More than a Metaphor: Assessing the Historical Legacy of Resource Dependence and its Contemporary Promise as a Theory of Environmental Complexity

Abstract

At its inception, resource dependence (RD) held the promise to become a robustly developed theoretical perspective. However, behind an ever-growing citation count, scholars-including one of its key architects-have asserted that RD no longer inspires much substantive research and now serves as little more than an * Corresponding author. Email: adamcobb@wharton.upenn.edu † The first two authors contributed equally to the development of this manuscript.This article was originally published online with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.

Resource security: Competition for global resources, strategic intent, and governments as owners

“…Owners provide the necessary support, including capital, to facilitate a multinational firm's resource acquisitions. Through these acquisitions, the intent of the firm should ideally align with the directions provided by the owners (Demsetz, 1983;Wry et al, 2013). The owner can dictate the intent of the firm and subsequently influence how and where the firm competes to acquire resources.…”

“…For instance, SOEs have a 34% share in the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction sector and a 35% share in the coal and lignite mining sector (Kowalski et al, 2013: 27). Although the resource dependence literature suggests that firms with the most resources have the most power and the least dependence on others (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978;Wry, Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013), this literature is largely silent on the intent with which firms acquire resources. That is, it does not indicate whether resources are secured with the intent of satisfying short-term needs or as a safeguard for the future.…”

The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations

“…They are thus bound to face trade-offs between addressing the demands of their paying customers who are viewed as key stakeholders for businesses, and addressing the needs of the beneficiaries of their social mission who are viewed as principal stakeholders in charities. Because organizations are likely to comply with the demands stemming from the external constituencies on which they depend for access to resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978;Wry, Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013), over time social enterprises run the risk of conforming to demands from their paying customers, and to dismissing the needs of beneficiaries who may lack resources and the ability to pay (Battilana, Sengul, Pache, & Model, 2014). If so, social enterprises would be unlikely to retain their hybrid nature as they would, over time, drift toward the business form and away from their social missions.…”

The dynamics of coopetition: A stakeholder view of the German automotive industry

“…This is based on the assumption that organizational survival depends on an accurate assessment of the environment, the demands therein, and the degree to which various parties are capable of imposing their influence on the firm. Once the demands are noticed, power accrues to those who are best equipped to deal with them (Wry, Cobb, & Aldrich, 2013). Power is a relational attribute of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984;Mitchell et al, 1997) which is determined by resource importance (the degree to which the firm requires the resource), resource control (the extent to which the stakeholder exercises control over the resource), and resource alternatives (the availability of alternatives or substitutes) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).…”