IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v114y2022ics0166497222000074.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder engagement strategy of technology firms: A review and applied view of stakeholder theory

Author

Listed:
  • Shah, Muhammad Umair
  • Guild, Paul D.

Abstract

This research explores how managers and leaders of the information and communications technology (ICT) firms perceive receptiveness of start-up, growth, or mature developmental stage organizations toward ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR), ‘creating shared value’ (CSV), and ‘creating value for all stakeholders’ (VAS) business-stakeholder engagement models. Drawing from the three fundamental tenets of stakeholder theory, defined as ‘jointness of interest’, ‘cooperative strategic posture’ and ‘rejection of a narrowly economic view of the firm’, we found that start-up firms tend to be receptive toward VAS, growth towards CSR, and mature towards CSV business-engagement models. These exploratory findings are important as they suggest that even though a society that seeks to encourage technology companies to broaden their range of stakeholders for innovation, such as their communities or the environment, they might best direct instrumental change toward start-up firms as appreciative of VAS model. We see evidence that these new firms require some time to develop perspectives of ‘jointness of interest’ as they strive to become growth or mature firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Shah, Muhammad Umair & Guild, Paul D., 2022. "Stakeholder engagement strategy of technology firms: A review and applied view of stakeholder theory," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0166497222000074
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222000074
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Mair & Ignasi Marti, 2006. "Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight," Post-Print hal-02311880, HAL.
    2. H. Robert Dodge & Sam Fullerton & John E. Robbins, 1994. "Stage of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 121-134, February.
    3. Birte Freudenreich & Florian Lüdeke-Freund & Stefan Schaltegger, 2020. "A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on Business Models: Value Creation for Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 3-18, September.
    4. Su‐Jung Nam & Hyesun Hwang, 2019. "What makes consumers respond to creating shared value strategy? Considering consumers as stakeholders in sustainable development," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 388-395, March.
    5. Laura Michelini & Daniela Fiorentino, 2012. "New business models for creating shared value," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(4), pages 561-577, September.
    6. Sandra A. Waddock & Samuel B. Graves, 1997. "The Corporate Social Performance–Financial Performance Link," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 303-319, April.
    7. Danny Miller & Peter H. Friesen, 1984. "A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(10), pages 1161-1183, October.
    8. Jonathan Bundy & Ryan M. Vogel & Miles A. Zachary, 2018. "Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 476-501, February.
    9. Stephen J. Brammer & Stephen Pavelin, 2006. "Corporate Reputation and Social Performance: The Importance of Fit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 435-455, May.
    10. Alfred Marcus, 1989. "The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability and safety recalls," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 233-250, May.
    11. Yuan Yuan & Louise Yi Lu & Gaoliang Tian & Yangxin Yu, 2020. "Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 359-377, March.
    12. Rob Eisinga & Manfred Grotenhuis & Ben Pelzer, 2013. "The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(4), pages 637-642, August.
    13. Bonn, Ingrid & Pettigrew, Andrew, 2009. "Towards a dynamic theory of boards: An organisational life cycle approach," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 2-16, March.
    14. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    15. Laura Michelini, 2012. "Social Innovation and New Business Models," SpringerBriefs in Business, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-32150-4, October.
    16. Robert K. Kazanjian & Robert Drazin, 1989. "An Empirical Test of a Stage of Growth Progression Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1489-1503, December.
    17. Josefina Fernández-Guadaño & Jesús H. Sarria-Pedroza, 2018. "Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Value Creation from a Stakeholder Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.
    18. Danny Samson & Pat Foley & Heng Soon Gan & Marianne Gloet, 2018. "Multi-stakeholder decision theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 268(1), pages 357-386, September.
    19. Mair, Johanna & Martí, Ignasi, 2006. "Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 36-44, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shekhar & Debadyuti Das, 2023. "Enablers of ‘Creating Shared Value’: A Total Interpretive Structural Modeling–Polarity Approach," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(2), pages 291-318, June.
    2. Sieminski, Marek, 2023. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Opinion of Managers of Small an Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Food Industry from the Warminsko-Mazurskie Province in Poland," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(1).
    3. Leenshya GUNNOO, 2023. "Customer Behaviour towards Corporate Social Responsibility: A Study in the Banking Industry in Mauritius," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 1, pages 78-88.
    4. Yiqun Duan & Fan Yang & Lin Xiong, 2023. "Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Performance and Firm Value: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-24, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wenyuan Li & Mohammed Abubakari Sadick & Abdul-Aziz Ibn Musah & Salisu Mustapha, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Social Innovation in Perspectives of Shared Value Creation in the Educational Sector of Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Yáñez-Valdés, Claudia & Guerrero, Maribel & Barros-Celume, Sebastián & Ibáñez, María J., 2023. "Winds of change due to global lockdowns: Refreshing digital social entrepreneurship research paradigm," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Jonathan Levie & Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, 2010. "A Terminal Assessment of Stages Theory: Introducing a Dynamic States Approach to Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(2), pages 317-350, March.
    4. Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez & Isabel M. García‐Sánchez & Cléber da Silva Vieira, 2014. "Climate Change and Financial Performance in Times of Crisis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(6), pages 361-374, September.
    5. Hans Rawhouser & Michael Cummings & Scott L. Newbert, 2019. "Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 82-115, January.
    6. Tae Jun Bae & James O. Fiet, 2023. "Intra-Stakeholder Heterogeneity Perspective on the Hybridity of Competing Institutional Logics for Social Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Mühlbacher, Hans & Böbel, Ingo, 2019. "From zero-sum to win-win - Organisational conditions for successful shared value strategy implementation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 313-324.
    8. Mario La Torre & Helen Chiappini (ed.), 2020. "Contemporary Issues in Sustainable Finance," Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-3-030-40248-8, December.
    9. Khaled Elsayed & David Paton, 2009. "The impact of financial performance on environmental policy: does firm life cycle matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(6), pages 397-413, September.
    10. Canestrino, Rossella & Ćwiklicki, Marek & Magliocca, Pierpaolo & Pawełek, Barbara, 2020. "Understanding social entrepreneurship: A cultural perspective in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 132-143.
    11. Nosheena Yasir & Nasir Mahmood & Hafiz Shakir Mehmood & Osama Rashid & An Liren, 2021. "The Integrated Role of Personal Values and Theory of Planned Behavior to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Hau-Lin Tam & Edward Asamoah & Angus Yuk-Fung Chan, 2021. "Developing Social Entrepreneurship as an Intervention to Enhance Disadvantaged Young People’s Sense of Self-Worth and Career Competence in Hong Kong," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(6), pages 2497-2526, December.
    13. Reeti Kulshrestha & Arunaditya Sahay & Subhanjan Sengupta, 2022. "Constituents and Drivers of Mission Engagement for Social Enterprise Sustainability: A Systematic Review," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 31(1), pages 90-120, March.
    14. Päivi Jokela & Maria Elo, 2015. "Developing Innovative Business Models in Social Ventures," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 11(1), pages 103-118.
    15. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    16. Barbara Bradač Hojnik & Katja Crnogaj, 2020. "Social Impact, Innovations, and Market Activity of Social Enterprises: Comparison of European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Inmaculada Buendía-Martínez & Inmaculada Carrasco Monteagudo, 2020. "The Role of CSR on Social Entrepreneurship: An International Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Fracarolli Nunes, Mauro & Lee Park, Camila & Shin, Hyunju, 2021. "Corporate social and environmental irresponsibilities in supply chains, contamination, and damage of intangible resources: A behavioural approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    19. Al-Shaer, Habiba & Uyar, Ali & Kuzey, Cemil & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2023. "Do shareholders punish or reward excessive CSR engagement? Moderating effect of cash flow and firm growth," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Lee, Gilsoo & Cho, Sam Yul & Arthurs, Jonathan & Lee, Eun Kyung, 2020. "Celebrity CEO, identity threat, and impression management: Impact of celebrity status on corporate social responsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 69-84.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0166497222000074. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.