Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory
- The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Chapter Summaries
- Part I Theoretical Foundations of Stakeholder Theory
- Part II Stakeholder Theory and Society
- Part III Stakeholder Theory in the Business Disciplines
- Part IV Stakeholder Theory in Education and Practice
- Part V New Voices in Stakeholder Thinking
- Chapter 15 Considering a Behavioral View of Stakeholders
- Chapter 16 Behavioral Stakeholder Theory
- Chapter 17 Sketches of New and Future Research on Stakeholder Management
- Chapter 18 Contextual Richness at the Core of New Stakeholder Research
- Index
- References
Chapter 17 - Sketches of New and Future Research on Stakeholder Management
from Part V - New Voices in Stakeholder Thinking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory
- The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Chapter Summaries
- Part I Theoretical Foundations of Stakeholder Theory
- Part II Stakeholder Theory and Society
- Part III Stakeholder Theory in the Business Disciplines
- Part IV Stakeholder Theory in Education and Practice
- Part V New Voices in Stakeholder Thinking
- Chapter 15 Considering a Behavioral View of Stakeholders
- Chapter 16 Behavioral Stakeholder Theory
- Chapter 17 Sketches of New and Future Research on Stakeholder Management
- Chapter 18 Contextual Richness at the Core of New Stakeholder Research
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory , pp. 256 - 263Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
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.CrossRefGoogle 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., 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 4
- Cited by