Business Ethics: A European Review
Call for Papers
Stakeholder Theory and Value Creation: Contextualized Perspectives
Dima Jamali (1) and Edward Freeman (2)
(1) Professor, American University of Beirut, Kamal Shair Endowed Chair in Leadership
(2) Professor, University of Virginia, Elis and Signe Olsson Professor of Business Administration
Special Issue Description
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has taken the world of business by storm in recent years, with globally ascending templates and expectations that firms need to exhibit more proactive engagement and work for the betterment of the societies in which they operate (Carroll, 1979; Jamali and Neville, 2011; Jamali et al., 2015a). In parallel, stakeholder theory had been gaining momentum in the business and society literature due to its practicality from the perspective of managers and scholars (Jamali, 2008). The publication of Freeman's (1984) landmark book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, marked an important turning point in the management literature, enhancing our understanding of how organizations operate in competitive markets and the process of decision-making in the modern firm in terms of goals, expectations and choice making guidelines (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). We have seen thereafter a stream of publications and contributions that explore the interfaces of stakeholder theory and CSR, and how organizations go about the management of multiple, diverse, and often competing and incongruent stakeholder interests in the context of CSR (Fooks et al., 2013; Jamali, 2008; Yang and Rivers, 2009; Jamali et al., 2015b).
Three common uses of stakeholder theory have been dissected in the literature, including, descriptive, instrumental and normative (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Descriptive stakeholder theory is used to describe and explain stakeholder management behaviors including how in the context of CSR, managers think about their responsibilities, and balance the interests of different stakeholders. This strand of stakeholder theory is commonly used in explorative research describing empirically how CSR is approached (e.g. Jamali, 2008; Yang and Rivers, 2009). Instrumental stakeholder theory has also been commonly used in CSR related research particularly in exploring the connections between CSR, stakeholder management and the achievement of traditional organizational objectives as in growth and profitability. The bulk of the research falling under this stream has been quantitative in nature examining how CSR and ensuing patterns of stakeholder management promotes or hinders the achievement of corporate performance objectives (e.g. Barnett, 2007; Berman et al., 1999). The normative strand of stakeholder theory has also been commonly used in the context of CSR research, focusing on the identification of moral or philosophical guidelines underpinning CSR and stakeholder management in specific situations (e.g. Carroll, 1991; Reed, 2002).
Donaldson and Preston (1995) argue that stakeholder theory would be more precise if we distinguished among these three forms. They claim that "the muddling of theoretical bases and objectives, although often understandable, has led to less rigorous thinking and analysis than the stakeholder concept requires" (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Freeman (1994), on the other hand, considered Donaldson and Preston's distinction as a form of artificial bifurcation or separation that leaves business and ethics disconnected. Freeman (1999) claims that all three uses of stakeholder theory are forms of story-telling and that all three uses have elements of the others embedded within them. In this respect, Freeman (2000) suggests to give up such categorical separation by adopting the managerial approach, a fourth approach to stakeholder theory that combines descriptive, normative, and instrumental strands. The latter "focuses on concrete business problems, addressing simultaneously why stakeholder management might result in better outcomes and how it might incorporate stakeholder interests into business strategies" (McVea and Freeman, 2005). Thus, managerial stakeholder theory combines value creation and trade (Freeman, 2000) by enabling managers to consider and seek to make decisions that create more value for all the stakeholders affected by the decisions.
While significant progress has been made to date using different strands of stakeholder theory in CSR research and improving our understanding of business-society relationships, comparative research remains thin. Particularly very little research has examined, using a stakeholder lens, how conceptions of CSR and stakeholders potentially differ between developed and developing countries. Given documented significant differences in the institutional constellations of developed and developing countries (Jamali and Neville, 2011; Visser, 2008), and an increasing body of literature suggesting the context dependence of CSR and stakeholder management, we see room for innovative and ground breaking contributions that tease out and document those differences with greater rigor and detail. Specifically, using a combination of the three strands of stakeholder theory fleshed out above, we invite contributions to this Special Issue that examine, using a stakeholder lens, differences in how CSR and value creation are understood, approached and managed across countries and in developing countries more specifically. In fact, Reed (2002), notes along these lines, that stakeholder theory has advanced exponentially yet been slower to progress in terms of appreciation that its application is in fact significantly conditioned by the context in which it is employed and that circumstances can change the nature of the 3 normative obligations that companies face and ensuring patterns of stakeholder management.
Hence, in this Special Issue, we start from the assumption that context is important for management scholarship because it shapes the boundary conditions within which business operates (Bruton et al., 2009; Gerard, 2014; Jamali and Sidani, 2012; Jamali et al., 2015a). Our efforts are thus guided by advice to bring context center stage in management research and to be mindful of its potential significance in informing phenomena being explained (Gerard, 2014; Rousseau and Fried, 2001). We are also guided by conceptions and definitions of CSR that are contextually grounded and also conceptions of CSR that go well beyond traditional philanthropy to capture different forms of shared value creation that seek to reconcile economic and social goals. Rather than supplementing traditional economic value by bolting on CSR initiatives, shared value creation reconciles social and economic ends which are conceived as intertwined and essential to firm competitiveness (Porter and Karmer, 2011).Within these broad guidelines, we invite contributions to this Special Issue that use stakeholder theory to advance our understanding of CSR and shared value creation in different contexts.
Using stakeholder management as a grand theory, this Special Issue invites reflection on its application in different contexts, using a combination of descriptive, instrumental and normative strands. We are particularly interested in comparative studies that gauge how finer-grained contextual considerations may lead to different applications of stakeholder theory and stakeholder management across contexts (please see Jamali et al., 2015a; Jamali et al., 2015b). Using managerial stakeholder theory and broader conceptions of CSR as in shared value creation, we encourage research that explores the intersections of the two or whether shared value creation requires specific forms of stakeholder management, or whether specific forms and types of stakeholder management may lead to different approaches to shared value creation.
Some of the topics that can be considered further, include, but are not limited to:
-How does context influence decision-making processes in relation to CSR, shared value creation and patterns of stakeholder management.
-How can we account more systematically for broader political economy considerations and the influence of socio-political considerations on CSR, shared value creation, and stakeholder management in developed versus developing countries?
-Is stakeholder salience socially constructed, and do the attributes of stakeholder salience identified by Mitchell et al. (1997) acquire different nuances and connotations across contexts?
-Using a shared value creation lens, how do firms actually balance and attend to divergent stakeholder interests in relation to CSR in developed versus developing countries?
-Are there different conceptions of CSR and shared value creation in different contexts and what are the implications for stakeholder management in different contexts? 4
-What are some documented and/or differentiated patterns of stakeholder management and shared value creation across different contexts? How do we make sense of those? Does CSR add or detract value in different contexts, and what is the role of stakeholders in this regard?
-At the micro level, how do managers' characteristics/behaviors affect the firm's relationship with its stakeholders and ensuing patterns of shared value creation in different contexts?
Submission Instructions
Questions related to the special issue should be addressed to Prof. Dima Jamali (dj00@aub.edu.lb). Authors are invited to submit their proposals to Dima Jamali at dj00@aub.edu.lb by January 30 2016, indicating that this is a proposal for this Special Issue. The full papers should be submitted through the Business Ethics: A European Review (BEER) Scholar One Submission System, also indicating that this is a submission to the Special Issue. Submitted papers should follow the Business Ethics: A European Review Guidelines for authors. Submissions should include an abstract of 100-150 words, followed by 3-5 keywords. The manuscript should not contain any indication of authorship and should be submitted separately from the title page with full author information for contact. Business Ethics: A European Review uses the citation and reference system of the American Psychological Association (APA) and any paper published in Business Ethics: A European Review can be taken as an example.
Special Issue Timeline and Deadlines
Target Dates
Submission of 5-6 Page Proposal 30 January 2016
Notification of Suitability / Fit 15 March 2016
Submission of Complete First Draft 15 July 2016
Resubmission of Final Draft 15 October 2016
Selected References
Barnett, M.L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32:3, 794-816.
Berman, S.L., A.C. Wicks, S. Kotha, and Jones, T.M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 42:5, 488-506. 5
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., and Puky, T. 2009. Institutional differences and the development of entrepreneurial ventures: a comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin American and Asia. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 762-778.
Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., and Lee, K. 2013. The limits of corporate social responsibility: techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112:2, 283-299.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business ethics quarterly, 4(04), 409-421.
Freeman, R. E. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of management review, 24(2), 233-236.
Freeman, R. E. 2000. Business ethics at the millenium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 169-181.
Gerard, G. 2014. Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57, pp. 1-6.
Jamali, D. 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82:1, 213-231.
Jamali, D. and Neville, B. 2011. Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: an embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 599-621.
Jamali, D., Karam, C., and Blowfield, M. 2015a. Development Oriented CSR. London, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Jamali, D., Lund-Thomsen, P., and Khara N. 2015b. CSR Institutionalized Myths in Developing Countries: An Imminent Threat of Selective Decoupling. Business and Society: 1-33.
Jamali, D. and Sidani, Y. 2012. CSR in the Middle East: Fresh Perspectives. Palgrave Mcmillan Publishing.
McVea, J. F., and Freeman, R. E. 2005. A Names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management how focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of management inquiry, 14(1), 57-69.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., and 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.
Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R. 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89: 62-77.
Reed, D. 2002. Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries a critical theory perspective. Business & Society, 41:2, 166-207.
Rousseau, D.M. and Fried, Y. 2001. 'Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research'. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22:1, 1-13.
Visser, W. 2008. 'Corporate social responsibility in developing countries'. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel, (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: 473-479. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, X, and Rivers, C. 2009. 'Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs' subsidiaries: a stakeholder and institutional perspective.' Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 155-169
******************************
Dima Jamali, PhD
Professor of Management
Kamal Shair Endowed Chair in Leadership
Editor in Chief – Business Ethics: A European Review
American University of Beirut
Olayan School of Business
Bliss Street, PO Box 11-0236
Beirut, Lebanon
Phone: 961-1-350000 x3727
Latest Publication: Near and Dear: The Role of Location in CSR Engagement – Strategic Management Journal (On-Line)
******************************
******************************
Dima Jamali, PhD
Professor of Management
Kamal Shair Endowed Chair in Leadership
Editor in Chief – Business Ethics: A European Review
American University of Beirut
Olayan School of Business
Bliss Street, PO Box 11-0236
Beirut, Lebanon
Phone: 961-1-350000 x3727
Latest Publication: Near and Dear: The Role of Location in CSR Engagement – Strategic Management Journal (On-Line)
******************************