The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management
Open accessAbstract
The literatures on stakeholder engagement by companies and organizational learning give little consideration to the power (or influence) of stakeholders to affect the process or content of organizational learning. These literatures generally assume that common ground between companies and their stakeholders can be established as a prerequisite for learning, that learning is a quasi-autonomous process unaffected by the motives or power of stakeholders, and that actors have the power to fulfil roles that are critical in fostering learning. The paper seeks to address these omissions, examining how and why stakeholder power and organizational learning interact, drawing on comparative case studies of the environmental management practices found in two major companies. The evidence from these cases suggests a complex relationship between the ambition of company goals, the structure of learning, and the influence of stakeholders on the process and outcomes of learning. Exploitative learning routines were effective when stakeholder influences converged, whereas explorative learning took place without convergence but the implementation of this learning was hampered. We suggest that this raises important issues for companies that seek to undertake both exploitative and explorative learning and that future studies of organizational learning should take more explicit account of the effects of stakeholder power.
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
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Bounded rationality and organizational learning
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125 · Cited by 3,028
Cited by
Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez‐Torre, P., & Adenso‐Diaz, B. (2010) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001 · Cited by 1,518
Zhang, F., & Zhu, L. (2019) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2298 · Cited by 485
Ardito, L., Raby, S., Albino, V., & Bertoldi, B. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.022 · Cited by 485
Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food supply chains perspective
Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. (2014) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011 · Cited by 481
Embracing digital networks: Entrepreneurs' social capital online
Smith, C., Smith, J. B., & Shaw, E. (2017) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.003 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Roome, N., & Wijen, F.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-263
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2002261239
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840605057669
- The paper
- Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2006). Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057669
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.