Search results

This study contributes to the understanding of the health effects of pesticides exposure and of how pesticides have been and should be regulated.

This study presents literature reviews for the period 2000–2013 on (i) the health effects of pesticides and on (ii) preference valuation of health risks related to pesticides, as well as a discussion of the role of benefit-cost analysis applied to pesticide regulatory measures.

This study indicates that the health literature has focused on individuals with direct exposure to pesticides, i.e. farmers, while the literature on preference valuation has focused on those with indirect exposure, i.e. consumers. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the rationale for regulating pesticides, the role of risk perceptions in benefit-cost analysis, and the importance of inter-disciplinary research in this area.

This study relates findings of different disciplines (health, economics, public policy) regarding pesticides, and identifies gaps for future research.

One way of looking at the association between ethics and stakeholder theory – of examining the idea that stakeholder theory has a strong moral foundation – is to consider how the stakeholder approach might in fact be directly driven by and guided by the moral obligations of business. An alternative perspective we offer is that stakeholder theory only indirectly derives from the moral obligations of business, with business purpose serving as a mediating factor. We work through the fairly straightforward logic behind that alternative perspective in this chapter. We argue that it is a better way to think about the association between ethics and stakeholder theory, particularly because it allows for a theoretical and practical distinction between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory can thereby continue developing as a theory of strategic management, even as it brings morals to the fore in ways that other approaches to strategic management do not.

In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of, identifying, understanding, prioritizing, and engaging stakeholders. Specifically, we focus on stakeholder prioritization work — primarily as represented by the stakeholder salience model — and discuss contributions, shortcomings, and possibilities for this literature. We suggest that future research focus on stakeholder inclusivity, the complexity of prioritization work within intra-corporate markets, the integration of stakeholder prioritization with other forms of stakeholder work, and the development of managerial tools for multiobjective decision making within the strategic management context.

Stakeholder theory has been accused of being an umbrella concept rather than a distinct theory per se. Recognizing the stakeholder concept as an essentially contested concept subject to multiple competing interpretations, this chapter presents a systematic meta-level conceptual analysis. This chapter aims to contribute to the optimal development of stakeholder theory by clarifying the conceptual confusion surrounding its central construct to help prevent stakeholder theory from developing into an accumulation of disparate ideas. Multi-contextual contributions to stakeholder theory are analysed via an unparalleled bounded systematic review of 593 stakeholder definitions. Determinants of the stakeholder concept have been deconstructed and analysed to establish how definitional variables relate to variants of stakeholder theory. These determinants have been sorted, filtered and ordered to produce a comprehensive, multi-dimensional classification of stakeholder theory based on four hyponyms which relate to 16 definitional categories. The classification was then subjected to empirical testing with positive results. This evaluation of the stakeholder concept illustrates how contributions are aligned and interrelated, thereby prescribing what is acceptable (unacceptable) as inclusion within stakeholder theory. An invaluable overview of what we know about stakeholder theory is presented within a single model, drawing the conclusion that stakeholder theory is indeed a single theory.

The contemporary dialog surrounding social and environmental crises has strengthened the call for a reconsideration of the capitalist economic system, prompting a reimagining of businesses’ societal roles. This chapter explores the shifting terrain of corporate purpose as a driving force for positive societal change, challenging the traditional shareholder primacy doctrine.

After examining influential theoretical frameworks shaping the discourse on corporate purpose, this research unveils the results of an empirical investigation inspired by the 2019 American Business Roundtable’s (BRT) statement on corporate purpose, where numerous prominent American CEOs advocated for a shift toward a stakeholder-oriented approach. In our exercise, the authors employ semantic and cognitive linguistic analyses to measure the coherence between the language in the BRT statement and the content of sustainability reports. This approach aims to offer insights into the alignment or divergence between corporate declarations and actual practices concerning corporate purpose.

Empirical findings reveal that corporations emphasizing their purpose in sustainability reports using language resembling that of the BRT statement tend to demonstrate lower implementation scores. Conversely, implementors lean toward using language in sustainability reports that diverges from the BRT statement. These findings suggest a potential disconnection between stated purpose and actual implementation in companies emphasizing corporate purpose in their reports.

The study research contributes theoretical insights by exploring how corporations can incorporate purpose-driven practices to promote sustainable growth and societal well-being. It underscores the potential for businesses to play a pivotal role in reshaping the economic landscape and advocates for ongoing research in humanistic management models.

The importance of organizational-stakeholder relationships has been an interesting subject in the organizational literature.

In this chapter, the evolution of the concept of stakeholder and how crucial is the company’s interaction and cooperation with them to achieve common goals has been studied. Initially stakeholder was considered a synonym of shareholder but throughout the years the category has expanded including managers, employees, suppliers, and other key actors, until the current meaning: stakeholder is “any group or individuals who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1994). Hence for running successful businesses, the companies need to acknowledge the existing stakeholders and provide them expected benefits, proportionally to their relevance, which is based on their power, legitimacy, and urgency. The chapter concludes by showing us the main principles that identify the management duties to all stakeholders and the necessity of increasing their involvement in decision-making processes.

Stakeholder thinking has contributed considerably to the organizational literature by demonstrating the significance of the environment in managing organizations. Stakeholders affect and are affected by organizations’ daily operations and decisions. They have varied and often conflicting interests, making it necessary for managers and organizations to know who they are as well as their attributes. Consequently, Mitchell et al. (1997) developed the stakeholder salience theory to help managers and organizations identify the power of certain stakeholders and their salience to the organization. With a few exceptions, the mainstream stakeholder salience theory is in many ways still largely static, short-term oriented, and firm-centered. The aim of this paper is to revisit certain conformist assumptions concerning the role of marginalized stakeholders, or “dormant” stakeholders, in stakeholder thinking. Overall, this chapter is a call to a new conceptualization of stakeholders that reintroduces stakeholder dynamics at the core of stakeholder thinking to overcome its restrictive shortcomings. We argue that managing stakeholder relationships is not simply meeting stakeholder demands but also involves taking into account the long-term dynamics of stakeholder interactions.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

This chapter conceptually addresses outward internationalisation of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) from the emerging markets (EMs) by focussing on the role of prior contract manufacturing relationships with a developed market multinational enterprise (DMNE). The internationalisation of SMEs originating from EMs is a rather under-researched area and the role of prior contract manufacturing experience specifically has not been addressed in prior studies. Based on a literature review, the authors identified four capabilities developed by EM SMEs during their contract manufacturing relationships with DMNE(s) that potentially help in later outward internationalisation. The authors incorporate some insights from dynamic capabilities theory, and develop propositions addressing the role of relational capital, human capital, manufacturing productivity capabilities and product innovation capabilities in this specific context. Despite being conceptual in nature, this chapter is one of the first to explicitly highlight the role of these specific capabilities developed during contract manufacturing relationship for outward internationalisation, setting bases for future studies to further empirically investigate them in different contexts.