Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice

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

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

Notes

  1. Interimistic relational exchange is defined as a close, collaborative, fast-developing, short-lived exchange relationship in which companies pool their skills and/or resources to address a transient, albeit important, business opportunity and/or threat (Lambe et al. 2000, p. 212).

  2. This discussion concentrates on cross-sectoral collaboration, but we incorporate the literature on strategic alliances where it is relevant (see Table 1).

References

  • Bae, J., & Gargiulo, M. (2004). Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D., & Ashman, D. (1996). Participation, social capital, and intersectoral problem-solving: African and Asian cases in promoting Civil Society-government cooperation: A selection of IDR reports. Boston, MA: IDR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, M. D., Savage, G. T., & Holloway, B. B. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for multi-sector innovations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17, 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, S. J., Madho, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, B. A. (1988). Open focus: Implementing projects in multi-organizational settings. International Journal of Public Administration, 11(4), 503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L. G. (2000). Strategic marketing planning for radically new products. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2001). The negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational collaborative groups. The Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F., & Trist, E. (1965). The casual texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 333–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1994). Obstacles to interorganizational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and multiple methods. In M. Wang & L. Rigby (Eds.), School/community connections: Exploring issues for research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B., & Hay, T. M. (1986). Political limits to interorganizational consensus and change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H., Clark, J. P., Giordano, P. C., Johnson, P. V., & van Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., & Newman, W. H. (1990). Bases of interorganizational co-operation: Propensity, power, persistence. The Journal of Management Studies, 27(4), 417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmeister, A., & Borchert, H. (2004). Public–private partnership in Switzerland: Crossing the bridge with the aid of a new governance approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C. (1993). Pursuing collaborative advantage. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(6), 599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C. (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000a). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collaboration. Human Relations, 53(6), 771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000b). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26, 397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2000). Interimistic relational exchange: Conceptualization and propositional development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Fractional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2001). When ‘silence = death’, keep talking: Trust, control and the discursive construction of identity in the Canadian HIV/AIDS treatment domain. Organization Studies, 22(2), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K. J., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: Integrating resourced-based and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Using strategic alliances to develop credible green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12, 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M. J. (1995). A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 10(3), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M., & Ottman, J. (1998). Stakeholders contribution to the green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(6), 533–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. I. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuer, J. J., & Ragozzino, R. (2006). Agency hazards and alliance portfolios. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.

    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., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr. (1975). Determinants of interorganizational cooperation. Academy of Management Journal (pre-1986), 18(000004), 846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A. (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortell, S. M., Zukoski, A. P., Alexander, J. A., Bazzoli, G. J., Conrad, D. A., Hasnain-Wynia, R., et al. (2002). Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: Tracking the footprints. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27(1), 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, K., & Mitchell, W. (2005). Growth dynamics: The bidirectional relationship between interfirm collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sink, D. (1996). Five obstacles to community-based collaboration and some thoughts on overcoming them. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 101–109). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (1996). Green alliances: Strategic relations between businesses and environmental groups. Business Horizons, 39(2), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K., & Corley, K. G. (2000). On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1045–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. (2000). The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). Consensus-building handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003a). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003b). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14, S61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations. Administration and Society, 21, 78–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S., & Lui, S. S. (2005). Distinguishing costs of cooperation and control in alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 913–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management, Information Systems, and Quantitative Methods Department, University of Alabama at Birmingham, BEC 319F, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL, 35294-4460, USA

    Grant T. Savage

  2. University of Montevallo, Montevallo, AL, USA

    Michele D. Bunn

  3. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Barbara Gray

  4. West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, USA

    Qian Xiao

  5. Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sijun Wang

  6. Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA

    Elizabeth J. Wilson

  7. University of Albama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

    Eric S. Williams

Authors
  1. Grant T. Savage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michele D. Bunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qian Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elizabeth J. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eric S. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant T. Savage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Savage, G.T., Bunn, M.D., Gray, B. et al. Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice. J Bus Ethics 96 (Suppl 1), 21–26 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0939-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0939-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation