As part of institutional changes toward more responsible capitalism, firms increasingly articulate a purpose beyond simply profit as a central tenet of their governance. Management scholarship has noted the potential advantages of such purpose-focus for stakeholder trust. However, some consumers, employees, and shareholders have expressed skepticism about the veracity of firms’ purpose claims and raised concerns about purpose-washing. We propose two distinct influence pathways—one cognitive, one affect-based—by which corporate purpose can influence stakeholder trust. First, purpose constitutes a signal of firm intent and quality that expresses a firm’s public, enduring commitments. It fosters cognitive trust by providing clarity and assurance regarding the firm’s future conduct, allowing stakeholders to better calculate relational and reputational risk and the instrumental value of exchange—even when they do not share the firm’s prosocial mission, principles for stakeholder relations, or its conception of virtues. Second, purpose presents a moral appeal to stakeholders. This appeal can stimulate positive affective responses, activate stakeholders’ hedonic and eudaemonic motives tied to their moral identity, and thus provide intuitive cues to trust the firm. By sharply delineating the pathways by which purpose can shape interorganizational trust, we not only illuminate how purpose can yield trust benefits but also when it is ineffectual and causes stakeholder backlash. This clarifies the role of purpose in shaping relational governance and multistakeholder cooperation and contributes to research on strategic and moral commitments as foundations of interorganizational trust. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Can Purpose Foster Stakeholder Trust in Corporations?","authors":"R. Gulati, Franz Wohlgezogen","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0196","url":null,"abstract":"As part of institutional changes toward more responsible capitalism, firms increasingly articulate a purpose beyond simply profit as a central tenet of their governance. Management scholarship has noted the potential advantages of such purpose-focus for stakeholder trust. However, some consumers, employees, and shareholders have expressed skepticism about the veracity of firms’ purpose claims and raised concerns about purpose-washing. We propose two distinct influence pathways—one cognitive, one affect-based—by which corporate purpose can influence stakeholder trust. First, purpose constitutes a signal of firm intent and quality that expresses a firm’s public, enduring commitments. It fosters cognitive trust by providing clarity and assurance regarding the firm’s future conduct, allowing stakeholders to better calculate relational and reputational risk and the instrumental value of exchange—even when they do not share the firm’s prosocial mission, principles for stakeholder relations, or its conception of virtues. Second, purpose presents a moral appeal to stakeholders. This appeal can stimulate positive affective responses, activate stakeholders’ hedonic and eudaemonic motives tied to their moral identity, and thus provide intuitive cues to trust the firm. By sharply delineating the pathways by which purpose can shape interorganizational trust, we not only illuminate how purpose can yield trust benefits but also when it is ineffectual and causes stakeholder backlash. This clarifies the role of purpose in shaping relational governance and multistakeholder cooperation and contributes to research on strategic and moral commitments as foundations of interorganizational trust. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44499905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I describe the multilevel and systemic nature of symbolic management and decoupling as it applies to corporate social responsibility (CSR), and consider the implications for the corporate purpose movement. I explain how and why the symbolic management system, including the various forms of decoupling that have compromised CSR, could be readily extended to corporate purpose. I further suggest why (i) the symbolic management of purpose would extend a historical pattern of decoupling that has penetrated into ever more fundamental arenas of corporate governance, and (ii) at least some characteristics of corporate purpose may render it even more vulnerable to symbolic management and decoupling than CSR. I conclude that although the corporate purpose movement carries a substantial, downside risk of symbolic management and decoupling, it nonetheless has upside potential to improve corporate social performance, and that academic researchers have a key role to play in realizing that potential. I suggest several research strategies for detecting the presence and extent of symbolic decoupling of corporate purpose. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Systemic Symbolic Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Purpose: A Cautionary Tale","authors":"James D. Westphal","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0188","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I describe the multilevel and systemic nature of symbolic management and decoupling as it applies to corporate social responsibility (CSR), and consider the implications for the corporate purpose movement. I explain how and why the symbolic management system, including the various forms of decoupling that have compromised CSR, could be readily extended to corporate purpose. I further suggest why (i) the symbolic management of purpose would extend a historical pattern of decoupling that has penetrated into ever more fundamental arenas of corporate governance, and (ii) at least some characteristics of corporate purpose may render it even more vulnerable to symbolic management and decoupling than CSR. I conclude that although the corporate purpose movement carries a substantial, downside risk of symbolic management and decoupling, it nonetheless has upside potential to improve corporate social performance, and that academic researchers have a key role to play in realizing that potential. I suggest several research strategies for detecting the presence and extent of symbolic decoupling of corporate purpose. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49530860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As firms increasingly adopt a corporate purpose, there is substantial variation in what this turn to purpose actually entails and divergent views about whether and how firms can realize their purpose aspirations. To capture this variation and analyze its implications for enacting purpose, we leverage three existing bodies of research in organization and management theory: Early organization theory illuminates uses of purpose to convey an organization’s overarching reason for being, organizational hybridity sheds light on purpose as an alternative organizational objective to profit maximization, and systems perspectives offer tools for explaining purpose as a catalyst of systemic change beyond the boundaries of the firm. The typology that we develop based on these three bodies of research provides analytical clarity about distinct facets of the corporate purpose phenomenon and surfaces complementary insights into challenges and opportunities associated with purpose enactment. In doing so, it illuminates the value of drawing on existing organization and management theories for advancing corporate purpose scholarship and provides a springboard for future research. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology","authors":"","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0186","url":null,"abstract":"As firms increasingly adopt a corporate purpose, there is substantial variation in what this turn to purpose actually entails and divergent views about whether and how firms can realize their purpose aspirations. To capture this variation and analyze its implications for enacting purpose, we leverage three existing bodies of research in organization and management theory: Early organization theory illuminates uses of purpose to convey an organization’s overarching reason for being, organizational hybridity sheds light on purpose as an alternative organizational objective to profit maximization, and systems perspectives offer tools for explaining purpose as a catalyst of systemic change beyond the boundaries of the firm. The typology that we develop based on these three bodies of research provides analytical clarity about distinct facets of the corporate purpose phenomenon and surfaces complementary insights into challenges and opportunities associated with purpose enactment. In doing so, it illuminates the value of drawing on existing organization and management theories for advancing corporate purpose scholarship and provides a springboard for future research. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42727090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We apply the lens of social judgement theory to understand the causes and consequences of the growing debate about the purpose of the corporation. Our historical analysis suggests that the debate about corporate purpose is not new and that it tends to arise during periods of growing economic inequality. Our analysis also suggests that the discursive shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism will trigger a new standard of social evaluation of corporations in which we no longer judge corporate behavior based on standards of legitimacy but rather on standards of authenticity. We explore what this change in social evaluation will mean for corporate competition.
{"title":"Corporate Purpose: A Social Judgement Perspective","authors":"R. Suddaby, Luca Manelli, Ziyun Fan","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0185","url":null,"abstract":"We apply the lens of social judgement theory to understand the causes and consequences of the growing debate about the purpose of the corporation. Our historical analysis suggests that the debate about corporate purpose is not new and that it tends to arise during periods of growing economic inequality. Our analysis also suggests that the discursive shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism will trigger a new standard of social evaluation of corporations in which we no longer judge corporate behavior based on standards of legitimacy but rather on standards of authenticity. We explore what this change in social evaluation will mean for corporate competition.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44091521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers the complex process of economic value creation in joint production in which a corporation is viewed as more than a nexus of contracts for four reasons related to the interdependent functions of the corporate personhood concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Corporate personhood facilitates stewardship and stakeholder management, which can encourage firm-specific investments, reduce shirking, and attenuate rent seeking to provide economic value. The corporate personhood approach illuminates multidimensional constructs for the governance of a corporation at the board level to embody fiduciary duties and corporate purpose, which is much richer than the nexus of contract view. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Corporate Personhood and Fiduciary Duties as Critical Constructs in Developing Stakeholder Management Theory and Corporate Purpose","authors":"Joseph T. Mahoney","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0191","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the complex process of economic value creation in joint production in which a corporation is viewed as more than a nexus of contracts for four reasons related to the interdependent functions of the corporate personhood concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Corporate personhood facilitates stewardship and stakeholder management, which can encourage firm-specific investments, reduce shirking, and attenuate rent seeking to provide economic value. The corporate personhood approach illuminates multidimensional constructs for the governance of a corporation at the board level to embody fiduciary duties and corporate purpose, which is much richer than the nexus of contract view. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42887250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recent rediscovery of corporate purpose has illuminated how much more we still need to understand about purpose and its role in organizations. After tracing the historical roots of purpose and conceptualizing its unique value in bridging the mundane and the moral in organizational life, we propose links among purpose and organizational identity, image and reputation, as well as with meaningful work. These linkages suggest two core functions of purpose: a vehicle for accountability (internal and external) and a source of accounts and justifications. These functions serve as mechanisms connecting purpose to different levels of analysis both within and outside of the organization. We also highlight potential impediments to maximizing the benefits of purpose: stakeholder cynicism and employee disillusionment. We conclude by suggesting new areas of research to overcome these impediments and to better establish purpose as a root construct in organizational scholarship.
{"title":"Accounts and Accountability: On Organizational Purpose, Organizational Identity, and Meaningful Work","authors":"M. Pratt, Luke N. Hedden","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0189","url":null,"abstract":"The recent rediscovery of corporate purpose has illuminated how much more we still need to understand about purpose and its role in organizations. After tracing the historical roots of purpose and conceptualizing its unique value in bridging the mundane and the moral in organizational life, we propose links among purpose and organizational identity, image and reputation, as well as with meaningful work. These linkages suggest two core functions of purpose: a vehicle for accountability (internal and external) and a source of accounts and justifications. These functions serve as mechanisms connecting purpose to different levels of analysis both within and outside of the organization. We also highlight potential impediments to maximizing the benefits of purpose: stakeholder cynicism and employee disillusionment. We conclude by suggesting new areas of research to overcome these impediments and to better establish purpose as a root construct in organizational scholarship.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43167415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In contrast to the prevalent outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose as a response to competing normative demands of stakeholders, we introduce an inside-out perspective on purpose as based in firm-specific, agentic commitments to specific values, ideals, and societal goals. Drawing on moral philosophy, we propose how strategists can develop a strategic purpose through moral imagination that involves developing shaping intentions based in values and ideals, empathetic relating, and imaginativeness in stakeholder contexts. These processes support the generation of an emergent theory of value, which we term “the collective desirable.” This theory of value—a creative synthesis of the shaping intentions of the firm, and the interests and perspectives of stakeholders—provides the foundation of purpose, which is strategic, dynamic, and generative for the firm and its stakeholders. Such a strategic purpose becomes an organizational logic of action enacted through designated processes for articulation, maintenance, and evolvability, and through blueprints for credible commitments and resource allocations. By theorizing the microfoundations of an agentic, inside-out view of purpose, our theoretical framework articulates a set of mechanisms through which strategists can develop a strategic purpose that is tightly linked to the firm’s future-oriented strategy and the exercise of moral leadership. Our conception of moral imagination as a form of prosocial prospective cognition contributes a novel perspective to the socio-cognitive and subjectivist perspectives on strategy and extends the microfoundations of strategy.
{"title":"Moral Imagination, the Collective Desirable, and Strategic Purpose","authors":"V. Rindova, L. Martins","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0190","url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the prevalent outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose as a response to competing normative demands of stakeholders, we introduce an inside-out perspective on purpose as based in firm-specific, agentic commitments to specific values, ideals, and societal goals. Drawing on moral philosophy, we propose how strategists can develop a strategic purpose through moral imagination that involves developing shaping intentions based in values and ideals, empathetic relating, and imaginativeness in stakeholder contexts. These processes support the generation of an emergent theory of value, which we term “the collective desirable.” This theory of value—a creative synthesis of the shaping intentions of the firm, and the interests and perspectives of stakeholders—provides the foundation of purpose, which is strategic, dynamic, and generative for the firm and its stakeholders. Such a strategic purpose becomes an organizational logic of action enacted through designated processes for articulation, maintenance, and evolvability, and through blueprints for credible commitments and resource allocations. By theorizing the microfoundations of an agentic, inside-out view of purpose, our theoretical framework articulates a set of mechanisms through which strategists can develop a strategic purpose that is tightly linked to the firm’s future-oriented strategy and the exercise of moral leadership. Our conception of moral imagination as a form of prosocial prospective cognition contributes a novel perspective to the socio-cognitive and subjectivist perspectives on strategy and extends the microfoundations of strategy.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43494063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue: Strategy Science’s Contributions to Doctoral Reading Lists","authors":"Daniel A. Levinthal, Gwendolyn K. Lee","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0181","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46171727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many published papers in the management field have used statistical methods that, according to the latest insights in econometrics, can lead to elevated rates of false positives: results that appear “significant,” whereas they are not. The question is how problematic these less robust econometric analyses are in practice for management research. This paper presents simulations and an empirical replication to investigate two widespread but now largely discredited practices in panel data analysis: nonclustered standard errors and random effects (RE). The simulations indicate that these two practices can lead to strongly elevated rates of false positives in typical empirical settings studied in management research. The often-advocated Hausman test does not always prevent false positives in RE regressions. Replication of a published regression that used RE and classic standard errors yields that many of the coefficients reported as significant in the original analysis become insignificant when using fixed effects and clustered standard errors, on a slightly different sample. Based on the findings in this paper, published results using nonclustered standard errors or RE estimates for panel data should be interpreted with great care, because the probability that they are false positives can be much larger than reported. Going forward, empirical researchers should cluster standard errors to account for serial correlation and use fixed rather than random effects to account for unobserved heterogeneity. Funding: X. Li received financial support from the Ian Potter ’93D PhD Award. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0172 .
根据计量经济学的最新见解，管理领域的许多已发表论文都使用了统计方法，这些方法可能导致误报率升高:结果看起来“显著”，但实际上并非如此。问题是，在管理研究的实践中，这些不那么稳健的计量经济学分析有多大问题。本文提出了模拟和经验复制，以调查面板数据分析中两种广泛但现在基本上不可信的做法:非聚类标准误差和随机效应(RE)。模拟表明，在管理研究中研究的典型经验设置中，这两种做法可能导致误报率大幅上升。经常提倡的Hausman检验并不总能防止RE回归中的假阳性。使用正则化和经典标准误差的已发表回归的复制结果表明，当在稍微不同的样本上使用固定效应和聚类标准误差时，许多在原始分析中报告为显著的系数变得不显著。根据本文的发现，使用非聚类标准误差或对面板数据进行RE估计的已发表结果应该非常小心地解释，因为它们是假阳性的概率可能比报告的要大得多。展望未来，实证研究人员应该聚类标准误差来解释序列相关性，并使用固定效应而不是随机效应来解释未观察到的异质性。基金资助:李x获得Ian Potter ' 93D博士奖资助。补充材料:在线附录可在https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0172上获得。
{"title":"Broken Effects? How to Reduce False Positives in Panel Regressions","authors":"Xina Li, Phebo D. Wibbens","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0172","url":null,"abstract":"Many published papers in the management field have used statistical methods that, according to the latest insights in econometrics, can lead to elevated rates of false positives: results that appear “significant,” whereas they are not. The question is how problematic these less robust econometric analyses are in practice for management research. This paper presents simulations and an empirical replication to investigate two widespread but now largely discredited practices in panel data analysis: nonclustered standard errors and random effects (RE). The simulations indicate that these two practices can lead to strongly elevated rates of false positives in typical empirical settings studied in management research. The often-advocated Hausman test does not always prevent false positives in RE regressions. Replication of a published regression that used RE and classic standard errors yields that many of the coefficients reported as significant in the original analysis become insignificant when using fixed effects and clustered standard errors, on a slightly different sample. Based on the findings in this paper, published results using nonclustered standard errors or RE estimates for panel data should be interpreted with great care, because the probability that they are false positives can be much larger than reported. Going forward, empirical researchers should cluster standard errors to account for serial correlation and use fixed rather than random effects to account for unobserved heterogeneity. Funding: X. Li received financial support from the Ian Potter ’93D PhD Award. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0172 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135907375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The new stakeholder theory (NST) grapples with two canonical questions: Which stakeholders are enfranchised in organizations? How is the value created through stakeholder collaboration distributed and experienced by stakeholders? This paper first describes how the NST builds on original stakeholder theory to ask these two specific questions. The defining features of the NST are (i) a broad range of dependent variables, (ii) descriptiveness, (iii) formalized analysis, (iv) boundaries on stakeholder enfranchisement, and (v) analytic links to other established theories. The paper then assesses the assumptions and implications of this theory for understanding organizational purpose. A primary idea is that the NST conceptualizes purpose as originating in the goals, needs, and interests of stakeholders as complex, nuanced actors. Under the NST, the organization is conceived of as a tool—a functionalized construction—through which enfranchised stakeholders pursue a shared purpose that leads to experiences of stakeholder value in terms that are defined by the relevant stakeholders themselves. The survival and profitability of an organization depends on its effectiveness and efficiency as a tool for accomplishing mutual stakeholder aims, which are what define organizational purpose. Funding: Funded by Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada.
{"title":"The New Stakeholder Theory on Organizational Purpose","authors":"A. McGahan","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0184","url":null,"abstract":"The new stakeholder theory (NST) grapples with two canonical questions: Which stakeholders are enfranchised in organizations? How is the value created through stakeholder collaboration distributed and experienced by stakeholders? This paper first describes how the NST builds on original stakeholder theory to ask these two specific questions. The defining features of the NST are (i) a broad range of dependent variables, (ii) descriptiveness, (iii) formalized analysis, (iv) boundaries on stakeholder enfranchisement, and (v) analytic links to other established theories. The paper then assesses the assumptions and implications of this theory for understanding organizational purpose. A primary idea is that the NST conceptualizes purpose as originating in the goals, needs, and interests of stakeholders as complex, nuanced actors. Under the NST, the organization is conceived of as a tool—a functionalized construction—through which enfranchised stakeholders pursue a shared purpose that leads to experiences of stakeholder value in terms that are defined by the relevant stakeholders themselves. The survival and profitability of an organization depends on its effectiveness and efficiency as a tool for accomplishing mutual stakeholder aims, which are what define organizational purpose. Funding: Funded by Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44275771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：