Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 09 November 2013

Abstract

In this article, we first provide evidence that Scandinavian contributions to stakeholder theory over the past 50 years play a much larger role in its development than is presently acknowledged. These contributions include the first publication and description of the term “stakeholder”, the first stakeholder map, and the development of three fundamental tenets of stakeholder theory: jointness of interests, cooperative strategic posture, and rejection of a narrowly economic view of the firm. We then explore the current practices of Scandinavian companies through which we identify the evidence of relationships to these historical contributions. Thus, we propose that Scandinavia offers a particularly promising context from which to draw inspiration regarding effective company-stakeholder cooperation and where ample of examples of what is more recently referred to as “creating shared value” can be found. We conclude by endorsing the expression “Scandinavian cooperative advantage” in an effort to draw attention to the Scandinavian context and encourage the field of strategic management to shift its focus from achieving a competitive advantage toward achieving a cooperative advantage.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The adjective use of the word cooperative also has application with respect to cooperative enterprises and organizations, i.e. “co-ops”, given that the formation of a co-op is rooted in a desire for cooperation to occur between members and the expected benefits to result.

  2. Although, the date of September 1967 given at the close of the 1968 foreword proves that Rhenman was using the English expression “stakeholder” by that date, how the stakeholder expression first entered Rhenman’s vernacular and how far in advance of September 1967 it did so remain open questions for which we invite further investigation. The notes preceding this foreword credit Mrs. Nancy Adler with the translation from Swedish. It is reasonable to conclude that Rhenman translated “interessent” to “stakeholder” rather than relying on a translator given the central importance of the expression “stakeholder” in the English version, Rhenman’s clear competencies in English, and additional evidence presented in the foreword indicating Rhenman’s lead role in editing the Swedish version to English.

  3. For additional commentary on Rhenman, see Carlsson (2007). We also extend our gratitude to Rolf H. Carlsson for his contributions to this article.

  4. Professor James E. Howell is the Theodore J. Kreps Professor of Economics, Emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Business (Stanford Faculty Profile 2012).

  5. Personal correspondence with Rolf H. Carlsson during April 2012.

  6. Personal correspondence with Rolf H. Carlsson during April 2012.

  7. According to Carlsson, Rhenman was at Carnegie Tech during the 1959–1960 academic year, during which time he studied under the direction of Herbert Simon, to whom Rhenman refers explicitly in the foreword to Industrial Democracy: “I should like to mention three authors who have particularly influenced me, namely Chester Barnard, Herbert Simon, and Philip Selznick”. Carlsson also mentions that Rhenman spent 3 months at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. in 1962, a claim supported in the preface to Conflict and Cooperation in Business Organizations, coauthored by Rhenman and two Scandinavian colleagues, Lennart Strömberg and Gunnar Westerlund and published in Swedish in 1963 and in English in 1970 (Rhenman et al. 1970). Most important, in answer to our direct question about this timeline, Carlsson stipulated that “Eric did not spend time earlier at Stanford”. We can also place Rhenman in Oslo, Norway, during July 1963 based on his presentation at a conference (Rhenman 1963).

  8. The difficulties of tracking down the Stanford memorandum are discussed in Freeman (1984, pp. 31–33, 49n.1, 50n.15) and further elaborated in Freeman et al. (2010, pp. 31n.4, 42n.18, 45–46n.19).

  9. Translated from the Finnish. The original text reads “Näkemyksemme kehittämisessä olemme saaneet vaikutteita erityisesti ruotsalaisen organisaatiotutkijan Eric Rhenmanin tuotannosta”.

  10. One could readily that this sort of adversarial view of the firm resembles Porter's “Five Competitive Forces” model in which customers and suppliers are pitted in direct competition with the company.

  11. Also known as the Swedish Institute for Administrative Research.

  12. Personal correspondence with Rolf H. Carlsson during April 2012.

  13. Näsi (1995a, b) does not offer commentary regarding Denmark. Discussions of industrial democracy were widespread in Denmark during this era (Westenholz 2006), but it is not well understood the degree to which Rhenman’s offerings were utilized. This remains an open area of interest to the authors.

  14. “Survival of the fittest” was first coined by the economist Hubert Spencer (Werhane 2000; Stucke 2008, p. 973; Nowak and Highfield 2011, p. 14).

References

  • Ahlstedt, L., & Jahnukainen, I. (1971). Yritysorganisaatio yhteistoiminnan ohjausjärjestelmän. Helsinki: Weilin & Göös.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance: Managing in a Dynamic Environment. New York: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2003). Critical organization studies. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), The Northern Lights—Organization Theory in Scandinavia (pp. 151–174). Malmo: Liber.

  • Andersen, H. C. (2009). Works of Hans Christian Andersen: Mobile Reference, Available at http://books.google.dk/books?id=xuSy6icx2joC, retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Andersen, H. C. (2012), “I am a Scandinavian”, Available at http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/hans-christian-anderson?before=1340262393, retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Andersen, H.C. & Music (2012). I am a Scandinavian. Available at http://www2.kb.dk/elib/noder/hcamusik//skandinav/index_en.htm. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Andersen, J. G., & Hoff, J. (2001). Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, C., & Joenniemi, P. (2003). The Nordic Peace. Cornwall: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audebrand, L. K. (2010). Sustainability in strategic management education: The quest for new root metaphors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ax, C., & Bjørnenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of management accounting innovations: The case of the balanced scorecard in Sweden. Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (2006). The Evolution of Cooperation. Revised Edition. Cambridge: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (2009). Ethical Theory and Business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birchall, J. (2003). Rediscovering the cooperative advantage. Poverty reduction through self-help. Geneva: International Labour Office, Cooperative Branch.

  • Bjerke, B. (1999). Business Leadership and Culture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bondeson, U. (2003). Nordic moral Climates: Value Continuities and Discontinuities in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D., Phillips, R., & Harrison, J. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. E. (1999). Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyden, J., Ling, B., & Myers, W. (1998). What Works for Working Children. Stockholm: Save the Children/UNICEF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruzelius, L. H., & Skärvad, P. H. (1974). Integrerad företagadminstration. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B., & Davis, C. (2005). A tale of passion: New insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, R. H. (2002). Ownership and Value Creation: Strategic Corporate Governance in the New Economy. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, R. H. (2007). Swedish corporate governance and value creation: Owners still in the driver’s seat. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1038–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1989). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Cincinnati: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Näsi, J. (1997). Understanding stakeholder thinking: Themes from a Finnish conference. Business Ethics: A European Review, 6(1), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies: Clusters, learning and cooperative advantage. London: Routledge.

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, G. B., & Padula, G. (2002). Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation. In Innovative Research in Management, European Academy of Management (EURAM), vol 9, Second Annual Conference, Stockholm, May 9–11.

  • Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43, 326–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, T. K. (1979). A History of Scandinavia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp. 669–721). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engwall, L. Furusten, S., & Wallerstedt, E. (2002). The changing relationship between management consulting and academia: Evidence from Sweden. In M. Kipping, & L. Engwall (Eds.) Management Consulting: Emergence and Dynamics of a Knowledge Industry. (pp. 36–51) Oxford: Oxford.

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times (2004, 14 September). IKEA’s grown-up plan to tackle child labour.

  • Financial Times (2013, 20 March). Scandinavia: Model management. Available at www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0f4bc0e-81c2-11e2-ae78-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Pxxj2aFK. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

  • Forbes (2012, 24 January). Ranking the world’s most sustainable companies. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/01/24/ranking-the-worlds-most-sustainable-companies. Retrieved 1 June 2012.

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984/2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

  • Freeman, R. E. (2009a). Managing for stakeholders. In T. L. Beauchamp, N. E. Bowie, & D. G. Arnold (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business (8th ed., pp. 56–68). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2009b). Stakeholder theory: 25 years later. Philosophy of Management, 8(3), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010a). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. 25th anniversary reprint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010b). Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., & Wicks, A. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Heed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 93–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962/2002). Capitalism and Freedom. 40 th Anniversary Copy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Friedman, M. (1970, 13 September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.

  • Friedman, M. (1986). Economists and economic policy. Economic Inquiry, 24(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg, M. (2009). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1), 10–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic Model”. Regulation and Governance, 4, 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (2013). Compiled by SolAbility. Ilsan. Available at http://www.solability.com/pdfs/Sustainable_Competitiveness_Index_2013.pdf. Retrieved 19 April 2013.

  • Grennes, T. (2003). Scandinavian managers on Scandinavian management. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 16, 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H&M. (2012a) Stakeholder engagement overview: Engaging with our stakeholders. Available at http://about.hm.com/content/dam/hm/about/documents/en/CSR/Others/Stakeholder%20engagement%20overview_en.pdf. Retrieved 1 May 2012.

  • H&M. (2012b). A clear stand against child labour. Available at http://about.hm.com/content/hm/AboutSection/en/About/Sustainability/Commitments/Responsible-Partners/Code-of-Conduct/Stand-Against-Child-Labour.html. Retrieved 1 May 2012.

  • Harris, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2008). The impossibility of the separation thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlin, H. & Pedersen, J. T. forthcoming. Corporate foundations: Catalysts of NGO-business partnerships? Journal of Corporate Citizenship.

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hydro (2002). Hydro and Amnesty International Norway sign cooperation agreement. Available at http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2002/Pages/HydroAndAmnestyInternationalNorwaySignCooperationAgreement.aspx. Retrieved 16 July 2013.

  • IKEA. (2012). Preventing child labor. Available at http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/our_responsibility/working_conditions/preventing_child_labour.html. Retrieved 9 May 2012.

  • Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximizations, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of ManagementReview, 24, 206–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, N. K., Rozuel, C., & Lee-Davies, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach: A conceptual review. Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 1(4), 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhöhn, W. (1993). What do we mean by cooperative advantage? European Management Journal, 11(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjær, V (2012). A Nordic CSR policy framework. Keynote address. Global Compact Nordic Meeting. 1–2 October 2012. Copenhagen.

  • Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., & Pitts, R. A. (1997). Building cooperative advantage: Managing strategic alliances to promote organizational learning. Journal of World Business, 32(3), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, J., & Rhenman, E. (1989). The SIAR school of strategic management. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange, P., Løwendahl, B. R., & Revang, Ø. (2003). Scandinavian approaches to strategy—Combining competition and co-operation in practice. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), The Northern Lights: Organization Theory in Scandinavia (pp. 131–149). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, M. (Ed.). (1991). Sweden at the Edge: Lessons for American and Swedish Managers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2012). Understanding Michael Porter. The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy. Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Mason, R., & Mitroff, I. (1982). Challenge Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallin, J. & Webb, T. (2004, January). Corporate Responsibility Progress in Scandinavia. Ethical Corporation.

  • Michelsen, J. (1994). The rationales of cooperative organizations: Some suggestions from Scandinavia. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 65(1), 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midttun, A., Gautesen, K., & Gjølberg, M. (2006). The political economy of CSR in Western Europe. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(4), 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (2001). Foreword. In Richard Normann’s Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape. (pp. ix–xi) West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. London: Financial Times/Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirvis, P., & Googines, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., Midttun, A., & Palmås, K. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Scandinavia—a turn towards the business case? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The Debate Over Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 98–127). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Oswald, D. (2009). Sustainable leadership: Management control systems and organizational culture in Novo Nordisk A/S. Corporate Governance, 9(1), 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näsi, J. (1995a). A Scandinavian approach to stakeholder thinking: An analysis of its theoretical and practical uses, 1964–1980. In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding Stakeholder Thinking (pp. 97–115). Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Näsi, J. (1995b). What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of the social theory of the firm. In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding Stakeholder Thinking (pp. 19–32). Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, B. (2000). Scandinavia Since 1500. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norsk Hydro. (2012). Norsk Hydro Main Shareholders. Available at http://www.norskhydro.com/en/Investor-relations/The-Hydro-share/Shareholders/Shareholder-overview/. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Novo Nordisk. (2011, 16 June). The Triple Bottom Line—our way of doing business. Presentation by Susanne Stormer, Vice President, Global Triple Bottom Line Management, Novo Nordisk. Bagsværd, Denmark.

  • Novo Nordisk. (2012). Stakeholder engagement. Available at: http://www.novonordisk.com/sustainability/stakeholder_engagement/stakeholder_engagement.asp. Retrieved 10 May 2012.

  • Novo Nordisk Foundation. (2012). Ownership and Subsidiaries. Available at http://www.novonordiskfonden.dk/en/content/ownership-and-subsidiaries. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Novozymes. (2012). Stakeholder engagement. Available at: http://www.novozymes.com/en/sustainability/stakeholder-engagement/Pages/default.aspx. Retrieved 10 May 2012.

  • Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2011). SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. W. (1999). Real time strategy: Strategy as Sports! War!… Food? Journal of Business Strategies, 20(5), 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 96–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco: Berret Kohler Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1979, March/April) How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review.

  • Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011, January–February). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review. pp. 62–77.

  • Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randøy, T., Thomsen, S., & Oxelheim, L. (2006). A Nordic perspective on corporate board diversity. Age, 390, 0-5428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhenman, E. (1963, July). Research Planning—A Complex Problem. Conference paper presentation at the 3rd International Conference on Operational Research. Oslo: Swedish Institute for Administrative Research publication SIAR-4. UDC 65.012.2.

  • Rhenman, E. (1964). Företagsdemokrati och företagsorganisation. Stockholm: Thule.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhenman, E. (1968). Industrial Democracy and Industrial Management. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhenman, E. (1973). Organization Theory for Long-Range Planning. London: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhenman, E., Strömberg, L., & Westerlund, G. (1970). Conflict and Cooperation in Business Organizations. London: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhenman, E., & Stymne, B. (1965). Företagsledning i en föränderlig värld [Corporate Management in a Changing World]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rholin, L. (1972). Företagsekonomi—En första introduktion. Lund: Liber Laromdel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 585–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, P. V. (2003). The Competition Paradigm, America’s Romance with Conflict, Contest, and Commerce. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinani, E., Stafsudd, A., Thomsen, S., Edling, C., & Randøy, T. (2008). Corporate governance in Scandinavia: Comparing networks and formal institutions. European Management Review, 5(1), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöstrand, S. E. (1974). Organisationsteori. Lund: Hermods-Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrabec, Q. R, Jr. (1999). Cooperative advantage—A new measure of performance. National Productivity Review, 18(2), 69–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Progress Index. (2013). Available at http://www.socialprogressimperative.org. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

  • Stanford Faculty Profile. (2012). James E. Howell. Available at http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/facultyprofiles/biomain.asp?id=76653299. Retrieved 27 April 2012.

  • Stanford Research Institute (SRI). (1963). Internal memorandum as cited in Freeman and Reed (1983) and Freeman (1984).

  • Statoil. (2011). Statoil 2011 Annual Report: Major Shareholders. Available at http://www.statoil.com/annualreport2011/en/shareholderinformation/pages/majorshareholders.aspx. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Statoil. (2012). Statoil 2011 Annual report on Form 20F. Available at http://www.statoil.com. Retrieved 10 May 2012.

  • Stormer, S. (2013, 7 April). Inaugural Lecture by Susanne Stormer, Vice President, Corporate Sustainability, Novo Nordisk and Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Business School. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School.

  • Strand, R. (2009). Corporate responsibility in Scandinavian supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. (2011). Toward sustainable sustainability learning: Lessons from a US MBA study abroad program in Scandinavia. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 7(2), 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. (2013). The chief officer of corporate social responsibility: A study of its presence in top management teams. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 721–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. forthcoming. Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The case of IKEA. In Shiban Khan (Ed.), World Humanism: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Ethical Practices in Organizations. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Stucke, M. E. (2008). Better competition advocacy. St. John’s Law Review, 82(3), 951–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stymne, B. (2004). Traveling in the borderline of academy and industry. In N. Adler, A. B. Shani, & A. Styhre (Eds.), Collaborative Research in Organizations: Foundation for Learning, Change, and Theoretical Development (pp. 37–53). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2013, 2 February). Special Report: The Nordic Countries—The Northern Lights.

  • Thomsen, S., & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate Governance: Mechanisms and Systems. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, S., & Hansmann, H. (2009). The Governance of Industrial Foundations. Working paper. Available at http://webs2002.uab.es/dep-economia-empresa/recerca/DocsSem/S_Thomsen_22_4_10.pdf. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

  • Vallentin, S. & Murillo, D. (2010). Government, Governance and Collaborative Social Responsibility. In: Tencati, A & Zsolnai, L. (Eds.) The Collaborative Enterprise (pp. 209–227). Peter Lang Publishers: Oxford, UK).

  • Vandekerckhove, W. (2009). What managers do: Comparing Rhenman and Freeman. Philosophy of Management, 8(3), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Ghyczy, T. (2003, September). The Fruitful Flaws of Strategy Metaphors. Harvard Business Review. pp. 86–94.

  • Walsh, J. P. (2005). Book review essay: Taking stock of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (2000). Business ethics and the origins of contemporary capitalism: Economics and ethics in the work of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(3), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westenholz, A. (2006). Employee participation in the management of working life: An historical analysis focusing on Danish and Scandinavian conditions. International Review of Sociology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 16(1), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum (2013). Sustainability-Adjusted Global Competitiveness Index. Available at http://www.weforum.org/content/pages/sustainable-competitiveness. Retrieved 1 June 2013.

  • Yaziji, M. (2004). Turning gadflies into allies. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 110–115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the students of the University of Minnesota’s IBUS 6315: “CSR: A Scandinavian Approach” and IBUS 6316: “Sustainability and Cooperative Advantage in Scandinavia”, the students of the Copenhagen Business School’s BLC 3CSR: “Sustainability and CSR in Scandinavia”, Rolf H. Carlsson, Marianne Barner, Susanne Stormer, Mette Morsing, and the three anonymous reviewers for their most helpful input. Support was provided in part by the University of Minnesota Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven 18A, Ground floor, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Robert Strand

  2. University of Virginia Darden School of Business, 100 Darden Boulevard, Office: FOB 164, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    R. Edward Freeman

Authors
  1. Robert Strand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Edward Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Strand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strand, R., Freeman, R.E. Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia. J Bus Ethics 127, 65–85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1792-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1792-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation