The Strategic Imperative: Do We Need Normative Considerations in Strategic Theories of Stakeholder Engagement?

References

• Adner R, Zemsky Z (2006) A demand‐based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management J. 27(3):215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguilera R, Aragón-Correa JA, Marano V (2022) Rethinking corporate power to tackle grand societal challenges: Lessons from political philosophy. Acad. Management Rev. 47(4):637–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akcigit U, Baslandze S, Lotti F (2023) Connecting to power: Political connections, innovation, and firm dynamics. Econometrica 91(2):529–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amsden AH (2001) The Rise of “The Rest”: Challenges to the West from Late-Industrializing Economies (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, 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
• Bansal P, DesJardine M (2014) Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organ. 12(1):70–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnard C (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Management 17(1):99–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB (2018) Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management J. 39(13):3305–3325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB, Mackey A (2018) Monopoly profits, efficiency profits, and teaching strategic management. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. 17(3):359–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Obloj T, Pache AC, Sengul M (2022) Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social tradeoffs in dual-purpose companies. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):237–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernacchio C, Foss NJ, Lindenberg S (2024) The virtues of joint production: Ethical foundations for collaborative organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 49(1):155–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besanko D, Dranove D, Shanley M, Schaefer S (2013) Economics of Strategy (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Blair MM, Stout LA (1999) A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Rev. 85(2):247–328.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
• Brandenburger AM, Stuart HW Jr (1996) Value‐based business strategy. J. Econom. Management Strategy 5(1):5–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2022a) Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):214–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2022b) Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present, and future. Strategic Organ. 20(4):797–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabral S (2024) Strategy for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Springer Books, New York).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
• Chatain O, Zemsky P (2011) Value creation and value capture with frictions. Strategic Management J. 32(11):1206–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coff RW (1999) When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ. Sci. 10(2):119–133.Link, Google Scholar
• Cooter RD (1989) Rawls’s lexical orderings are good economics. Economics Philos. 5(1):47–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dequech D (2011) Uncertainty: A typology and refinements of existing concepts. J. Econom. Issues 45(3):621–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donaldson SI, Christie CA, Mark MM, eds. (2015) Credible and Actionable Evidence: The Foundation for Rigorous and Influential Evaluations (SAGE, Los Angeles).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Management Rev. 20(1):65–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dorobantu S, Odziemkowska K (2017) Valuing stakeholder governance: Property rights, community mobilization, and firm value. Strategic Management J. 38(13):2682–2703.Crossref, 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
• Ebrahim A, Battilana J, Mair J (2014) The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 34:81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fia M, Sacconi L (2019) Justice and corporate governance: New insights from Rawlsian social contract and Sen’s capabilities approach. J. Bus. Ethics 160:937–960.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foss NJ, Klein PG (2018) Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility: An ownership perspective. Adv. Strategic Management 38:17–35.Google Scholar
• Freeman RE (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, London).Google Scholar
• Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Bus. Ethics Quart. 4(4):409–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RE, Dmytriyev SD, Phillips RA (2021) Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. J. Management 47(7):1757–1770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freire VB, Lazzarini SG, Faro JH (2022) The right to decide: A decision-based perspective of corporate stakeholder governance. Working paper, Insper, Sao Paolo, Brazil.Google Scholar
• Fried VH, Oviatt BM (1989) Michael Porter’s missing chapter: The risk of antitrust violations. Acad. Management Perspect. 3(1):49–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).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, Prat A, Serafeim G (2019) Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organ. Sci. 30(1):1–18.Link, Google Scholar
• Gatignon A, Capron L (2023) The firm as an architect of polycentric governance: Building open institutional infrastructure in emerging markets. Strategic Management J. 44(1):48–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJ, Tracey P (2023) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Management 49(6):1841–1869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Schmeidler D (2010) Objective and subjective rationality in a multiple prior model. Econometrica 78(2):755–770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansmann H (1996) The Ownership of Enterprise (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Hart O, Zingales L (2017) Companies should maximize shareholder welfare not market value. J. Law Finance Accounting 2(2):247–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart O, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) The proper scope of government: Theory and an application to prisons. Quart. J. Econom. 112(4):1127–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausmann R, Rodrik D (2003) Economic development as self-discovery. J. Development Econom. 72(2):603–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hein P, Ansari S (2022) From sheltered to included: The emancipation of disabled workers from benevolent marginalization. Acad. Management J. 65(3):749–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2023) The value of organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):159–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Hernandez M, Haack P (2023) Theorizing for positive impact. Acad. Management Rev. 48(3):371–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hersztajn-Moldau J (1992) On the lexical ordering of social states according to Rawls’ principles of justice. Economics Philos. 8(1):141–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hersztajn-Moldau J (2002) A theory of the firm allowing for multiple objectives. Estudos Econômicos 32(4):511–549.Google Scholar
• Jeong Y, Weiner RJ (2012) Who bribes? Evidence from the United Nations’ oil‐for‐food program. Strategic Management J. 33(12):1363–1383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones TM, Wicks AC (1999) Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Management Rev. 24(2):206–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones TM, Felps W, Bigley GA (2007) Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Acad. Management Rev. 32(1):137–155.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
• Jourdan J, Kivleniece I, McGahan AM (2021) Towards a stakeholder-oriented framework on value creation and allocation. Working paper, HEC Paris, Paris.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2019) The 360° Corporation: From Stakeholder Trade-Offs to Transformation (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2020) Beyond the business case for social responsibility. Acad. Management Discoveries 6(1):1–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaul A, Luo J (2018) An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for-profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management J. 39(6):1650–1677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivleniece I, Quelin BV (2012) Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 37(2):272–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight F (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Hart, Schaffner, and Marx, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kroeger A, Weber C (2014) Developing a conceptual framework for comparing social value creation. Acad. Management Rev. 39(4):513–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kymlicka W (1991) Liberalism, Community, and Culture (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Lange D, Bundy J (2018) The association between ethics and stakeholder theory. Dorobantu S, Aguilera RV, Luo J, Milliken F, eds. Sustainability, Stakeholder Governance, and Corporate Social Responsibility (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 365–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG (2015) Strategizing by the government: Can industrial policy create firm‐level competitive advantage? Strategic Management J. 36(1):97–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG (2020) The nature of the social firm: Alternative organizational arrangements for social value creation and appropriation. Acad. Management Rev. 45(3):620–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG (2021) Capitalism and management research: The worst of times, the best of times. Acad. Management Rev. 46(3):613–622.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG, Nickerson JA (2020) A empresa justa. Harvard Bus. Rev. Brasil June:76–83.Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG, Boehe DM, Pongeluppe LS, Cook ML (2025) The normative core of relational stakeholder strategies: Explaining open buyer-supplier relations in the context of the Amazon rainforest. Bus. Ethics Quart. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG, Paschoal LN, Moron CR, Saes PM, Pongeluppe LS, Ito NC (2015) O projeto Villa Flora: Inovação e engajamento comunitário no mercado imobiliário brasileiro. Insper case study series, Insper, Sao Paolo, Brazil.Google Scholar
• Luo J, Kaul A (2019) Private action in public interest: The comparative governance of social issues. Strategic Management J. 40(4):476–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luo J, Kaul A, Seo H (2018) Winning us with trifles: Adverse selection in the use of philanthropy as insurance. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2591–2617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyon TP, Delmas MA, Maxwell JW, Tima Bansal P (2018) CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. Calif. Management Rev. 60(4):5–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT (2012) Towards a stakeholder theory of strategic management. Costa JER, Marti JMR, eds. Towards a New Theory of the Firm: Humanizing the Firm and the Management Profession (Fundación BBVA, Bilbao, Spain), 153–174.Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT (2023) Corporate personhood and fiduciary duties as critical constructs in developing stakeholder management theory and corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):212–220.Link, Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT, McGahan AM, Pitelis CN (2009) The interdependence of private and public interests. Organ. Sci. 20(6):1034–1052.Link, Google Scholar
• Manzini P, Mariotti M (2007) Sequentially rationalizable choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1824–1839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2020) Where does an organization’s responsibility end? Identifying the boundaries on stakeholder claims. Acad. Management Discoveries 6(1):8–11.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
• 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):853–886.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moe TM (1984) The new economics of organization. Amer. J. Political Sci. 28(4):739–777.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montes L (2004) Adam Smith in Context: A Critical Reassessment of Some Central Components of His Thought (Palgrave Macmillan, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan J, Tumlinson J (2019) Corporate provision of public goods. Management Sci. 65(10):4489–4504.Link, Google Scholar
• Mueller DC (2003) Public Choice III (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myrdal G (1969) Objectivity in Social Research (Pantheon Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Nardi L (2022) The corporate social responsibility premium as an enabler of substantive CSR. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):282–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Packard MD, Clark BB, Klein PG (2017) Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organ. Sci. 28(5):840–856.Link, Google Scholar
• Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA).Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1980) Competitive Strategy (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Bus. Rev. January–February:62–77.Google Scholar
• Quélin BV, Kivleniece I, Lazzarini S (2017) Public-private collaboration, hybridity and social value: Towards new theoretical perspectives. J. Management Stud. 54(6):763–792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rangan S, ed. (2018a) Capitalism Beyond Mutuality? Perspectives Integrating Philosophy and Social Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rangan S (2018b) Introduction: Capitalism beyond mutuality? Rangan S, ed. Capitalism Beyond Mutuality? Perspectives Integrating Philosophy and Social Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rangan S, Samii R, Van Wassenhove LN (2006) Constructive partnerships: When alliances between private firms and public actors can enable creative strategies. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):738–751.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodrik D (2004) Industrial policy for the twenty-first century. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4767, CEPR, London.Google Scholar
• Schreck P, van Aaken D, Donaldson T (2013) Positive economics and the normativistic fallacy: Bridging the two sides of CSR. Bus. Ethics Quart. 23(2):297–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen A (2009) The Idea of Justice (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Sen A (2018) Our obligation to future generations. Rangan S, ed. Capitalism Beyond Mutuality? Perspectives Integrating Philosophy and Social Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 131–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A (1998) State versus private ownership. J. Econom. Perspect. 12(4):133–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Summers LH (1988) Breach of trust in hostile takeovers. Auerbach AJ, ed. Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 33–56.Google Scholar
• Sidgwick H (1874) The Methods of Ethics (Macmillan and Co., London).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1959) Theories of decision making in economics and behavioral science. Amer. Econom. Rev. 49(3):253–283.Google Scholar
• Singer A (2015) There is no Rawlsian theory of corporate governance. Bus. Ethics Quart. 25(1):65–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith A (1759) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Alexander Kincaid and J. Bell, Edinburgh, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoelhorst JW (2023) Value, rent, and profit: A stakeholder resource‐based theory. Strategic Management J. 44(6):1488–1513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoelhorst JW, Vishwanathan P (2024) Beyond primacy: A stakeholder theory of corporate governance. Acad. Management Rev. 49(1):107–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stout L (2012) The Shareholder Value Myth (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Stout L (2013) The toxic side effects of shareholder primacy. Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 161(7):2003–2023.Google Scholar
• Suzumura K (2018) Intergenerational equity and responsibility for future generations. Rangan S, ed. Capitalism Beyond Mutuality? Perspectives Integrating Philosophy and Social Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 107–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tinker AM, Merino BD, Neimark MD (1982) The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and accounting thought. Accounting Organ. Soc. 7(2):167–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tirole J (1999) Incomplete contracts: Where do we stand? Econometrica 67:741–781.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzner D, Deutsch Y (2019) Why the time has come to retire instrumental stakeholder theory. Acad. Management Rev. 44(3):694–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1999) Public and private bureaucracies: A transaction cost economics perspective. J. Law Econom Organ. 15(1):306–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang T, Zhang Z, Yang J (2022) When does corporate social responsibility backfire in acquisitions? Signal incongruence and acquirer returns. J. Bus. Ethics 175:45–58.Crossref, Google Scholar