The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives
Abstract
Instrumental stakeholder theory proposes a positive relationship between fairness toward stakeholders and firm performance. Yet, some firms are successful with an arms‐length approach to stakeholder management, based on bargaining power rather than fairness. We address this puzzle by relaxing the assumption that all stakeholders care about fairness. Empirical evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology suggests that firms face a population of potential stakeholders that consists not only of so‐called ‘reciprocators,’ who do care about fairness, but also of self‐regarding stakeholders, who do not. We propose that a fairness approach is more effective in attracting, retaining, and motivating reciprocal stakeholders to create value, while an arms‐length approach is more effective in motivating self‐regarding stakeholders and in attracting and retaining self‐regarding stakeholders with high bargaining power . Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Altruistic punishment in humans
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415137a · Cited by 5,616
Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815768 · Cited by 2,634
Psychological foundations of incentives
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(01)00208-2 · Cited by 1,240
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 · Cited by 1,127
Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.743 · Cited by 558
Cited by
Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm
Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206321993576 · Cited by 747
Schultz, F. C., Valentinov, V., Kirchherr, J., Reinhardt, R. J., & Pies, I. (2024) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3592 · Cited by 82
Bal, P. M., & de Jong, S. B. (2017) · Dignity and the Organization · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55562-5_9 · Cited by 60
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-26
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-125
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W1849200625
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 63.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2089
- The paper
- Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2089
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
