IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/busres/v10y2017i1d10.1007_s40685-016-0040-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investors’ reactions to companies’ stakeholder management: the crucial role of assumed costs and perceived sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Tanja Schwarzmüller

    (Technical University of Munich)

  • Prisca Brosi

    (Technical University of Munich)

  • Vera Stelkens

    (Flughafen München GmbH)

  • Matthias Spörrle

    (Private University Seeburg Castle)

  • Isabell M. Welpe

    (Technical University of Munich
    Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning)

Abstract

Companies regularly have to address opposing interests from their shareholding and non-shareholding stakeholder groups. Consequently, a wealth of previous research has focused on how CEOs decide which stakeholder management activities to pursue and prioritize. In contrast, however, surprisingly little research has considered how (potential) investors react to a company’s management of shareholding and non-shareholding stakeholders and what factors drive their reactions in such contexts. We seek to fill this gap in the literature by conducting an experimental scenario study (N = 997) in which investment behavior is analyzed in situations in which management has to make a trade-off between shareholders’ and non-shareholding stakeholders’ interests. Our results show that (potential) investors consider the assumed costs of fulfilling non-shareholding stakeholders’ interests and the perceived sustainability of doing so for corporate success when making investment decisions in such contexts. In cases of low costs or high sustainability, participants were more willing to invest in a company that favored non-shareholding over shareholding stakeholders (thereby deciding against their immediate financial interests), while the opposite was true in cases of high costs or low sustainability. With these results, our paper broadens stakeholder theory’s focus by taking individual investors’ reactions to corporate stakeholder management into account. Moreover, it both provides evidence for and extends the “Enlightened Stakeholder Theory”, which proposes that organizations should fulfill stakeholders’ interests if doing so contributes to long-term firm value enhancement, but has so far not considered the role of the costs necessary for fulfilling stakeholders’ claims in such decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanja Schwarzmüller & Prisca Brosi & Vera Stelkens & Matthias Spörrle & Isabell M. Welpe, 2017. "Investors’ reactions to companies’ stakeholder management: the crucial role of assumed costs and perceived sustainability," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 10(1), pages 79-96, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:busres:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40685-016-0040-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40685-016-0040-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40685-016-0040-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40685-016-0040-9?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Schijven & Michael A. Hitt, 2012. "The vicarious wisdom of crowds: toward a behavioral perspective on investor reactions to acquisition announcements," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1247-1268, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Bradley W. Benson & Wallace N. Davidson, 2010. "The Relation between Stakeholder Management, Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 929-964, September.
    4. Jared Peifer, 2014. "Fund Loyalty Among Socially Responsible Investors: The Importance of the Economic and Ethical Domains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 635-649, June.
    5. Olubunmi Faleye & Emery Trahan, 2011. "Labor-Friendly Corporate Practices: Is What is Good for Employees Good for Shareholders?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 1-27, June.
    6. Andrew Crane & Cameron Graham & Darlene Himick, 2015. "Financializing Stakeholder Claims," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 878-906, November.
    7. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    8. A. Colin Cameron & Douglas L. Miller, 2010. "Robust Inference with Clustered Data," Working Papers 318, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    9. Ron Bird & Anthony D. Hall & Francesco Momentè & Francesco Reggiani, 2007. "What Corporate Social Responsibility Activities are Valued by the Market?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 189-206, December.
    10. Robin Stevens & Nathalie Moray & Johan Bruneel & Bart Clarysse, 2015. "Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 1006-1016, July.
    11. Hall, Matthew & Millo, Yuval & Barman, E, 2015. "Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62354, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Joseph E. Coombs & K. Matthew Gilley, 2005. "Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: main effects and interactions with financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(9), pages 827-840, September.
    13. Matthew Hall & Yuval Millo & Emily Barman, 2015. "Who and What Really Counts? Stakeholder Prioritization and Accounting for Social Value," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 907-934, November.
    14. Eva Hofmann & Erik Hoelzl & Erich Kirchler, 2008. "A Comparison of Models Describing the Impact of Moral Decision Making on Investment Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 171-187, September.
    15. William Pasewark & Mark Riley, 2010. "It’s a Matter of Principle: The Role of Personal Values in Investment Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 237-253, May.
    16. Ronald K. Mitchell & Harry J. Van Buren III & Michelle Greenwood & R. Edward Freeman, 2015. "Stakeholder Inclusion and Accounting for Stakeholders," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 851-877, November.
    17. Magnus Jansson & Anders Biel, 2011. "Motives to engage in sustainable investment: a comparison between institutional and private investors," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 135-142, March/Apr.
    18. Roberto Garcia-Castro & Miguel Ariño & Miguel Canela, 2010. "Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 107-126, March.
    19. Clark-Murphy, Marilyn & Soutar, Geoffrey N., 2004. "What individual investors value: Some Australian evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 539-555, August.
    20. Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Juan Matallín-Sáez & Mª Balaguer-Franch, 2011. "Measuring Investors’ Socially Responsible Preferences in Mutual Funds," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 305-330, October.
    21. Amy J. Hillman & Gerald D. Keim, 2001. "Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, February.
    22. Jones, Thomas M. & Felps, Will, 2013. "Stakeholder Happiness Enhancement: A Neo-Utilitarian Objective for the Modern Corporation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 349-379, July.
    23. Milena Parent & David Deephouse, 2007. "A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 1-23, September.
    24. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    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. Tomasz L. Nawrocki & Danuta Szwajca, 2022. "The Importance of Selected Aspects of a Company’s Reputation for Individual Stock Market Investors—Evidence from Polish Capital Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Andrej Bugajev & Olga R. Šostak, 2018. "An Algorithm for Modelling the Impact of the Judicial Conflict-Resolution Process on Construction Investment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.

    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. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    2. Dongyoung Lee, 2017. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Management Forecast Accuracy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 353-367, January.
    3. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Grougiou, Vassiliki & Leventis, Stergios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Owusu-Ansah, Stephen, 2014. "Corporate social responsibility and earnings management in U.S. banks," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 155-169.
    5. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    6. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 13/2013, Bank of Finland.
    7. Elizabeth-Anne Thomas, 2019. "How Useful Is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Reporting Framework to Identify the Non-financial Value of Corporate Social Performance (CSP)?," CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, in: Nicholas Capaldi & Samuel O. Idowu & René Schmidpeter & Martin Brueckner (ed.), Responsible Business in Uncertain Times and for a Sustainable Future, pages 37-87, Springer.
    8. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    9. Carmelo Cennamo & Pascual Berrone & Luis Gomez-Mejia, 2009. "Does Stakeholder Management have a Dark Side?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 491-507, November.
    10. Sabrina Wieland & Benjamin Scott Flavel, 2015. "The relationship between employee orientation, financial performance and leverage," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(4), pages 716-733, October.
    11. Bradley W. Benson & Wallace N. Davidson III & Hongxia Wang & Dan L. Worrell, 2011. "Deviations from Expected Stakeholder Management, Firm Value, and Corporate Governance," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 40(1), pages 39-81, March.
    12. Bradley W. Benson & Wallace N. Davidson, 2010. "The Relation between Stakeholder Management, Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 929-964, September.
    13. Ronald K. Mitchell & Harry J. Van Buren III & Michelle Greenwood & R. Edward Freeman, 2015. "Stakeholder Inclusion and Accounting for Stakeholders," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(7), pages 851-877, November.
    14. Päivi Myllykangas & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2010. "Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 65-72, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Saurabh Mishra & Sachin Modi, 2013. "Positive and Negative Corporate Social Responsibility, Financial Leverage, and Idiosyncratic Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 431-448, October.
    17. Heena Thanki & Sweety Shah & Harishchandra Singh Rathod & Ankit D. Oza & Dumitru Doru Burduhos-Nergis, 2022. "I Am Ready to Invest in Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) Options Only If the Returns Are Not Compromised: Individual Investors’ Intentions toward SRI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Hajer Tebini & Bouchra M’Zali & Pascal Lang & Paz Méndez-Rodrı́guez, 2015. "Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Controversial Relationship," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Enrique Ballestero & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Ana Garcia-Bernabeu (ed.), Socially Responsible Investment, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 53-73, Springer.
    19. Kamalesh Kumar & Giacomo Boesso & Giovanna Michelon, 2016. "How Do Strengths and Weaknesses in Corporate Social Performance Across Different Stakeholder Domains Affect Company Performance?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 277-292, May.
    20. Kopel, Michael & Brand, Björn, 2012. "Socially responsible firms and endogenous choice of strategic incentives," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 982-989.
    21. Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Xiaoxia Liu & Colin D. Reid, 2019. "Stakeholder Orientations and Cost Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 486-512, March.

    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:spr:busres:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40685-016-0040-9. 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.