The Value of Organizational Purpose

References

• Alchian AA (1965) Some economics of property rights. Alchian AA, ed. Economic Forces at Work (Liberty Press, Indianapolis).Google Scholar
• Almandoz J(J) (2023) Inside-out and outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):139–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson E (1995) Value in Ethics and Economics (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Appelbaum B (2019) The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets and the Fracture of Society (Little, Brown and Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Azar J, Duro M, Kadach I, Ormazabal G (2021) The big three and corporate carbon emissions around the world. J. Financial Econom. 142(2):674–696.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock AF, Barrymore N, Bruno C, He A, Henisz WJ, Sampson RC, Shao X (2022) Walking the talk: Valuing a multi-stakeholder strategy. Preprint, submitted February 3, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4023510.Google Scholar
• Bacq S, Aguilera RV (2022) Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: A theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. J. Management Stud. 59(1):29–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker A, Larcker DF, McClure C, Saraph D, Watts EM (2022a) Diversity washing. Chicago Booth Research Paper 22-18, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Baker G (1992) Incentive contracts and performance measurement. J. Political Econom. 100(3):598–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker G, Gibbons R, Murphy KJ (2022b) From incentives to control to adaptation: Exploring interactions between formal and relational governance. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP17240, Preprint, submitted May 27, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4121423.Google Scholar
• Barnard CI, Eddition TA, eds. (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Baumol WJ, Likert R, Wallich HC, McGowan JJ (1970) A New Rationale for Corporate Social Policy (D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA).Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Tallarita R (2020) The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Rev. 106:91–178.Google Scholar
• Berchicci L, King AA (2022) Corporate sustainability: A model uncertainty analysis of materiality. J. Financial Reporting 7(2):43–74.Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Khurana R (2015) Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 53–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettinazzi EL, Zollo M (2017) Stakeholder orientation and acquisition performance. Strategic Management J. 38(12):2465–2485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya C, Sen S, Korschun D (2008) Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 49(2):37–44.Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya CB, Korschun D, Sen S (2009) Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. J. Bus. Ethics 85(2):257–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonetti P, Leuz C, Michelon G (2023) Internalizing externalities: Disclosure regulation for hydraulic fracturing, drilling activity and water quality. NBER Working Paper No. w30842, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bosse DA, Harrison JS, Hoskisson RE (2022) Acquisitions, stakeholder economies of scope, and stakeholder orientation. Strategic Management Rev. 3(1):35–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bosse DA, Phillips RA, Harrison JS (2009) Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 30(4):447–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst J (2014) Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management J. 35(1):107–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst J (2016) Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Acad. Management Rev. 41(2):229–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst J (2022) Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present, and future. Strategic Organ. 20(4):797–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux FM, Vishwanathan P (2020) When do powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests? Bus. Soc. 59(2):232–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bromley DW (1986) Markets and externalities. Natural Resource Economics (Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston), 37–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruna MG, Lahouel BB (2022) CSR & financial performance: Facing methodological and modeling issues commentary paper to the eponymous FRL article collection. Finance Res. Lett. 44:102036.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgin A (2012) The Great Persuasion (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabral S, Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Potoski M (2019) Value creation and value appropriation in public and nonprofit organizations. Strategic Management J. 40(4):465–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Management Rev. 4(4):497–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corredoira R, Goldfarb B, Sampson RC, Shi Y (2022) The changing nature of firm R&D: Short-termism & technological influence of US firms. Preprint, submitted March 18, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4071191.Google Scholar
• Davis K (1973) The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Acad. Management J. 16(2):312–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis KC (1969) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (LSU Press, Baton Rouge, LA).Google Scholar
• Delmas MA, Burbano VC (2011) The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Rev. 54(1):64–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dicey AV (2013) The Law of the Constitution (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Dorobantu S, Henisz WJ, Nartey L (2017) Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(3):561–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downar B, Ernstberger J, Reichelstein S, Schwenen S, Zaklan A (2021) The impact of carbon disclosure mandates on emissions and financial operating performance. Rev. Accounting Stud. 26(3):1137–1175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Souza J, Megginson WL (1999) The financial and operating performance of privatized firms during the 1990s. J. Finance 54(4):1397–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elfenbein DW, Zenger TR (2013) What is a relationship worth? Repeated exchange and the development and deployment of relational capital. Organ. Sci. 25(1):222–244.Link, Google Scholar
• Elkins A (1977) Toward a positive theory of corporate social involvement. Acad. Management Rev. 2(1):128–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engine No 1, Henisz WJ (2021) A New Way of Seeing Value: The Total Value Framework (Engine No 1, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econom. 26(2):327–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fitch HG (1976) Achieving corporate social responsibility. Acad. Management Rev. 1(1):38–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flammer C, Toffel MW, Viswanathan K (2021) Shareholder activism and firms’ voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management J. 42(10):1850–1879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ (2005) Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 30(4):737–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RE (2010) Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. J. Bus. Ethics 96(1):7–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (September 13), 122–126.Google Scholar
• Gans J, Ryall MD (2017) Value capture theory: A strategic management review. Strategic Management J. 38(1):17–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ganson B, He TL, Henisz WJ (2021) Business and peace: The impact of firm-stakeholder relational strategies on conflict risk. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):259–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garcia‐Castro R, Aguilera RV (2015) Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. Strategic Management J. 36(1):137–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C (2022) Purpose-driven companies and sustainability. George G, Haas MR, Joshi H, McGahan AM, Tracey P, eds. Handbook on the Business of Sustainability (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 24–42.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C (2023) The contingent relationship between purpose and profit. Strategy Sci. 8(2):256–269.Link, Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C, Prat A, Serafeim G (2019) Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organ. Sci. 30(1):1–18.Link, Google Scholar
• Gartenberg CM, Serafeim G (2019) Corporate purpose in public and private firms. Preprint, submitted August 23, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3440281.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg CM, Yiu S (2021) Acquisitions and organizational purpose. Preprint, submitted March 26, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3811690.Google Scholar
• George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJ, Tracey P (2021) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Management Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Ghoshal S, Moran P (1996) Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Acad. Management Rev. 21(1):13–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R (1998) Incentives in organizations. J. Econom. Perspect. 12(4):115–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R (2022) Deals that start when you sign them. J. Inst. Econom. 18(2):269–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbons R, Henderson R (2012) Relational contracts and organizational capabilities. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1350–1364.Link, Google Scholar
• Gil R, Kim M, Zanarone G (2022) Relationships under stress: Relational outsourcing in the US airline industry after the 2008 financial crisis. Management Sci. 68(2):1256–1277.Link, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F (2023) Can purpose foster stakeholder trust in organizations? Strategy Sci. 8(2):270–287.Link, Google Scholar
• Hahn T (2015) Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Bus. Soc. 54(1):9–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn T, Albert N (2017) Strong reciprocity in consumer boycotts. J. Bus. Ethics 145(3):509–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison JS, Bosse DA, Phillips RA (2010) Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management J. 31(1):58–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison JS, Phillips RA, Freeman RE (2020) On the 2019 business roundtable “statement on the purpose of a corporation”. J. Management 46(7):1223–1237.Google Scholar
• Harrison JS, Ho V, Bosse DA, Crilly D (2022) A configurational theory of generalized exchange in stakeholder-oriented firms. Acad. Management Perspect. 37(1):16–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart O, Zingales L (2017) Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. J. Law Finance Accounting 2(2):247–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hechter M (1987) Principles of Group Solidarity (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Van den Steen E (2015) Why do firms have” purpose”? The firm’s role as a carrier of identity and reputation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):326–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2014) Corporate Diplomacy: Building Reputations and Relationships with External Stakeholders (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK).Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, McGlinch J (2019) ESG, material credit events, and credit risk. J. Appl. Corporate Finance 31(2):105–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Dorobantu S, Nartey L (2014) Spinning gold: The financial and operational returns to external stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management J. 35(12):1727–1748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heugens PPMAR, Kaptein M, van Oosterhout J (2004) Ties that grind? Corroborating a typology of social contracting problems. J. Bus. Ethics 49(3):235–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Husted BW (1998) Organizational justice and the management of stakeholder relations. J. Bus. Ethics 17(6):643–651.Google Scholar
• Jasinenko A, Steuber J (2023) Perceived organizational purpose: Systematic literature review, construct definition, measurement and potential employee outcomes. J. Manage. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12852.Google Scholar
• Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(2):323–329.Google Scholar
• Jensen MC (1989) Eclipse of the public corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev., 61–75.Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones DS (2014) Masters of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Jones E (2019) Rethinking greenwashing: Corporate discourse, unethical practice, and the unmet potential of ethical consumerism. Sociol. Perspect. 62(5):728–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones TM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad. Management Rev. 20(2):404–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones TM, Harrison JS, Felps W (2018) How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 43(3):371–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2023) The promises and perils of corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):288–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM (2021) On a stakeholder model of corporate governance. Financial Management 50(2):321–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keim GD (1978) Corporate social responsibility: An assessment of the enlightened self-interest model. Acad. Management Rev. 3(1):32–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein PG, Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2019) Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Acad. Management Rev. 44(1):6–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Korschun D, Bhattacharya CB, Swain SD (2014) Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. J. Marketing 78(3):20–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuh T, Shepley A, Bala G, Flowers M (2020) Dynamic materiality: Measuring what matters. Preprint, submitted February 24, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3521035.Google Scholar
• Lange D, Bundy JN, Park E (2020) The social nature of stakeholder utility. Acad. Management Rev. 47(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Bansal P, Barbosa AM (2023) Seeing beyond the here and now: How corporate purpose combats corporate myopia. Strategy Sci. 8(2):302–310.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee M-DP (2008) A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. Internat. J. Management Rev. 10(1):53–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein DR, Drumwright ME, Braig BM (2004) The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. J. Marketing 68(4):16–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magill M, Quinzii M, Rochet JC (2015) A theory of the stakeholder corporation. Econometrica 83(5):1685–1725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon H, eds. (1958) Organizations (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Mau S (2019) The Metric Society: On the Quantification of the Social (John Wiley & Sons).Google Scholar
• Mayer C (2018) Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Mayer C (2021) The future of the corporation and the economics of purpose. J. Management Stud. 58(3):887–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M-H, King B (2013) Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(3):387–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M-H, Werner T (2016) Blacklisted businesses: Social activists’ challenges and the disruption of corporate political activity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(4):584–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M-H, King BG, Soule SA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(3):654–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2021) Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into the new stakeholder theory. J. Management 47(7):1734–1756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2023) The new stakeholder theory on organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):245–255.Link, Google Scholar
• McGlinch J, Henisz WJ (2022) Reexamining the Win-Win: Relational Capital, Stakeholder Issue Salience, and the Contingent Benefits of Value Based Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Strategies (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Megginson WL, Netter JM (2001) From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. J. Econom. Literature 39(2):321–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Megginson WL, Nash RC, Van Randenborgh M (1994) The financial and operating performance of newly privatized firms: An international empirical analysis. J. Finance 49(2):403–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1940) Bureaucratic structure and personality. Soc. Forces 18(4):560–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michaelson C, Pratt MG, Grant AM, Dunn CP (2014) Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. J. Bus. Ethics 121(1):77–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mirowski P, Plehwe D (2015) The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective with a New Preface (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Management Rev. 22(4):853–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moyer RC (1974) Efficiency and corporate social investment. Bus. Soc. 14(2):5–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary M, Valdmanis W (2020) Accountable: The Rise of Citizen Capitalism (HarperCollins, New York).Google Scholar
• Odziemkowska K, Dorobantu S (2021) Contracting beyond the market. Organ. Sci. 32(3):776–803.Link, Google Scholar
• Odziemkowska K, Henisz WJ (2020) Webs of influence: Secondary stakeholder actions and cross-national corporate social performance. Organ. Sci. 32(1):233–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Odziemkowska K, Zhu Y (2021) Friend or foe: How social movements impact firm innovation. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.12212abstract.Google Scholar
• Ortas E, Moneva JM, Álvarez I (2014) Sustainable supply chain and company performance: A global examination. Supply Chain Management 19(3):332–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parmar BL, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Purnell L, De Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):403–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder legitimacy. Bus. Ethics Quart. 13(1):25–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips RA (1997) Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Bus. Ethics Quart. 7(1):51–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pizzetti M, Gatti L, Seele P (2021) Firms talk, suppliers walk: Analyzing the locus of greenwashing in the blame game and introducing ‘vicarious greenwashing’. J. Bus. Ethics 170(1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter M, Serafeim G, Kramer M (2019) Where ESG fails. Inst. Investor 16(2).Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econom. Perspect. 9(4):97–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratt MG, Hedden LN (2023) Accounts and accountability: On organizational purpose, organizational identity, and meaningful work. Strategy Sci. 8(2):182–192.Link, Google Scholar
• Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus. Soc. 44(4):377–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Martins LL (2023) Moral imagination, the collective desirable, and strategic purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):170–181.Link, Google Scholar
• Rock EB (2020) For whom is the corporation managed in 2020? The debate over corporate purpose. European Corporate Governance Institute-Law Working Paper (515):20-16, Brussels.Google Scholar
• Roe MJ (2021) Corporate purpose and corporate competition. Washington University Law Rev. 99(1):223.Google Scholar
• Rosanas JM, Velilla M (2005) The ethics of management control systems: Developing technical and moral values. J. Bus. Ethics 57(1):83–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rose C (2004) Stakeholder orientation vs. shareholder value—A matter of contractual failures. Eur. J. Law Econom. 18(1):77–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross DG (2018) Using cooperative game theory to contribute to strategy research. Strategic Management J. 39(11):2859–2876.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rouen E, Serafeim G (2021) Impact-weighted financial accounts: A paradigm shift. CESifo Forum 22(3):20–25.Google Scholar
• Saint DK (2005) The Firm as a Nexus of Relationships: Toward a New Story of Corporate Purpose (Benedictine University). https://www.proquest.com/openview/7c804c00cb6912baa1a4c25ab5cb1e30/.Google Scholar
• Schwab K (2021) Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy That Works for Progress, People and Planet (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1948) Foundation of the theory of organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 13(1):25–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serafeim G, Yoon A (2022) Stock price reactions to ESG news: The role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Rev. Accounting Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09675-3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Servaes H, Tamayo A (2013) The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Sci. 59(5):1045–1061.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon H (1945) Administrative Behavior (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Smith NC, Rönnegard D (2016) Shareholder primacy, corporate social responsibility, and the role of business schools. J. Bus. Ethics 134(3):463–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoelhorst JW (2021) Value, rent, and profit: A stakeholder resource-based theory. Strategic Management J. 1–26. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoelhorst J, Vishwanathan P (2022) Beyond primacy: A stakeholder theory of corporate governance. Acad. Management Rev. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stout LA (2012) The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Tamayo-Torres I, Gutierrez-Gutierrez L, Ruiz-Moreno A (2019) Boosting sustainability and financial performance: The role of supply chain controversies. Internat. J. Production Res. 57(11):3719–3734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tantalo C, Priem RL (2016) Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management J. 37(2):314–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torelli R, Balluchi F, Lazzini A (2020) Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders’ perceptions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29(2):407–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang HC, He J, Mahoney JT (2009) Firm‐specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: The roles of economic‐and relationship‐based employee governance mechanisms. Strategic Management J. 30(12):1265–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD (2023) Systemic symbolic management, corporate social responsibility, and corporate purpose: A cautionary tale. Strategy Sci. 8(2):221–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Wieland J (2011) The firm as a nexus of stakeholders: Stakeholder management and theory of the firm. Corporate Governance and Business Ethics (Springer, New York), 225–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets and Relational Contracting (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1996) The Mechanisms of Governance (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang L, Muller NZ, Liang PJ (2021) The Real Effects of Mandatory CSR Disclosure on Emissions: Evidence from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zattoni A (2011) Who should control a corporation? Toward a contingency stakeholder model for allocating ownership rights. J. Bus. Ethics 103(2):255–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelner BA, Henisz WJ, Holburn GLF (2009) Contentious implementation and retrenchment in neoliberal policy reform: The global electric power industry, 1989–2001. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(3):379–412.Crossref, Google Scholar