IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v56y2013i3p313-322.html

How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, Jeffrey S.
  • Bosse, Douglas A.

Abstract

Firms must allocate some minimum amount of value to stakeholders in order to retain access to the resources they provide. Stakeholder theory suggests managers optimize firm-level performance by allocating more than this minimum amount. However, how much is too much? This article addresses the misleading notion that more is always better when it comes to the treatment of stakeholders and, in doing so, provides needed refinement of the boundary of stakeholder theory's predictions. The upside for managers is guidance in distinguishing between the types of value-allocating behaviors that will lead to greater value creation in their firms and actions that are likely to reduce value overall.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, Jeffrey S. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2013. "How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 313-322.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:56:y:2013:i:3:p:313-322
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681313000153
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.014?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    2. Jaepil Choi & Heli Wang, 2009. "Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 895-907, August.
    3. Russell W. Coff, 1999. "When Competitive Advantage Doesn't Lead to Performance: The Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 119-133, April.
    4. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    5. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    6. Britt, Steuart-Henderson & Nelson, Victoria M., 1976. "The marketing importance of the "Just Noticeable Difference"," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 38-40, August.
    7. William Robert Nelson, 2001. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1180-1183, September.
    8. Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips & Jeffrey S. Harrison, 2009. "Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 447-456, April.
    9. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Axel v. Werder, 2011. "Corporate Governance and Stakeholder Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1345-1358, October.
    2. Ileana Maldonado-Bautista & Peter G. Klein & Kendall W. Artz, 2023. "The Role of Political Values and Ideologies of Entrepreneurs and Financiers," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(1), pages 172-205, January.
    3. Livio, Luca & De Chiara, Alessandro, 2019. "Friends or foes? Optimal incentives for reciprocal agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 245-278.
    4. Onyeiwu, Steve & Jones, Robert, 2003. "An institutionalist perception of cooperative behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 233-248, July.
    5. Wei Jiang & Aric Xu Wang & Kevin Zheng Zhou & Chuang Zhang, 2020. "Stakeholder Relationship Capability and Firm Innovation: A Contingent Analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 111-125, November.
    6. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    7. Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Rashidah Abdul Rahman & Saeid Homayoun, 2020. "Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    9. Andrea Guido & Alejandro Martinez-Marquina & Ryan Rholes, 2020. "Information Asymmetry and Beliefs Reveal Self Interest Not Fairness," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-53, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    10. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    11. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2016-029 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Nobel Prize Committee, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    13. Becchetti, Leonardo & Ciciretti, Rocco & Hasan, Iftekhar, 2009. "Corporate social responsibility and shareholder's value: an empirical analysis," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 1/2009, Bank of Finland.
    14. Ulrike Malmendier & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2017. "You Owe Me," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(2), pages 493-526, February.
    15. Andrea Vaona, 2013. "The Most Beautiful Variations on Fair Wages and the Phillips Curve," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(6), pages 1069-1084, September.
    16. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Matthieu Chemin & Joost DeLaat & André Kurmann, 2011. "Reciprocity in Labor Relations: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Long-Term Relationships," Cahiers de recherche 1127, CIRPEE.
    18. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2023. "Wage claim detracts reciprocity in labor relations: experimental study of gift exchange games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 18(3), pages 573-597, July.
    19. Yoshifumi Hino & Yusuke Zennyo, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility and strategic relationships," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 64(3), pages 231-244, September.
    20. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Moral hazard: Base models and two extensions," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 16, pages 453-485, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Susan Athey & Glenn Ellison, 2014. "Dynamics of Open Source Movements," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 294-316, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bushor:v:56:y:2013:i:3:p:313-322. 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.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    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.