Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:55:45.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - New Voices in Stakeholder Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2019

Edited by
Jeffrey S. Harrison ,
Jay B. Barney ,
R. Edward Freeman  and
Robert A. Phillips
Jeffrey S. Harrison
Affiliation:
University of Richmond
Jay B. Barney
Affiliation:
University of Utah
R. Edward Freeman
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Robert A. Phillips
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory , pp. 243 - 271
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 447–456.Google Scholar
Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4): 576–609.Google Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 107–125.Google Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. (2016). Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2): 229–251.Google Scholar
Bundy, J., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2015). A burden of responsibility: The role of social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management Review, 40(3): 345–369.Google Scholar
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3): 352–376.Google Scholar
Bundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. (2018). Organization-stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2): 476–501.Google Scholar
Chin, M., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 197–232.Google Scholar
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33(2): 135–139.Google Scholar
Crilly, D., Hansen, M., & Zollo, M. (2016). The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 705–729.Google Scholar
Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1): 154–171.Google Scholar
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4): 441–455.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (2011). Some thoughts on the development of stakeholder theory. In Phillips, R. A., ed., Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects, pp. 212–233. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. (2013). Microfoundations of management: Behavioral strategies and levels of rationality in organizational action. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2): 103–119.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1): 58–74.Google Scholar
Keevil, A. A. C. (2014). Behavioral stakeholder theory. Unpublished dissertation, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding Attributions of Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 300–326.Google Scholar
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6): 1152–1189.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Reputation as an emerging construct in the business and society field: An introduction. Business & Society, 41(4): 365–370.Google Scholar
McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A Names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management how focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1): 57–69.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.Google Scholar
Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies, 47(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Muller, A. R., Pfarrer, M. D., & Little, L. M. (2014). A Theory of Collective Empathy in Corporate Philanthropy Decisions. Academy of Management Review, 39(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2): 262–279.Google Scholar
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12): 1369–1386.Google Scholar
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6): 1033–1049.Google Scholar
Scott, S., & Lane, V. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 43–62.Google Scholar
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a Benefit and a Burden? How Stakeholders’ Organizational Identification Affects the Role of Reputation Following a Negative Event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1): 253–276.Google Scholar

References

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributions and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–525.Google Scholar
Amcor. (2016). Annual report 2016. Retrieved from www.amcor.com/investors/financial-information/annual-reports.Google Scholar
Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4): 576–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogenous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 107–125.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail service environment: A multiple-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5): 717–729.Google Scholar
Carillion. (2015). Annual report and accounts 2015. Retrieved from www.annualreports.co.uk/Company/carillion-plc.Google Scholar
Carter, M. Z., & Mossholder, K. W. (2015). Are we on the same page? The effects of congruence between supervisor and group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5): 1349–1363.Google Scholar
Crilly, D., Hansen, M. & Zollo, M. (2016). The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 705–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, D., Ni, N., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Do no harm versus do good social responsibility. Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1316–1329.Google Scholar
Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2012). Corporate attention to stakeholders: Enterprise logic and an inside-out explanation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10): 1174–1193.Google Scholar
Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2014). Autonomy or control? Organizational architecture and corporate attention to stakeholders. Organization Science, 25(2): 339–355.Google Scholar
Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2015). Education, HIV, and early fertility: Experimental evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review, 105(9): 2757–2797.Google Scholar
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 76–90.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. (2007). Perspective – Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3): 523–536.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & van der Laan Smith, J. (2015). Responsible accounting for stakeholders. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7): 935–960.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to external stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1727–1748.Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–139.Google Scholar
Ireland, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 549–571.Google Scholar
Jaworska, S., & Nanda, A. (2017). Doing well by talking good: A topic-modelling assisted discourse study of corporate social responsibility. Applied Linguistics, 39(3): 373–399.Google Scholar
Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37: 272–299.Google Scholar
Lankoski, L., Smith, C. S., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2016). Stakeholder judgments of value. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2): 227–256.Google Scholar
Love, E. G., & Kraatz, M. (2017). Failed stakeholder exchanges and corporate reputation: The case of earnings misses. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 880–903.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24(4): 662–678.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853–886.Google Scholar
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1369–1386.Google Scholar
Selten, R., & Warglien, M. (2007). The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(18): 7361–7366.Google Scholar
Strategic Management Society. (2017). Stakeholder strategy. Retrieved from www.strategicmanagement.net/ig/stakeholder_strategy.php.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 534–544.Google Scholar
Weitzner, D., & Deutsch, Y. (2015). Understanding motivation and social influence in stakeholder prioritization. Organization Studies, 36(10): 1337–1360.Google Scholar

References

Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 447–465.Google Scholar
Barley, S. R., Bechky, B. A., & Milliken, F. J. (2017). The changing nature of work: Careers, identities, and work lives in the 21st century. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(2): 111–115.Google Scholar
Barnett, M. L., & King, A. A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1150–1170.Google Scholar
BBC News. (2016, January 17). Volkswagen among most criticised companies by NGOs. BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/business-35337891.Google Scholar
Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.Google Scholar
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 447–456.Google Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 107–125.Google Scholar
Davis, G. F., Morrill, C., Rao, H., & Soule, S. A. (2008). Introduction: Social movements in organizations and markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 389–394.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. (2017a). Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3): 561–597.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. J. (2017b). Proactive stakeholder engagement and the formation of stakeholder preferences for firm investments. Working Paper, New York University.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. A. (2017). Nonmarket strategy through the lens of new institutional economics: A review and future directions. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1): 114–140.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., & Odziemkowska, K. (2017). Valuing stakeholder governance: Property rights, community mobilization, and firm value. Strategic Management Journal, 38(13): 2682–2703. doi:10.1002/smj.2675Google Scholar
Durand, R., & Jacqueminet, A. (2015). Peer conformity, attention, and heterogeneous implementation of practices in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(8): 917–937.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & Colle, S. de. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3): 88–106.Google Scholar
Gereffi, G. (1999). International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. Journal of International Economics, 48: 37–70.Google Scholar
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 137–147.Google Scholar
Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 777–798.Google Scholar
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 425–445.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D., eds. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1): 58–74.Google Scholar
Hymer, S. H. (1976). The international operations of national firms: a study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, P., Yue, L. Q., & Rao, H. (2010). Trouble in store: Probes, protests, and store openings by Wal-Mart, 1998–2007. American Journal of Sociology, 116(1): 53–92.Google Scholar
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 698–716.Google Scholar
King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 413–442.Google Scholar
Lenox, M. J. (2006). The Role of Private Decentralized Institutions in Sustaining Industry Self-Regulation. Organization Science, 17(6): 677–690.Google Scholar
Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as Reputation Insurance: Primum Non Nocere. California Management Review, 53(3): 40–59.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3): 641–672.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Scheiber, N. (2017, May 23). Uber to repay millions to drivers, who could be owed far more. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/economy/uber-drivers-tax.html.Google Scholar
Vasi, I. B., & King, B. G. (2012). Social movements, risk perceptions, and economic outcomes: The effect of primary and secondary stakeholder activism on firms’ perceived environmental risk and financial performance. American Sociological Review, 77(4): 573–596.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., & Salomon, R. (2016). Does imitation reduce the liability of foreignness? Linking distance, isomorphism, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(12): 2441–2462.Google Scholar
Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.Google Scholar

References

Bamberger, P. (2008). From the editors beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5): 839–846.Google Scholar
Blair, J. D. & Hunt, J. G. (1986). Getting inside the head of the management researcher one more time: Context-free and context-specific orientations in research. Journal of Management, 12(2): 147–166.Google Scholar
Cappelli, P. & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M., eds., Research in organizational behavior, pp. 55–110. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.Google Scholar
Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. (2017). Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3): 561–597.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Rusconi, G., Signori, S., & Strudler, A. (2012). Stakeholder theory(ies): Ethical ideas and managerial action. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1): 1–2.Google Scholar
Frynas, J. G. (2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. International Affairs, 81(3): 581–598.Google Scholar
Frynas, J. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and international development: Critical assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4): 274–281.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law and Social Inquiry, 29: 307–341.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 479–485.Google Scholar
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12): 1727–1748.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1385–1399.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 386–408.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–437.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In Kleine, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. J., eds., Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions, pp. 3–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.Google Scholar
Nartey, L., Dorobantu, S., & Henisz, W. J. (2017). A participatory approach to stakeholder engagement: Defining a hierarchy of strategic action. Working paper, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Nartey, L., Henisz, W. J., & Dorobantu, S. (2017). Status climbing versus bridging: Multinational stakeholder engagement strategies. Strategy Science, 3(2): 367–392.Google Scholar
Nartey, L., & Teegen, H. (2017). A convening model to enhance value creation and pluralistic appropriation in large-scale investment projects. Working paper, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Editorial: Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In McGuire, C. & Radner, R., eds., Decision and organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2002). Applications of case study research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×