IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i17p7665-d1732372.html

Lifting the Veil of Linking Stakeholder Salience and Environmental Proactivity: The Perspectives of Attention-Based View

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-Liang Luo

    (Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, No. 151, Daxue Road, Sanxia District, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan)

  • Hui-Chen Chang

    (Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, No. 151, Daxue Road, Sanxia District, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan)

Abstract

Amid escalating regulatory and stakeholder pressures, corporate environmental practices emerge as strategic competitive advantages. Yet, research lacks depth on the interactions among PLU (power, legitimacy, and urgency) attributes and resource-constrained decision pathways. Integrating stakeholder theory and the attention-based view (ABV), a pressure–attention–action model is developed in this study to explain the voluntary adoption of ultra-regulatory proactive environmental practices (PEPs). An analysis of 503 Taiwanese firms using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) reveals that (1) stakeholder legitimacy (β = 0.146, p < 0.01) and urgency (β = 0.215, p < 0.001) significantly increase perceived stakeholder pressure, whereas power exhibits no significant effect (β = 0.067, p > 0.05); (2) firm size positively moderates the pressure–resource linkage (β = 0.239, p < 0.001); and (3) urgency triggers partial mediation (57.4% VAF) through pressure and resources to drive proactive environmental practices. Firm size moderates pressure–resource linkages, with urgency prompting resource reallocation for environmental proactivity across scales. A dynamic PLU assessment tool and scale-sensitive strategies are proposed, challenging power-centric paradigms and aiding SMEs through collaborative networks. Limitations of the study include cross-sectional data and a regional focus, necessitating longitudinal and cross-industry validation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Liang Luo & Hui-Chen Chang, 2025. "Lifting the Veil of Linking Stakeholder Salience and Environmental Proactivity: The Perspectives of Attention-Based View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7665-:d:1732372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7665/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7665/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristel Buysse & Alain Verbeke, 2003. "Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 453-470, May.
    2. Krishna Udayasankar, 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Size," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 167-175, December.
    3. Danso, Albert & Adomako, Samuel & Lartey, Theophilus & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Owusu-Yirenkyi, Diana, 2020. "Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 652-662.
    4. Aseem Prakash, 2001. "Why do firms adopt ‘beyond‐compliance’ environmental policies?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(5), pages 286-299, September.
    5. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    6. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    7. Teece, David J, 2018. "Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 359-368, May.
    8. Chang, Yu-Yu & Chen, Ming-Huei, 2020. "Creative entrepreneurs’ creativity, opportunity recognition, and career success: Is resource availability a double-edged sword?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 750-762.
    9. Jiang, Zhenyu & Wang, Zongjun & Lan, Xiao, 2021. "How environmental regulations affect corporate innovation? The coupling mechanism of mandatory rules and voluntary management," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Donal Crilly & Pamela Sloan, 2012. "Enterprise logic: explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside‐out’," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(10), pages 1174-1193, October.
    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. Chernyi, Alex & Uotila, Juha, 2024. "Prioritization of organizational stakeholders: A managerial decision-making perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Chliova, Myrto & Cacciotti, Gabriella & Kautonen, Teemu & Pavez, Ignacio, 2025. "Reacting to criticism: What motivates top leaders to respond substantively to negative social performance feedback?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    3. Marcos Carchano & Inmaculada Carrasco & Angela González, 2025. "Examining environmental proactivity in the Spanish wine industry: The moderating role of size," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 127-157, January.
    4. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    5. Dan Huang & Jie Cheng & Xiaofeng Quan & Yanling Wu, 2024. "Managerial attention to environmental protection and corporate green innovation," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 1047-1081, October.
    6. Won-Yong Oh & Young Kyun Chang & Gyeonghwan Lee & Jeongil Seo, 2018. "Intragroup Transactions, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Philanthropy in Korean Business Groups," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1031-1049, December.
    7. Islam Bourini & Osama Khassawneh & Tamara Mohammad, 2024. "Towards sustainability in the services industry: Does green top management support stimulate an organization's green operational performance? A moderated mediation model," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 7788-7799, December.
    8. Yann Truong & Brian G. Nagy, 2021. "Nascent ventures’ green initiatives and angel investor judgments of legitimacy and funding," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1801-1818, December.
    9. Olivier Beaumais & Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2024. "Unaware corporate social responsibility: impact of firm size, motivations and external pressures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(20), pages 2386-2406, April.
    10. Vracheva, Veselina & Judge, William Q. & Madden, Timothy, 2016. "Enterprise strategy concept, measurement, and validation: Integrating stakeholder engagement into the firm's strategic architecture," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 374-385.
    11. Jieqiong Yu & Carlos Wing‐Hung Lo & Pansy Hon Ying Li, 2017. "Organizational Visibility, Stakeholder Environmental Pressure and Corporate Environmental Responsiveness in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 371-384, March.
    12. Daxin Sun & Saixing Zeng & Hongquan Chen & Xiaohua Meng & Zhizhou Jin, 2019. "Monitoring effect of transparency: How does government environmental disclosure facilitate corporate environmentalism?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1594-1607, December.
    13. Jong-Wan Bae & Sang-Joon Kim, 2022. "How Do Active Firms Implementing Corporate Environmental Responsibility Take Technological Approaches to Environmental Issues? A Resource-Allocation Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-13, July.
    14. Šimpachová Pechrová, Marie & Šimpach, Ondřej, 2024. "The Relationship Between Agricultural Holdings and Municipalities," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 16(01), March.
    15. Weiwei Wu & Zhou Liang & Qi Zhang, 2020. "Effects of corporate environmental responsibility strength and concern on innovation performance: The moderating role of firm visibility," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1487-1497, May.
    16. Paul T. M. Ingenbleek & Domenico Dentoni, 2016. "Learning from Stakeholder Pressure and Embeddedness: The Roles of Absorptive Capacity in the Corporate Social Responsibility of Dutch Agribusinesses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Nigel James Martin & John Lewis Rice, 2014. "Influencing Clean Energy Laws: an Analysis of Business Stakeholder Engagement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(7), pages 447-460, November.
    18. Violetta Bacon-Gerasymenko & Jonathan D. Arthurs & Sam Y. Cho, 2020. "How and When Investment Horizons Determine Venture Capital Firms’ Attention Breadth to Portfolio Companies," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(3), pages 475-503, May.
    19. Oksana Seroka‐Stolka & Kamil Fijorek, 2020. "Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Proactive environmental strategy, stakeholder pressure and the moderating effect of firm size," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2338-2354, September.
    20. Déirdre Crowe & Louis Brennan, 2007. "Environmental considerations within manufacturing strategy: an international study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 266-289, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7665-:d:1732372. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.