Stakeholder Salience, Structural Development, and Firm Performance: Structural and Performance Correlates of Sociopolitical Stakeholder Management Strategies

Abstract

This study attempts to establish the importance of firm-level interactions with sociopolitical stakeholders in explaining firms prospects for survival. Institutional arguments are proposed to explain the effects of internal structures-both organizational and phenomenological-on firms sociopolitical relational strategies, whereas arguments grounded in the stakeholder view of the firm are advanced to explain effects of sociopolitical stakeholder relations on firm performance. Findings indicate that firms tended to adopt cooptative relationships with sociopolitical stakeholders. Furthermore, firms cooperativeness toward sociopolitical stakeholders had little effect on financial performance but, under some conditions, had positive effects on social performance. Implied is that markets may not be an effective governance mechanism to ensure firms alignment with democratic institutions in a plural society and that public policies may be needed to address these failures.

When Suits Meet Roots: The Antecedents and Consequences of Community Engagement Strategy

“…As Mattingly's (2004) empirical analysis shows, community engagement has little direct, short-term effect on financial performance, but has a positive effect on social performance. Second, value is more likely to be created through engagement which is relational rather than transactional since purely transactional interactions can be duplicated and thus offer little potential for gaining competitive advantage (Hillman and Keim, 2001).…”

Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?

“…Any human agency (Gray et al 1996), any naturally occurring entity (Starik 1993), citizens (Crane et al 2004), coalition of people (MacMillan and Jones 1986), constituents (Ruf et al 2001), employees; suppliers; government; local, regional and national communities; banks and shareholders (Gamble and Kelly 2001), groups (SRI 1963), individuals (Donaldson and Preston 1995), moral actors (Hendry 2001), participants (Orts and Strudler 2002), parties (Lampe 2001), socio-political actors (Mattingly 2004), voluntary members of a co-operative scheme (Phillips 1997). • Who is identifying the stakeholder?…”

Toward Dynamic Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility

“…Following this line of argument, we will introduce the stakeholder view framework (e.g., Mattingly, 2004b;Post et al, 2002;Sachs and Rühli, 2004;Walsh, 2005) in the article's third section. We will use this framework because of its comprehensive logic.…”