Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Relationship Capability and Firm Innovation: A Contingent Analysis

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

Abstract

Despite the growing importance of stakeholder management, few studies have empirically examined the influence of stakeholder relationship capability (SRC) on firm innovation, especially in emerging economies. This study investigates how SRC relates to firm innovation in the presence of governmental intervention and in combination with firm-level characteristics. Using a survey and multiple secondary datasets on the listed Chinese firms, our findings indicate that SRC is positively associated with firm innovation. Moreover, advanced legal development and high-tech status strengthen the positive link between SRC and innovation, whereas state ownership and firm age weaken this relationship. These findings provide novel insights into how firms use stakeholder management to enhance innovation that is beneficial for economic growth.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.innocom.gov.cn/gxjsqyrdw/ztwj/201602/5e7d1f23faf547de9de2aff3ce9f434a.shtml.

  2. http://www.baoan.gov.cn/ggfw/kjcx/kjcxzc/201805/t20180524_11932860.htm.

  3. http://www.innocom.gov.cn.

  4. We used the number of patent applications in 2010 (year t +1) and in 2011 (year t + 2) and results showed SRC has a positive but nonsignificant effect on innovation. We then used the total number of patent applications in 2011–2013 (year t + 3, t + 4 and t + 5), and the results were highly consistent with our main findings.

  5. Alternatively, we used eight dummies for industry types as controls and obtained highly consistent results.

  6. http://www.gdep.gov.cn/zcfg/bmguizhang/201305/t20130530_153013.html.

  7. http://www.csrc.gov.cn/pub/shenzhen/xxfw/tzzsyd/ssgs/scgkfx/scxx/201410/t20141010_261520.htm.

References

  • Ahuja, G., & Novelli, E. (2017). Activity overinvestment: The case of R&D. Journal of Management, 43(8), 2456–2468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, E., Díez-de-Castro, E., & Lloréns-Montes, F. (2015). Linking employee stakeholders to environmental performance: The role of proactive environmental strategies and shared vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 167–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. Á., & Ricart, J. E. (2006). Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 6(4), 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (2018). Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(13), 3305–3325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. (2016). Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1197–1222.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2016). Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 229–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavazos, D. E., Patel, P., & Wales, W. J. (2012). Mitigating environmental effects on new venture growth: The critical role of stakeholder integration across buyer and supplier groups. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1243–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Does stakeholder management have a dark side? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y. L., Kong, D., Tan, W., & Wang, W. (2015). Being good when being international in an emerging economy: The case of China. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 805–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2268-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B., Kumar, M. V. S., & Zambuto, F. (2016). Capital structure and innovation trajectory: The role of debt in balancing exploration and exploitation. Organization Science, 27(5), 1183–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management, 31(4), 573–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 895–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, R. (2014). Do non-competition agreements lead firms to pursue risky R&D projects? Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1230–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Ceballos, J., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2012). The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 281–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, V. M. (2018). Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of organizational legitimacy and learning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 220–244.

    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 

  • Driessen, P. H., & Hillebrand, B. (2013). Integrating multiple stakeholder issues in new product development: An exploration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 364–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417–1435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. (2011). The report on the relative process of marketization of regions in China. Beijing: The Economic Science Press. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y., & Hafsi, T. (2015). Government intervention, peers’ giving and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from Chinese private SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 433–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., & Francoeur, C. (2016). When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 406–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V. J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2018). Analysis of the influence of the environment, stakeholder integration capability, absorptive capacity, and technological skills on organizational performance through corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 345–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Berman, S. L. (2016). Corporate social performance and economic cycles. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 279–294.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Coombs, J. E. (2012). The moderating effects from corporate governance characteristics on the relationship between available slack and community-based firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 409–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harting, T. R., Harmeling, S. S., & Venkataraman, S. (2006). Innovation stakeholder relations: When ‘ethics pays’ (and when it doesn’t). Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I. M., Nazari, J. A., & Mahmoudian, F. (2016). Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 417–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. G.-L., Geng, X., & Wang, H. (2017). Institutional regime shift in intellectual property rights and innovation strategies of firms in China. Organization Science, 28(2), 355–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Slater, S. F. (2005). Market orientation and performance: An integration of disparate approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1173–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1286–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., & Lu, X. (2016). Institutional interest, ownership type, and environmental capital expenditures: Evidence from the most polluting Chinese listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 459–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Xia, J., & Zajac, E. J. (2018). On the duality of political and economic stakeholder influence on firm innovation performance: Theory and evidence from Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Covin, J. G. (2002). The constant gardener revisited: The effect of social blackmail on the marketing concept, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3), 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, M. (2012). Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, M., Lenssen, G., Zollo, M., & Coda, V. (2010). Stakeholder cohesion, innovation, and competitive advantage. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(4), 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni, N., Egri, C., Lo, C., & Lin, Y. Y. (2013). Patterns of corporate responsibility practices for high financial performance: Evidence from three Chinese societies. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., de Colle, S., & Purnell, L. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., de Burgos-Jiménez, J., & Carmona-Moreno, E. (2009). Measuring stakeholder integration: Knowledge, interaction and adaptational behavior dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 419–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, C., Gao, X., & Tsang, A. (2015). Corporate philanthropy, ownership type, and financial transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2109-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2005). Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies, 27(2), 235–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2008). The influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: The moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. British Journal of Management, 19(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. (2011). The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). The grabbing hand: Government pathologies and their cures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, C., Zhou, K., Xiao, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). How green management influences product innovation in China: The role of institutional benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3), 471–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talke, K., & Hultink, E. J. (2010). Managing diffusion barriers when launching new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 537–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerckhove, W., & Dentchev, N. A. (2005). A network perspective on stakeholder management: Facilitating entrepreneurs in the discovery of opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Tung, V. (2013). The future of stakeholder management theory: A temporal perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 529–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Choi, J. (2013). A new look at the corporate social–financial performance relationship: The moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 39(2), 416–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In A. Crane (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Zhou, K. Z., & Du, F. (2018). Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0749.

  • Yang, D., Wang, A. X., Zhou, K. Z., & Jiang, W. (2018). Environmental strategy, institutional force, and innovation capability: A managerial cognition perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3830-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., & Zhao, H. (2017). State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 375–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. (2010). Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5), 861–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Wu, F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 547–561.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Section Editor Professor Jeffrey Harrison and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and guidance. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71402154).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

    Wei Jiang

  2. Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Aric Xu Wang & Kevin Zheng Zhou

  3. School of Business Administration, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian, China

    Chuang Zhang

Authors
  1. Wei Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aric Xu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Zheng Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kevin Zheng Zhou or Chuang Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, W., Wang, A.X., Zhou, K.Z. et al. Stakeholder Relationship Capability and Firm Innovation: A Contingent Analysis. J Bus Ethics 167, 111–125 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04161-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04161-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation