Search results

Stakeholder theory understands business in terms of relationships among stakeholders whose interests are mainly joint but may be occasionally conflicting. In the latter case, managers may need to make trade-offs between these interests. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of managerial decision-making about these trade-offs.

This paper draws on the ordonomic approach which sees business life to be rife with social dilemmas and locates the role of stakeholders in harnessing or resolving these dilemmas through engagement in rule-finding and rule-setting processes.

The ordonomic approach suggests that stakeholder interests trade-offs ought to be neither ignored nor avoided, but rather embraced and welcomed as an opportunity for bringing to fruition the joint interest of stakeholders in playing a better game of business. Stakeholders are shown to bear responsibility for overcoming the perceived trade-offs through the institutional management of social dilemmas.

For many stakeholder theorists, the nature of managerial decision-making about trade-offs between conflicting stakeholder interests and the nature of trade-offs themselves have been a long-standing point of contention. The paper shows that trade-offs may be useful for the value creation process and explicitly discusses managerial strategies for dealing with them.

Previous literature on sustainable supply chain management has largely adopted an instrumental view of stakeholder management and has focused on understanding the effect of powerful stakeholders who have a more decisive influence on an organization's supply chain decisions. Social enterprises have emerged as organizations that often aim to create impact by integrating marginalized stakeholders into their operations and supply chains. This study examines the trade-offs that social enterprises experience due to their moral stance toward stakeholder engagement, evidenced in their commitment to serving marginalized stakeholders, as well as the responses adopted to these trade-offs.

The study follows a theory elaboration approach through a multiple case study design. The authors draw on insights from stakeholder theory and use the empirical insights to expand current constructs and relationships in a novel empirical context. Based on an in-depth analysis of primary and secondary qualitative data on ten social enterprises, the authors examine how these organizations integrate marginalized stakeholders into various roles in their operations.

When integrating marginalized customers, suppliers and employees, social enterprises face affordability, reliability and efficiency trade-offs. Each trade-off represents conflicts between the organization's needs and the needs of marginalized stakeholders. In response to these trade-offs, social enterprises choose to internalize the costs through slack creation or vertical integration or externalize the costs to stakeholders. The ability to externalize is contingent on the growth orientation of the organization and the presence of like-minded B2B (Business-to-Business) customers. These responses reflect whether organizations accept the trade-offs at the expense of one or more stakeholders or if they avoid the trade-offs and find mutually beneficial solutions.

Building on the empirical insights, the authors elaborate on stakeholder theory with a focus on the integration of marginalized stakeholders by emphasizing a moral justification for stakeholder engagement, identifying the nature of the underlying trade-offs which can arise when various stakeholder needs are in conflict and examining the contingencies affecting organizational responses to these trade-offs.

Time-cost trade-off is normal conduct in construction projects when projects are expectedly late for delivery. Existing research on time-cost trade-off strategic management mostly focused on the technical calculation towards the optimal combination of activities to be accelerated, while the managerial aspects are mostly neglected. This paper aims to understand the managerial efforts necessary to prepare construction projects ready for an upcoming trade-off implementation.

A preliminary list of critical factors was first identified from the literature and verified by a Delphi survey. Quantitative data was then collected by a questionnaire survey to first shortlist the preliminary factors and quantify the predictive model with different machine learning algorithms, i.e. k-nearest neighbours (kNN), radial basis function (RBF), multiplayer perceptron (MLP), multinomial logistic regression (MLR), naïve Bayes classifier (NBC) and Bayesian belief networks (BBNs).

The model's independent variable importance ranking revealed that the top challenges faced were the realism of contractual obligation, contractor planning and control and client management and monitoring. Among the tested machine learning algorithms, multilayer perceptron was demonstrated to be the most suitable in this case. This model accuracy reached 96.5% with the training dataset and 95.6% with an independent test dataset and could be used as the contingency approach for time-cost trade-offs.

The identified factor list contributed to the theoretical explanation of the failed implementation in general and practical managerial improvement to better avoid such failure. In addition, the established predictive model provided an ad-hoc early warning and diagnostic tool to better ensure time-cost implementation success.

The purpose of this paper is to reaffirm the suggestion that there are at least two distinct types of laws of trade-off that affect all firms and, in doing so, to contribute toward resolving the persistent trade-off debate in the literature.

Conceptual study using implicit deductive reasoning.

Two types of trade-offs are identified: “internal” can be understood following the dictates of the law of diminishing returns, while “external” can be modeled using the principle of energy conservation.

New insights are provided by discussing the impact of both laws of trade-off on the resource-based view of the firm, on new capabilities such as sustainability and innovativeness and on key strategic choices.

The study explains why trade-offs occur and outlines contextual factors that determine the “strength” of the trade-offs.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous study has attempted to investigate the topic of strategic trade-offs on the basis of the principle of energy conservation.

A transformative service aims to improve wellbeing; however, current approaches have an implicit assumption that all wellbeing dimensions are equal and more dimensions led to higher wellbeing. The purpose of this paper is to present evidence for a new framework that identifies the paradox of competing wellbeing dimensions for both the individual and others in society – the transformative service paradox (TSP).

Data is drawn from a mixed-method approach using qualitative (interviews) and quantitative data (lab experiment) in an electricity service context. The first study involves 45 household interviews (n = 118) and deals with the nature of trade-offs at the individual level to establish the concept of the TSP. The second study uses a behavioral economics laboratory experiment (n = 110) to test the self vs. other nature of the trade-off in day-to-day use of electricity.

The interviews and experiment identified that temporal (now vs. future) and beneficiary-level factors explain why individuals make wellbeing trade-offs for the transformative service of electricity. The laboratory experiment showed that when the future implication of the trade-off is made salient, consumers are more willing to forego physical wellbeing for environmental wellbeing, whereas when the “now” implication is more salient consumers forego financial wellbeing for physical wellbeing.

This research introduces the term “Transformative Service Paradox” and identifies two factors that explain why consumers make wellbeing trade-offs at the individual level and at the societal level; temporal (now vs. future) and wellbeing beneficiary.

The study investigates the interaction of sustainability dimensions in supply chains. Along with the analysis of sustainability trade-offs (i.e. prioritizing one dimension to the sacrifice of others), we develop and test the concept of cross-insurance mechanism (i.e. meeting of one sustainability goal possibly attenuating the effects of poor performance in another).

Through the analysis of a 20-variation vignette-based experiment, we evaluate the effects of these issues on the corporate credibility (expertise and trustworthiness) of four tiers of a typical food supply chain: pesticide producers, farmers, companies from the food industry and retail chains.

Results suggest that both sustainability trade-offs and cross-insurance mechanisms have different impacts across the chain. While pesticide producers (first tier) and retail chains (fourth tier) seem to respond better to a social trade-off, the social cross-insurance mechanism has shown to be particularly beneficial to companies from the food industry (third tier). Farmers (second tier), in turn, seem to be more sensitive to the economic cross-insurance mechanism.

Along with adding to the study of sustainability trade-offs in supply chain contexts, results suggest that the efficiency of the insurance mechanism is not conditional on the alignment among sustainability dimensions (i.e. social responsibility attenuating social irresponsibility). In this sense, empirical evidences support the development of the cross-insurance mechanism as an original concept.

Trade-offs are unavoidable in a competitive and difficult economic environment, causing a challenge for those wanting to provide consistently high-quality service across all touchpoints in the service delivery ecosystem, included in which is the higher education (HE) sector. This study aims to explore the key factors influencing service trade-offs related to the efforts of academics in Malaysia’s HE sector.

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 400 full-time academics from several higher learning institutions in Malaysia. Data were analysed using the partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach.

The results reveal that service trade-offs in the HE sector were heavily influenced by service priorities. Customisation of services, meeting individual student needs, working under immense pressure within tight timeframes and focusing on teaching and research jointly contribute to academics’ service trade-offs in the HE sector. Indeed, the nature of the job necessitates such trade-offs by default, as academics are unable to cancel or postpone classes due to scheduling constraints and the requirement to be physically present during class sessions.

HE administrators and managers should provide academics with adequate resources, effective work allocation and optimal timeframes for task completion, as service priorities are the key factors influencing service trade-offs in Malaysia’s HE sector. The satisfaction of these needs would enable academics’ service priorities and trade-offs to be better balanced, thereby contributing to better operational efficiency, boosting organisational performance and maintaining business sustainability.

The empirical results serve to clarify the key factors influencing service trade-offs in the HE sector, thus expanding the extant literature, which has mostly concentrated on describing the same phenomena in the manufacturing sector. The proposed service trade-offs model would serve as a guideline for operational efficiencies in the HE sector to prevent future recurrence and reduce the potential risk of service disruption, thus mitigating the risk of dissatisfaction.

The purpose of this paper is to further clarify the link between the theoretical and practical/real-life implications of a seminal topic in the strategic operations management field: Wickham Skinner’s strategic trade-offs model. This will help researchers, practitioners and students to realize the “everyday life” consequences of this highly influential model.

A theoretical analysis is made of previous research dealing with the strategic trade-offs model. Building on these investigations, a Popperian approach is used to logically develop the model, and the authors demonstrate how it can be empirically tested.

Previous investigations on Skinner’s model mainly focus on trade-offs between competitive capabilities (e.g. cost, quality, delivery) at the firm level. This paper demonstrates that the implications of this model necessarily should include consideration of the strategic trade-offs between the competitive characteristics of products/services that practitioners, students and the general public can observe.

While previous investigations have provided necessary clarifications, no paper has addressed the issue of the existence of strategic trade-offs between the competitive characteristics of products/services. This paper offers guidelines for researchers and practitioners on the way that the strategic trade-offs model can be conceptualized, understood and tested.

This paper endeavors to critically examine the trade‐offs among project objectives and their underlying assumptions.

Effect‐cause‐effect (ECE) methodology of theory of constraints (TOC) has been applied to examine the assumptions behind successfully managing business projects.

The essence of discussion in this paper leads towards the realization that a possibility exists for time, cost and quality objectives to be pursued collectively in a project management environment.

This paper evaluates to what extent trade‐offs among project objectives actually exist and explores the possibility of their co‐existence in a project management environment. This realization can significantly impact the project trade‐off models in existing literature.

Time, cost and quality have been recognized to be important objectives to successfully complete a project and several studies have acknowledged the necessity to address their trade‐offs. However, most of these studies have taken the trade‐offs for granted without critically examining the assumptions behind such trade‐offs. The present paper fills that gap by applying ECE approach of TOC to examine project management trade‐off assumptions. There‐in lies the value of the current paper.

This study raises the question of whether the nature of the merger and acquisition (M&A) strategy per se, that is reflected throughout the M&A process, may lead to a potential trade-off between the two main objectives of M&As – synergy success and efficiency gains, which may explain the high failure rate of the M&A strategy. The purpose of this paper is to present a mediation model to explore the potential trade-off that may exist between synergy success and efficiency gains. The model examines whether the change in the workforce size during the M&A process mediates the relationship between the types of M&A and M&A success, resulting in a trade-off.

The study uses a sample of 394 public firms.

The study reveals that if the management over-increases the workforce size to realize the synergy potential, then it heightens the risk of the “win synergy-lose efficiency” trade-off, resulting in an increase in revenue growth but a decrease in profitability. The results even show that international M&As lead to an “over” increase in the workforce size to maximize the synergy potential, but at the same time, an increase in the workforce size harms the efficiency gains, resulting in a decrease in profitability. However, vertical and conglomerate M&As may lead neither to synergy success nor to efficiency gains, which reflects a situation of no benefits from the M&A for the acquirer.

The study emphasizes that one of the main challenges in the implementation of the M&A strategy is to strike a balance between the objective of improving efficiency through cutting costs and workforce reduction during the integration stage and the objective of realizing the synergy potential, despite the workforce reduction during the M&A process.