IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v177y2022i3d10.1007_s10551-020-04652-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Friction

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten Martin

    (University of Notre Dame)

  • Robert Phillips

    (York University)

Abstract

A mainstay of stakeholder management is the belief that firms create value when they invest more time, money, and attention to stakeholders than is necessary for the immediate transaction. This tendency to repeat interactions with the same set of stakeholders fosters what we call stakeholder friction. Stakeholder friction is a term for the collection of social, legal, and economic forces leading firms to prioritize and reinvest in current stakeholders. For many stakeholder scholars, such friction is close to universally beneficial, but the associated costs—to both the firm and legitimate stakeholders—have been underspecified. Failure to account for the effects of stakeholder friction can cause managers to under-allocate attention and value to some legitimate stakeholders and to over-allocate attention and value to current stakeholders. We examine the concept of stakeholder friction and elaborate on three exemplar sources of friction prominent in the stakeholder literature. This is followed by an analysis of investments in stakeholder relationships and a consideration of the implications of stakeholder friction on the ability of firms to prioritize stakeholders. The tendency to reinvest in current stakeholders has, in addition to the oft-discussed benefits, a predictable downside.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten Martin & Robert Phillips, 2022. "Stakeholder Friction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 519-531, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:177:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-020-04652-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04652-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-020-04652-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-020-04652-9?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. Ranjay Gulati & Nitin Nohria & Akbar Zaheer, 2000. "Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 199-201, March.
    2. Carmelo Cennamo & Pascual Berrone & Cristina Cruz & Luis R. Gomez–Mejia, 2012. "Socioemotional Wealth and Proactive Stakeholder Engagement: Why Family–Controlled Firms Care More about their Stakeholders," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(6), pages 1153-1173, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Benjamin Neville & Simon Bell & Gregory Whitwell, 2011. "Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 357-378, September.
    6. Andrei Shleifer & Lawrence H. Summers, 1988. "Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, pages 33-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Thomas Schneider & Sybille Sachs, 2017. "The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 41-57, August.
    8. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    9. Jean-Francois Hennart, 1993. "Explaining the Swollen Middle: Why Most Transactions Are a Mix of “Market” and “Hierarchy”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 529-547, November.
    10. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips, 2010. "Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    13. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    14. Williamson, Oliver E., 1987. "Transaction cost economics : The comparative contracting perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 617-625, December.
    15. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    18. Elms, Heather & Phillips, Robert A., 2009. "Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 403-432, July.
    19. Goodstein, Jerry D. & Wicks, Andrew C., 2007. "Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility: Making Business Ethics A Two-Way Conversation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 375-398, July.
    20. Julia Roloff, 2008. "Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 233-250, September.
    21. Edward Freeman, R. & Phillips, Robert A., 2002. "Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 331-349, July.
    22. Robbin Derry, 2012. "Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 253-264, December.
    23. Adele Santana, 2012. "Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 257-265, January.
    24. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    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. Chipangamate, Nelson S. & Nwaila, Glen T. & Bourdeau, Julie E. & Zhang, Steven E., 2023. "Integration of stakeholder engagement practices in pursuit of social licence to operate in a modernising mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).

    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. Silvana Signori & Yves Fassin, 2023. "Family Members’ Salience in Family Business: An Identity-Based Stakeholder Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 191-211, February.
    2. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    3. Mitchell, J. Robert & Israelsen, Trevor L. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Lim, Dominic S.K., 2021. "Stakeholder identification as entrepreneurial action: The social process of stakeholder enrollment in new venture emergence," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(6).
    4. André Laplume & Kent Walker & Zhou Zhang & Xin Yu, 2021. "Incumbent Stakeholder Management Performance and New Entry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 629-644, December.
    5. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Andrew C. Wicks, 2021. "Harmful Stakeholder Strategies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 405-419, March.
    6. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    9. Lite J. Nartey & Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu, 2023. "Reciprocity in Firm–Stakeholder Dialog: Timeliness, Valence, Richness, and Topicality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 429-451, March.
    10. Julien Jourdan, 2018. "Institutional Specialization and Survival: Theory and Evidence from the French Film Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 408-425, June.
    11. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    12. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    13. David Weitzner & Yuval Deutsch, 2023. "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 479-492, September.
    14. Maurizio Zollo & Mario Minoja & Vittorio Coda, 2018. "Toward an integrated theory of strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1753-1778, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Jim Andersén, 2023. "Green resource orchestration: A critical appraisal of the use of resource orchestration in environmental management research, and a research agenda for future study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5506-5520, December.
    17. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    18. 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.
    19. Jeremy Galbreath & Chia‐Yang Chang & Daniel Tisch, 2023. "The impact of a proactive environmental strategy on environmentally sustainable practices in service firms: The moderating effect of information use value," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5420-5434, December.
    20. Marvin B. Lieberman & Natarajan Balasubramanian & Roberto Garcia‐Castro, 2018. "Toward a dynamic notion of value creation and appropriation in firms: The concept and measurement of economic gain," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1546-1572, June.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:177:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-020-04652-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.