IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v26y2016i02p227-256_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Judgments of Value

Author

Listed:
  • Lankoski, Leena
  • Smith, N. Craig
  • Van Wassenhove, Luk

Abstract

Although central to stakeholder theory, stakeholder value is surprisingly neglected in the literature. We draw upon prospect theory to show how stakeholder judgments of value depend crucially on the reference state, how there are several alternative reference states that may be operative when stakeholders judge value, how the choice of reference state for stakeholders’ value judgments can occur intuitively or deliberately, and how the level of the operant reference state may change with time and may also be incorrectly perceived by stakeholders or managers. Our theorizing results in a fundamentally different way of perceiving the value of corporate actions to stakeholders and shifts understanding of the avenues available for companies and others to influence stakeholder judgments of value. This novel perspective has implications both for theory and management practice, and not least for normative business ethics, if business is about stakeholder value creation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lankoski, Leena & Smith, N. Craig & Van Wassenhove, Luk, 2016. "Stakeholder Judgments of Value," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 227-256, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:26:y:2016:i:02:p:227-256_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X16000282/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lutz Preuss & Ralf Barkemeyer & Bimal Arora & Shilpi Banerjee, 2024. "Sensemaking along global supply chains: implications for the ability of the MNE to manage sustainability challenges," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(4), pages 492-514, June.
    2. Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya, 2020. "Humanistic Orientation in Firm–Stakeholder Technology-based Interaction and Its Impact on Stakeholder Satisfaction," Emerging Economy Studies, International Management Institute, vol. 6(1), pages 86-105, May.
    3. Henriques, C.O. & Gouveia, C.M. & Tenente, M. & da Silva, P.P., 2022. "Employing Value-Based DEA in the eco-efficiency assessment of the electricity sector," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 826-844.
    4. Zhaodi Lu & Mengyao Xu & Zhengfeng Zhang, 2022. "Analyzing Stakeholder Relationships for Construction Land Reduction Projects in Shanghai, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Elena Candelo & Cecilia Casalegno & Chiara Civera & Fabrizio Mosca, 2018. "Turning Farmers into Business Partners through Value Co-Creation Projects. Insights from the Coffee Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Ishrat Ali & Griffin W. Cottle, 2021. "Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial Performance: The Creation and Destruction of Value from a Stakeholder Capabilities Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 781-796, May.
    7. Ivan Fedorenko & Pierre Berthon, 2017. "Beyond the expected benefits: unpacking value co-creation in crowdsourcing business models," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(3), pages 183-194, December.
    8. Silvana Signori & Leire San-Jose & Jose Luis Retolaza & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2021. "Stakeholder Value Creation: Comparing ESG and Value Added in European Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:26:y:2016:i:02:p:227-256_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.