IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/crnind/v17y2016i2p181-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Network Companies Seek Legitimacy for Public Value Trade Offs?

Author

Listed:
  • Bauke Steenhuisen
  • Mark de Bruijne

Abstract

Network companies fulfill a critical role in the energy transition. This article provides an empirical study of this role of a Dutch national gas network company connecting a biogas producer. This project requires choices about many intertwined technical and institutional variables. Choices involve multiple, potentially competing public values like safety, cost-efficiency, sustainability and non-discrimination. A formal governance structure provides generic guidelines for network companies about how to act in the public interest, but we argue that unclarity remains on how to trade-off public values. In these instances, a network company seeks legitimacy for the choices that are made. Via an in-depth case study on the injection of biogas we explored how a network company interpreted its public role and how public value trade-offs were made. We conclude that legitimacy is sought and found in a mixture of formal and informal ways both inside the network company as well as outside. Although the governance regime allowed the network company to take a leading role in the innovative project, it failed as a starting point to claim legitimacy. These findings provide food for thought on how to institutionally embed the role of network companies in the energy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Bauke Steenhuisen & Mark de Bruijne, 2016. "How Do Network Companies Seek Legitimacy for Public Value Trade Offs?," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 17(2), pages 181-201, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:crnind:v:17:y:2016:i:2:p:181-201
    DOI: 10.1177/178359171601700204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/178359171601700204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/178359171601700204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. M. De Bruijne & B. Steenhuisen & A. Correljé & E. Ten Heuvelhof & L. De Vries, 2011. "How to design a new gas bid price ladder? Exploring market design issues in the new Dutch gas balancing regime," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Intersentia, vol. 12(1), pages 83-98, March.
    3. Wijnand Veeneman & Willemijn Dicke & Mark De Bruijne, 2009. "From clouds to hailstorms: a policy and administrative science perspective on safeguarding public values in networked infrastructures," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(5), pages 414-434.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    2. Scholtens, Bert, 2008. "A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 46-55, December.
    3. Marc Bollecker & Pierre Mathieu & Claude Clementz, 2006. "Le Comportement Socialement Responsable Des Entreprises : Une Lecture Des Travaux En Comptabilite Et Contrôle De Gestion Dans Une Perspective Neo-Institutionnaliste," Post-Print halshs-00769052, HAL.
    4. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    5. Ferrell, Allen & Liang, Hao & Renneboog, Luc, 2016. "Socially responsible firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 585-606.
    6. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2008. "Corporate citizenship as stakeholder management: An ordonomic approach to business ethics," Discussion Papers 2008-4, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    7. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    8. Bert Scholtens & Feng‐Ching Kang, 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Earnings Management: Evidence from Asian Economies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 95-112, March.
    9. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Everding, Sebastian, 2020. "Do hybrids impede sustainability? How semantic reorientations and governance reforms can produce and preserve sustainability in sharing business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 174-185.
    10. Shai Levi & Benjamin Segal, 2015. "The Impact of Debt-Equity Reporting Classifications on the Firm's Decision to Issue Hybrid Securities," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 801-822, December.
    11. Chakraborty, Atreya & Gao, Lucia Silva & Sheikh, Shahbaz, 2019. "Managerial risk taking incentives, corporate social responsibility and firm risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 58-72.
    12. Pascual Berrone & Jordi Surroca & Josep Tribó, 2007. "Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 35-53, November.
    13. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.
    14. Werner Hediger, 2013. "From Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture to the Social Responsibility of the Agri-food System," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 6(1), pages 59-80.
    15. Mădălina Viorica MANU & Ilie VASILE, 2019. "Challenging the status quo: Steel producer case study on the enterprise value for M&A," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(3(620), A), pages 99-114, Autumn.
    16. Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Lisa Schopohl, 2020. "State Pension Funds and Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Beneficiaries’ Political Values Influence Funds’ Investment Decisions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 489-516, September.
    17. Zhou, Taiyun & Liu, Mingxuan & Zhang, Xiyu & Qi, Zheng & Qin, Ni, 2024. "Does institutional ownership affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 84-98.
    18. Thilini Cooray & Samanthi Senaratne & A. D. Nuwan Gunarathne & Roshan Herath & Dileepa Samudrage, 2020. "Does Integrated Reporting Enhance the Value Relevance of Information? Evidence from Sri Lanka," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Karen Maas & Kellie Liket, 2011. "Talk the Walk: Measuring the Impact of Strategic Philanthropy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 445-464, May.
    20. Vincenzo Formisano & Bernardino Quattrociocchi & Maria Fedele & Mario Calabrese, 2018. "From Viability to Sustainability: The Contribution of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.

    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:sae:crnind:v:17:y:2016:i:2:p:181-201. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.