theory are getting more and more interrelated due to established networks and available common points. As a subfield of feminist ethic, ethics of care can be used to clarify moral principles lying behind these relationships. From another point of view, the discussion regarding the feminization of business enterprises focuses on the idea that such discussions involving the principles lying behind feminist ethics can provide an advantage for the companies in terms of competition. In addition, ethics of care is expected to contribute to stakeholder theory to a great extent.

The related literature includes a rather limited number of studies conducted on this research topic. The available research explains some relationships on a normative basis. Therefore, the current study is expected to contribute to the expansion of such research in the field.

Despite the presence of studies in the field, there is still a limitation in putting the findings of studies into practice. Since the country where the current study is conducted still suffers from ambiguities regarding the definitions of concepts and it is very difficult to find business enterprises appreciating feminist values, although they are taught to adopt philanthropy applications, the study is limited to a normative point‐of‐view regarding the issues.

The scope of the study is expected to contribute to a great extent to the integration of feminist ethic and stakeholder theory. Similarly, it will encourage further studies on the issue.

Argues that stakeholder theory may be an appropriate model to describe firm behavior and replace the dominant paradigm, the economic model of the firm. However, current conceptualizations of stakeholder theory do not meet the requirements of scientific theory. Thus, looks at the historic roots of stakeholder “theory”, critiques its current form, and suggests steps that may be taken for stakeholder theory to satisfy the conceptual requirements of theory. Specifically suggests that contractual interests may underlie stakeholder relationships just as they do the agency relationship between managers and stockholders as prescribed by traditional economic theory.

The stakeholder theory encompasses instrumental and normative varieties whose mutual relationship remains unclear and exhibits a classic tension between rational self-interest and moral motivation. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy for navigating this tension.

Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is concerned with the limited ability of social systems to codify, and be receptive to, the complexity of the environment. Drawing on this theory, the paper juxtaposes the codification problems of two types of social systems: the for-profit firm and the economic function system.

This juxtaposition allows to identify four firm behavior patterns, two of which can be aligned with instrumental and normative stakeholder theories. If the codification capacity of the economic function system is assumed to be sufficient, the codification problems of the for-profit firm are shown to specify the range of applicability of the instrumental stakeholder theory. Dropping the above assumption is shown to specify the range of applicability of the normative stakeholder theory.

The argument offers a fresh way of understanding the institutional economics foundations of the stakeholder theory. Given that the systems-theoretic idea of codification reflects the functioning of the real-world institutions, the argument shows that both instrumental and normative stakeholder theories reflect the institutional texture of the modern society in distinct but equally legitimate ways.

In disaster risk reduction (DRR), it is important to realise stakeholders’ approaches against disasters in the built environment. The purpose of this paper is to explore why stakeholders take proactive and/or reactive approaches in DRR.

Using a review of existent literature, this work scrutinises disaster theories and their applications in the built environment to develop a theoretical framework for perceiving stakeholders’ proactive and/or reactive approaches in DRR.

Stakeholders’ organisational attributes – power, legitimacy and urgency – and decision-making paradigms – value maximisation and intuitive reasoning – are fundamental factors affecting stakeholders’ approaches against disasters. Power and legitimacy of stakeholders result in a proactive approach if stakeholders consider value maximisation paradigm in their decision-making process. Powerful and legitimate stakeholders may take reactive approaches because of intuitive reasoning paradigm. Stakeholders may shift from a reactive to proactive approach and vice versa based on the combination of urgency attribute and decision-making paradigms.

It is essential to consider the classification of respective stakeholders in applying the idea of this paper. Furthermore, this paper does not attempt to validate the proposed theoretical framework empirically, but it combines stakeholder and decision-making theories by which this could be undertaken.

Little attention has been paid to systematic theorising in managing stakeholders’ approaches against disasters. Furthermore, many researchers have focused on similar underlying theories and heuristics in the context of DRR. Thus, this paper introduces a theoretical framework to examine stakeholders’ proactive and/or reactive approaches in the built environment, by synthesising stakeholder and decision-making theories.