The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stakeholder Relationships and Social Welfare: A Behavioral Theory of Contributions to Joint Value Creation
Open accessAbstract
Firms play a crucial role in furthering social welfare through their ability to foster stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation—value creation that involves a public good dilemma arising from high task and outcome interdependence—leading to what economists have labeled the “team production problem.” We build on relational models theory to examine how individual stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation are shaped by stakeholders’ mental representations of their relationships with the other participants in value creation, and how these mental representations are affected by the perceived behavior of the firm. Stakeholder theorists typically contrast a broadly defined “relational” approach to stakeholder management with a “transactional” approach based on the price mechanism—and argue that the former is more likely than the latter to contribute to social welfare. Our theory supports this prediction for joint value creation but also implies that the dichotomy on which it is based is too coarse grained; there are three distinct ways to trigger higher contributions to joint value creation than through a transactional approach. Our theory also helps explain the tendency for firms and their stakeholders to converge on transactional relationships, despite their relative inefficiency in the context of joint value creation.
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
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.375 · Cited by 5,649
Altruistic punishment in humans
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415137a · Cited by 5,616
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0046408 · Cited by 4,819
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 · Cited by 3,401 · cited 1×
“With EM and AR the level of self-representation is interpersonal, which means that stakeholders not only are concerned with their personal welfare but also have a genuine concern for the welfare of the other participants (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brickson, 2007).”
The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 · Cited by 2,510
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 · Cited by 2,381
Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism
Adler, P. S. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 · Cited by 1,512
The psychological consequences of money
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1132491 · Cited by 1,337
Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0021867 · Cited by 887
Bowles, S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152110 · Cited by 833
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204264004 · Cited by 671
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
A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z · Cited by 995
Business cases for sustainability: a stakeholder theory perspective
Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2019) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026617722882 · Cited by 477
Beyond primacy: a stakeholder theory of corporate governance
Stoelhorst, J. W., & Vishwanathan, P. (2024) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0268 · Cited by 117
Self-citationWhat 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
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 229-251
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2276575327
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 38.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.