Does the stakeholder engagement result in new drinks? Evidence from family owned SMEs

Pantano, Eleonora; Priporas, Constantinos‐Vasilios; Viassone, Milena; Migliano, Giuseppe

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.037

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Co-creation and co-production activities are also about informing jointly owned decisions (Shackleton et al, 2019) and implementing solutions (Baltazar Herrera, 2016). Interaction and solution development simultaneously build positive relationships and effective strategies related to co-creative stakeholder engagement activities (O’Toole et al, 2013; Pantano et al, 2020).…”

Section: Components and Contents Of Stakeholder Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stakeholder power asymmetries (Dawkins, 2015) A normative perspective to social shareholder engagement (Goodman & Arenas, 2015) Integrative responsible leadership (Patzer et al, 2018) Justified hypernorms (Scholz et al, 2019) Note. (Baltazar Herrera, 2016) Stakeholder engagement on digital platforms (Viglia et al, 2018) The impact of stakeholder engagement on firm investment in innovation (Bendell & Huvaj, 2020) Green/sustainable innovation (Chen & Liu, 2020;Scuotto et al, 2020;Watson et al, 2020) Co-creation processes (Correia Loureiro et al, 2020) Open-innovation process (Grama-Vigouroux et al, 2020) Entrepreneurship development (Leonidou et al, 2020) Women entrepreneurial innovations (Nair, 2020) The relationship between innovativeness and innovation outcomes (Pantano et al, 2020) Development sustainability culture (Pucci et al, 2020) Policy options in waste management and environmental innovations (Wiesmeth, 2020) Strategic Management Journal…”

Section: Journal Of Business Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder engagement has grown into a widely used yet often unclear construct in business and society research. The literature lacks a unified understanding of the essentials of stakeholder engagement, and the fragmented use of the stakeholder engagement construct challenges its development and legitimacy. The purpose of this article is to clarify the construct of stakeholder engagement to unfold the full potential of stakeholder engagement research. We conduct a literature review on 90 articles in leading academic journals focusing on stakeholder engagement in the business and society, management and strategy, and environmental management and environmental policy literatures. We present a descriptive analysis of stakeholder engagement research for a 15-year period, and we identify the moral, strategic, and pragmatic components of stakeholder engagement as well as its aims, activities, and impacts. Moreover, we offer an inclusive stakeholder engagement definition and provide a guide to organizing the research. Finally, we complement the current understanding with a largely overlooked dark side of stakeholder engagement. We conclude with future research avenues for stakeholder engagement research.

show abstract

Section: Components and Contents Of Stakeholder Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Journal Of Business Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research into CSR and SE activities has mainly dealt with large companies, so the theoretical models cannot always be generalized to small‐ and medium‐sized companies (Russo & Tencati, 2009). In this sense, prior studies have developed a theoretical framework to describe the different approaches toward SE by firms characterized by different sizes and sectorial specificity (Fischer et al, 2009; Venturelli et al, , Pantano, Priporas, Viassone, & Migliano, ). The exigence to analyze separately small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and multinational enterprises are related to the different purposes that characterize their approaches to stakeholders.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating the stakeholder engagement process: A cross‐country analysis in the tourism sector

Iazzi

Pizzi

Iaia

et al. 2020

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder engagement (SE) is considered a best practice in sustainability reporting, as it increases companies' social legitimacy and reputation. Companies have to properly communicate the SE activities, paying attention to the social, cultural, and political factors that affect the perception of stakeholders. This is particularly relevant in the tourism sector, which is a typical multistakeholder context. In the academic literature, few studies have investigated the role of the country‐specific determinants of corporate social responsibility, and none of them adopt a cross‐country approach. The objective of this paper is to analyze the disclosure of SE, observing the content of nonfinancial reports and company websites of all companies belonging to the Global Reporting Initiative database. Cross‐country analysis confirms that European and non‐European firms approach SE activities differently. The research offers a contribution to the development and improvement of company relations with stakeholders from a value cocreation perspective, identifying the areas of interest on which firms can work to advance the SE communication process.

show abstract

“…Scholars have argued that collaboration acts as the main driver of innovation by enabling firms to leverage their resource limitations (Audrestch and Belitski, 2022). External collaboration on knowledge is of prime importance for family firms (Casprini et al, 2017;Feranita et al, 2017;Gamble et al, 2020;Pantano et al, 2020) which wish to support in-house innovation and grow their business but are constrained by the availability of resources for experimentation with new ideas. On the one hand, the resource-based view (RBV) could help explain the willingness and ability of Brittelstand firms to collaborate on innovation with external partners and be strongly embedded in local communities (Ba u et al, 2019;Intihar and Pollack, 2012) while facing low levels of human and financial capital (De Massis et al, 2018.…”

Section: Theory and Hypotheses Formulation 21 Open Innovation Model A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, while collaboration is also associated with additional costs, local and national governments may want to subsidize and incentivize national collaboration with customers as well as ad-hoc international collaborations across different customer types. This would allow companies to tap into diverse knowledge and acquire more radical innovation inputs and IJEBR 29,1 ideas , and to leverage resource limitations (Feranita et al, 2017;Gamble et al, 2020;Pantano et al, 2020). Brittelstand firms on their own may not be willing or able to engage in such collaborations due to their short-term strategies and high costs of collaboration.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial and Managerial Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in family firms: The Brittelstand

Audretsch

Belitski

Khachlouf³

2022

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe Brittelstand are innovative, family-owned firms that offer national and international opportunities in the United Kingdom (UK). These fast-growing businesses are customer-oriented and proud of family ownership and embeddedness of the businesses within communities. While Brittelstand firms are as likely to deploy open innovation models as non-Brittelstand firms, these firms' engagement with customers in regional and national markets and the ability to benefit from this collaboration contrasts with these firms' willingness to engage in open innovation.Design/methodology/approachUsing longitudinal data and regression analysis on 13,876 firms with 24,286 observations over 2004–2020, the authors develop and test a theoretical framework of open innovation in the Brittelstand. The authors' model explains the willingness and ability of the Brittelstand firms to engage in open innovation and benefit from it.FindingsThe authors' results show that Brittelstand firms are less willing than non-Brittelstand firms to collaborate with customers and universities, contrasting prior research on family firms, and distinguishing the innovation model of the Brittelstand from a family business model. The Brittelstand firms who are able to engage in collaboration with customers in domestic markets will outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts in innovation outputs.Research limitations/implicationsIn line with other studies, this study is associated with several limitations that open opportunities for further research that replicate and/or extends this study. First, this study is unbalanced panel data and the fact that some firms appear in the model only once from 2004–2020. The longitudinal study will allow to enforce causality of the relationship and examines the dynamics of open innovation in the Brittelstand. Second, the indicator on the extent and mechanisms of collaboration with customers could be better explained and measured, for example, using a scale indicator instead of a binary variable for knowledge collaboration across different types of partners and four geographical dimensions.Practical implicationsFirst, Brittelstand firms who are less likely to employ open innovation models nationally and with customers. However, those Brittelstand firms who decide to collaborate with customers nationally are more likely to increase the innovation sales compared to those firms that do not engage in such collaborations? This is an interesting and unexpected finding, which means that low willingness of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration for Brittelstand firms is not optimal and engagement in collaboration with customers in domestic markets is beneficial for innovation. Managers and policymakers may use this finding to design and re-design open innovation strategies managers and policymakers with customers within and across regions in the UK. Second, managers may benefit from the integrated view on the two drivers of firm innovation – collaboration with customers and the local embeddedness of such collaboration.Social implicationsThe authors' results show that Brittelstand firms outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts by adopting an open model of innovation with customers in domestic markets. This means that the most dynamic and fast growing Brittelstand firms are those who collaborate with customers for new ideas and innovation.Originality/valueThis study describes the phenomenon of the Brittelstand and investigates the link between open knowledge sourcing across different geographical proximities and partners and innovation outputs. First, the authors contribute to open innovation and resource-based view (RBV) literature in family firms by theorizing and empirically testing the open innovation model for the Brittelstand firms. The authors also debate that the Brittelstand firms should overcome this inertia of willingness to collaborate across heterogeneous external partners and convert regional/national embeddedness of the firms with customers into strengths for greater product innovation. Second, the authors contribute to family business literature by explaining how and why the Brittelstand firms can achieve greater innovation outputs. In doing so, the authors draw on the concept of familiness and local embeddedness.

show abstract

Does the stakeholder engagement result in new drinks? Evidence from family owned SMEs

Cited by 18 publications

References 130 publications

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

Communicating the stakeholder engagement process: A cross‐country analysis in the tourism sector

Innovation in family firms: The Brittelstand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About