The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategic Cognition and Issue Salience: Toward an Explanation of Firm Responsiveness to Stakeholder Concerns
Abstract
As a new perspective for understanding firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns, we propose a strategic cognition view of issue salience—that is, the degree to which a stakeholder issue resonates with and is prioritized by management. Specifically, we explain how a firm's cognitive structures of organizational identity and strategic frames use different core logics to influence managerial interpretation of an issue as salient. We then present a typology of firm responsiveness and suggest that firms will respond more substantially to those issues perceived as salient to both cognitive logics and more symbolically to those issues perceived as salient to only one logic. This article fills key gaps in our understanding of how firms manage and respond to stakeholders by focusing on the salience of the issue and incorporating strategic cognition as a key mediating mechanism.
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
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in Strategic Management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,802
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,122
Gioia, D. A., Mehra, A., & Weick, K. E. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259169 · Cited by 15,614
Research in Organizational Behavior.
Grimes, A. J., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392975 · Cited by 10,899
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
Cited by
An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0718 · Cited by 722
Willing and Able: A General Model of Organizational Responses to Normative Pressures
Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0107 · Cited by 367
CEO Sociopolitical Activism: A Stakeholder Alignment Model
Hambrick, D. C., & Wowak, A. J. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0084 · Cited by 322
On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility
Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0208 · Cited by 209
Social Activism and Practice Diffusion: How Activist Tactics Affect Non-targeted Organizations
Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S. (2015) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839215579235 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 352-376
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2138445542
- Cited by
- 470
- References
- 127
- FWCI
- 49.74
- 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: Strategic Cognition and Issue Salience: Toward an Explanation of Firm Responsiveness to Stakeholder Concerns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.2011.0179
- The paper
- Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic Cognition and Issue Salience: Toward an Explanation of Firm Responsiveness to Stakeholder Concerns. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0179
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.
