The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach
Abstract
We integrate theory and research from disparate areas to develop a descriptive stakeholder theory. We (1) show that at any given organizational life cycle stage, certain stakeholders, because of their potential to satisfy critical organizational needs, will be more important than others; (2) identify specific stakeholders likely to become more or less important as an organization evolves from one stage to the next; and (3) propose that the strategy an organization uses to deal with each stakeholder will depend on the importance of that stakeholder to the organization relative to other stakeholders.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance
Carroll, A. B. (1979) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257850 · Cited by 10,480
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592
Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences
Rowley, T. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107 · Cited by 2,522
STAKEHOLDER MISMATCHING: A THEORETICAL PROBLEM IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995) · The International Journal of Organizational Analysis · doi:10.1108/eb028831 · Cited by 1,069
Designs for Crisis Decision Units
Smart, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392406 · Cited by 323
Cited by
Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.820 · Cited by 2,252
Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070303258971 · Cited by 1,873
Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research
Cheng, M. (2016) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003 · Cited by 888
Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning
Ebrahim, A. (2005) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764004269430 · Cited by 617
Do long-term institutional investors promote corporate social responsibility activities?
Kim, H.-D., Kim, T., Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2019) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.11.015 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 397
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140701425
- Cited by
- 1,205
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 47.88
- 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
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.
