Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:39:14.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stakeholder Judgments of Value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2016

Leena Lankoski ,
N. Craig Smith  and
Luk Van Wassenhove
Leena Lankoski
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and INSEAD
N. Craig Smith
Affiliation:
INSEAD
Luk Van Wassenhove
Affiliation:
INSEAD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Although central to stakeholder theory, stakeholder value is surprisingly neglected in the literature. We draw upon prospect theory to show how stakeholder judgments of value depend crucially on the reference state, how there are several alternative reference states that may be operative when stakeholders judge value, how the choice of reference state for stakeholders’ value judgments can occur intuitively or deliberately, and how the level of the operant reference state may change with time and may also be incorrectly perceived by stakeholders or managers. Our theorizing results in a fundamentally different way of perceiving the value of corporate actions to stakeholders and shifts understanding of the avenues available for companies and others to influence stakeholder judgments of value. This novel perspective has implications both for theory and management practice, and not least for normative business ethics, if business is about stakeholder value creation.

Keywords

Stakeholder ValueNormative Business EthicsStakeholder TheoryProspect TheoryReference StatesStakeholder Judgments
Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 227 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2016 

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

Agle, B. R., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., Jensen, M. C., Mitchell, R. K., & Wood, D. J. 2008. Dialogue: Toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 153–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S. B., & Bonnefous, A.-M. 2011. Stakeholder management and sustainability strategies in the French nuclear industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20: 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, N. C. 2013. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32: 794–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2014. Why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: A cognitive view. Journal of Management, 40: 676–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. 2009. Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. 2011. Leveraging corporate responsibility: The stakeholder route to maximizing business and social value. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36: 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, J. B., & Kolstad, C. D. (Eds.). 1991. Measuring the demand for environmental quality. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. 1971. Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In Appley, M. H. (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium: 287–302. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bromiley, P., Miller, K. D., & Rau, D. 2001. Risk in strategic management research. In Hitt, M. H., Freeman, E. M., & Harrison, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management: 259–289. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. 2007. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P.-Y., & Chiou, W.-B. 2008. Framing effects in group investment decision making: Role of group polarization. Psychological Reports, 102: 283–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diecidue, E., & van de Ven, J. 2008. Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review, 49: 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doh, J. P., Howton, S. D., Howton, S. W., & Siegel, D. S. 2010. Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36: 1461–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T. 1982. Corporations & morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. 1988. Attitudes toward risk and the risk-return paradox: Prospect theory explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation & success. New Haven: Yale University Press.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: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30: 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. 2010. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2013. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23: 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R. L. 1998. New communication technologies: An issues management point of view. Public Relations Review, 24: 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, R. M. Jr., Bromiley, P., Devers, C. E., Holcomb, T. R., & McGuire, J. B. 2011. Management theory applications of prospect theory: Accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Management, 37, 1069–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. L., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Besiou, M., & Van Halderen, M. 2013. The agenda-setting power of stakeholder media. California Management Review, 56(1): 24–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILO. 2011. ILO introductory report: Global trends and challenges on occupational safety and health. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26: 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16: 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics & economics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 404–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. 2013. Stakeholder happiness enhancement: A neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23: 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58: 697–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39: 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, N. M., & Oglethorpe, J. E. 1987. Cognitive reference points in consumer decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 14: 183–187.Google Scholar
Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G. 2012. The use of multiple reference points in risky decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25: 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köszegi, B., & Rabin, M. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121: 1133–1165.Google Scholar
Kuhberger, A. 1998. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. 2012. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37: 300–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lankoski, L. 2008. Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: A theory of why and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17: 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34: 1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laszlo, C. 2008. Sustainable value: How the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. 1988. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15: 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. 2002. A tale of two pizzas: Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters, 13: 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D., Mellers, B. A., & Chang, S. 1993. Is choice the correct primitive? On using certainty equivalents and reference levels to predict choices among gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33: 1404–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305.CrossRefGoogle 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: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. 2011. Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37: 1480–1495.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, M. 2004. An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11: 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13: 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plottu, E., & Plottu, B. 2007. The concept of total economic value of environment: A reconsideration within a hierarchical rationality. Ecological Economics, 61(1): 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritov, I., & Baron, J. 1999. Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 79(2): 79–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowley, T., & Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28: 204–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, F. M. 2012. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111: 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Patzer, M. 2011. Where is the theory in stakeholder theory? A meta-analysis of the pluralism in stakeholder theory. In Phillips, R. (Ed.), Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects: 140–162. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. 2008. Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business & Society, 47: 148–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimizu, K. 2007. Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1495–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. 2000. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, B., Lerner, J. S., & Green, M. C. 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 853–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Value. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/.Google Scholar
Wagner, T., Lutz, R., & Weitz, B. A. 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6): 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, G. 1986. Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Academy of Management Review, 11: 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, R. M., & Catanach, A. H. 1997. A longitudinal disaggregation of operational risk under changing regulations: Evidence from the savings and loan industry. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 799–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, R. M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 1998. A behavioural agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 23: 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13: 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. A. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3: 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Bartol, K. M., Smith, K. G., Pfarrer, M. D., & Khanin, D. M. 2008. CEOs on the edge: Earnings manipulation and stock-based incentive misalignment. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar