Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory

Journal of International Business Studies

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 694-717

  Crilly, Donal ^a  

^a LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

corporate social responsibility; fuzzy set methods; global stakeholders

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959245757     PISSN: 00472506     EISSN: 14786990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2010.57     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863.
2. Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robbins, G. E. 2005. Aclash ofcapitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate restructuring in 1990s Japan. American Sociological Review, 70(3): 451-471. (Pubitemid 41184044)
3. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. 2005. Identity and the economics of organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 9-32.
4. Allen, W. T. 1992. Our schizophrenic conception of the business corporation. Cardozo Law Review, 14(2): 261-282.
5. Bagnoli, M., & Watts, S. 2003. Selling to socially responsible consumers: Competition and the private provision of public goods. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12(3): 419-445. (Pubitemid 37023332)
6. Bail, C. A. 2008. The configuration of symbolic boundaries against immigrants in Europe. American Sociological Review, 73(1): 37-59.
7. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717-736.
8. Baron, D. 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(1): 7-45. (Pubitemid 33574140)
9. Berle, A. A. 1931. Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7): 1049-1074.
10. Berman, S., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506.
11. Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. 1999. A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2): 247-328.
12. Brannen, M. Y., & Peterson, M. F. 2009. Merging without alienating: Interventions promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 468-489.
13. Brickson, S. L. 2005. Organizational identityorientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4): 576-609. (Pubitemid 43448574)
14. Cyert, R. M., & March,J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Dodd, E. M. 1932. Forwhom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45(7): 1145-1163.
16. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
17. Dore, R. 2008. Financialization of theglobal economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(6): 1097-1112.
18. Dunning, J. H. 1993. Re-evaluating the benefits offoreign direct investment. Transnational Corporations, 3(1): 23-52.
19. Dunning, J. H. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise. A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 45-66.
20. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660-697.
21. Edwards, R., Ahmad, A., & Moss, S. 2002. Subsidiary autonomy: The case of multinational subsidiaries in Malaysia. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 183-191.
22. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
23. Epstein,J., Duerr, D., Kenworthy, L., & Ragin, C. 2008. Comparative employment performance: Afuzzy-set analysis. In L Kenworth & A. Hicks(Eds), Method and substance in macro comparative analysis: 67-90. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Fama, E. F., &Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2): 301-325.
25. Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1180-1198.
26. Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 393-420.
27. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2004. The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(4): 501-534. (Pubitemid 40687951)
28. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1173-1193.
29. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
30. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September: 122-126.
31. Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191-205.
32. Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. 2008. A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design. Organization Studies, 29(3): 459-485.
33. Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. 2008. Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 695-726.
34. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P.A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advan-tage: 1-68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? StrategicManagement Journal, 22(2): 125-139. (Pubitemid 33617225)
36. Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 838-849. (Pubitemid 44721147)
38. Hymer, S. H. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study offoreign direct investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Jensen, M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235-256.
40. Johnson, S., Kaufmann, D., & Shleifer, A. 1997. The unofficial economy in transition. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2: 159-239. (Pubitemid 127347341)
41. Kacperczyk, A. 2009. With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 30(3): 261-285.
42. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institu-tional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215-233.
43. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multi-national enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64-81.
44. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994-1006.
45. Kuemmerle, W. 1999. The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1): 1-24.
46. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. 2002. Corporate social responsi-bility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 497-514.
47. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268-305.
48. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 603-609.
49. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117-127.
50. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D.J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886.
51. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 385-406. (Pubitemid 39443155)
52. Pajunen, K. 2008. Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 652-669.
53. Pfeffer, J. 2009. Renaissance and renewal in management studies: Relevance regained. European Management Review, 6(3): 141-148.
54. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
55. Phillips, R. A., Berman, S. L., Elms, H., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. 2010. Strategy, stakeholders, and managerial discretion. Strategic Organization, 8(2): 176-183.
56. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. 2002. Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
57. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. 1987. The multinational mission. New York: Free Press.
58. Pratt, M. G. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5): 856-862.
59. Ragin, C. C. 2006a. User'sguide to fuzzy-set/qualitative compara-tive analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Department of Sociology.
60. Ragin, C. C. 2006b. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistencyand coverage. PoliticalAnalysis, 14(3): 291-310. (Pubitemid 43941857)
61. Ragin, C. C. 2008a. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62. Ragin, C. C. 2008b. Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In J. Box Steffensmeier, H. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds), The Oxford handbook of political methodology: 174-198. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Ragin, C. C., & Fiss, P. 2008. Net effects versus configurations: An empirical demonstration. In C.C. Ragin (Ed.), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond: 190-212. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64. Ragin, C. C., Drass, K. A., & Davey, S. 2006. Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Department of Sociology.
65. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds) 2008. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) andrelatedtechniques. London: Sage.
66. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 204-219. (Pubitemid 36446324)
67. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899-931.
68. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. 2006. Reducing complexity in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 45(5): 751-786. (Pubitemid 44246308)
69. Schneider, M., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. 2010. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 246-266.
70. Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.
71. Siegel, D.S.,& Vitaliano, D. F. 2007. An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3): 773-792.
72. Singh, J. S. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3): 562-585.
73. Stevens,J. M., Steensma, H. K., Harrison, D. A., & Cochran, P. L. 2005. Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives' decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 181-195 (Pubitemid 40087725)
74. UNDP. 2009. Human development report 2009. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
75. Vaisey, S. 2007. Structure, culture, and community: The search for belonging in 50 urban communities. American Sociological Review, 72(6): 851-873.
76. Vernon, R. 1998. In the hurricane's eye: The troubled prospects of multinationalenterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77. Walsh,J. P., Meyer, A. D., & Schoonhoven, C. B. 2006. Afuture for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science, 17(5): 657-671. (Pubitemid 44506625)
78. Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1): 41-57.
79. Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. 2008. Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D.S. Siegel (Eds), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 452-472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80. Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. 2009. Culture, meaning, and institutions: Executive rationale in Germany and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 859-885.
81. Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691-718.
82. Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3): 338-353.