Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fairness and justice are core issues in stakeholder theory. Although such considerations receive more attention in the ‘normative’ branch of the stakeholder literature, they have critical implications for ‘instrumental’ stakeholder theory as well. In research in the instrumental vein, although the position has seldom been articulated in significant detail, a stakeholder’s inclination to take action against the firm or, conversely, to cooperate with it, is often taken to be a function of its perceptions concerning the fairness or unfairness (or equity or inequity) of the treatment it receives in its relationship with the firm. Thus, from various works in this domain can be distilled what might be termed a ‘fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour’. This perspective, as it currently stands, assumes a high degree of homogeneity in stakeholders’ responses to fair, unfair, or munificent treatment by the firm. This supposition is itself typically based on a presumption that stakeholders consistently and uniformly adhere to norms of equity and reciprocity in their relationships with firms. However, research developments in equity theory and social exchange theory suggest that such assumptions are likely untenable. Accordingly, in this work, after outlining the fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour, I undertake to augment it by presenting propositions concerning the possible influences of stakeholders’ equity preferences and exchange ideologies on their propensities to sanction or support the firm. Incorporating these stakeholder traits into the fairness-based perspective should enhance the predictive validity of its propositions concerning stakeholder behaviour in response to fairness or unfairness in the firm–stakeholder relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, G. L., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2008). The role of dispositions in politics perception formation: The predictive capacity of negative and positive affectivity, equity sensitivity, and self-efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(4), 545–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R., & White, C. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 435–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. (2010). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64(3), 359–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraquier, A. (2013). A group identity analysis of organizations and their stakeholders: Porosity of identity and mobility of attributes. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S. K., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? An empirical examination of the relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin Ahmad, K. Z. (2011). Group size as a moderator of the effect of equity sensitivity on employee job satisfaction. International Journal of Management, 28(3), 716–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing, M. N., & Burroughs, S. M. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2008). Creating value by giving it away: The influence of reciprocation on firm performance. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 1–6).

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. N., & Cochran, P. (1991). The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications for business and society theory and research. In J. F. Mahon (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (pp. 449–467).

  • Bretz, R. D., & Thomas, S. L. (1992). Perceived equity, motivation, and final-offer arbitration in Major League Baseball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Reed, R., & Lemak, D. J. (2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business and Society, 43(2), 162–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, L., Bentley, J., Holmes, E., & Bouldin, A. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviors of pharmacy faculty: Modeling influences of equity sensitivity, psychological contract breach, and professional identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(5), 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., & Baker, V. L. (2006). Extra-role behaviors challenging the status-quo: Validity and antecedents of taking charge behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 620–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., Muñoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013). How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors of careerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory. Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. Toronto: Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto.

  • Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Morrow, P. C., & Kessler, I. (2006). Serving two organizaitons: Exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 561–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee, T. (2006). A critical perspective of integrative social contracts theory: Recurring criticisms and next generation research topics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 743–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (pp. 75–93). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2012). Stakeholder management, reciprocity, and stakeholder responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Tyran, J. (1996). Institutions and reciprocal fairness. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 23, 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L., & Razek, J. R. (2000). The relationships between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and reactions to the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, S. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206(2), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T. (2004). Why and when companies contribute to societal goals: The effect of reciprocal stakeholder behavior. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. D1–D6).

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Bosse, D. A. (2013). How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders. Business Horizons, 56, 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2007). Stakeholder theory and competitive advantage. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 1–6).

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S. (2012). Equity and expectancy considerations in stakeholder action. Business and Society, 51(2), 220–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S., & Collins, C. (2015). Motivators of mobilization: Influences of inequity, expectancy, and resource dependence on stakeholder propensity to take action against the firm. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2638-9.

  • Hendry, J. (2001). Missing the target: Normative stakeholder theory and the corporate governance debate. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakehoder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., Stepina, L. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (1996). Always getting the short end of the stick: The effects of negative affectivity on perceptions of equity. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(4), 457–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, K. H. (2011). Organizational support and motivation theories: Theoretical integration and empirical analysis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

  • Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (1998). Organizational justice and the management of stakeholder relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 643–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, B., & Jindal, R. P. (2015). Opportunism in buyer–seller relationships: Some unexplored antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 68, 735–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J., Gundry, L., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J., & Lester, S. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W., & Hinson, T. (1994). The influence of sex and equity sensitivity on relationship preferences, assessment of opponent, and outcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management, 20, 605–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028–2049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langtry, B. (1994). Stakeholders and the moral responsibility of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. D., Restubog, P. B., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-Western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18, 376–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Yi, L., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 68, 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2005). Reputation in relationships: Measuring experiences, emotions, and behaviors. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 214–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 89–110). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15, 581–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identifcation and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

  • Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, S. E. (1995). More on the acceptability of workplace behaviors of a dubious ethical nature. Psychological Reports, 76, 639–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, L. L., Stephens, C. U., Betz, M., Shepard, J. M., & Hendry, J. R. (2005). An organizational field approach to corporate rationality: The role of stakeholder activism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. N., & Davies, D. K. (1984). Equity and affect: The effects of relative performance and moods on resource allocation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, B. S., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 805–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. D. (1966). The role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orpen, C. (1994). The effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 407–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell, J. A., & Sullivan, E. (1992). When money isn’t enough: The effect of equity sensitivity on performance-based pay systems. Human Resource Management Review, 2(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S., & Jackson, J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business and Society, 43(3), 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S., Bordia, P., & Bordia, S. (2009). The interactive effects of procedural justice and equity sensitivity in predicting responses to psychological contract breach: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehling, M. V., Roehling, P. V., & Boswell, W. R. (2010). The potential role of organizational setting in creating “entitled” employees: An investigation of the antecedents of equity sensitivity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22, 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1998). A normative justification for stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 37(1), 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. (2000). A new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39, 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sass, M. D., Liao-Troth, M. A., & Wonder, B. D. (2011). Determining person-organization fit for healthcare CEOs: How executive equity sensitivity relates to nonprofit and for-profit sector selection. Nonprofit Managment and Leadership, 22(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organisational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. E. (2003). Reactions to perceived inequity in US and Dutch interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrempf-Stirling, J., Bosse, D. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2013). Anticipating, preventing, and surviving secondary boycotts. Business Horizons, 56, 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the Big Five. Group and Organization Management, 32(3), 290–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, T. (2004). Equity sensitivity theory: Do we all want more than we deserve? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(7), 722–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, L., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2003). New developments in the employee-organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 443–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (1995). Social exchange and union commitment: A comparison of union instrumentality and union support perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 669–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibault, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective: Current research and future directions. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 77–114). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecchio, R. P. (1981). An individual-differences interpretation of the conflicting predictions generated by equity theory and expectancy theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 470–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous? Business and Society, 36(3), 250–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Li, J. J., Ross, W. T., & Craighead, C. W. (2013). The interplay of drivers and deterrents of opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D., Tsui, A., Zhang, Y., & Ma, L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 511–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasieleski, D. M., & Hayibor, S. (2009). Evolutionary psychology and business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 587–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64, 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Bougon, M. G., & Maruyama, G. (1976). The equity context. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 32–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 612–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes-organizational citizenship behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1490–1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A., & Broach, D. (1993). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedural justice-satisfaction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of procedural justice and exchange ideology on supervisor-rated commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 505–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A., & Wilson, J. W. (1990). Exchange ideology as a predictor of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Dispositional differences. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 267–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, T. W., & Law, Y. M. (2011). Moderating effect of equity sensitivity on behavior-outcome relationships in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(5), 322–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, T. W., Keung, C. W., & Wong, K. L. (2011). Application of equity sensitivity theory to problem-solving approaches in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Managment in Engineering, 27(1), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sefa Hayibor Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayibor, S. Is Fair Treatment Enough? Augmenting the Fairness-Based Perspective on Stakeholder Behaviour. J Bus Ethics 140, 43–64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2665-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2665-6

Keywords

Navigation