Author queries
Journal code
Manuscript number
Author name
QUERY NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
RJSM
581384
Maignan et al.
QUERY DETAILS
Please confirm that these received and accepted dates are correct.
Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997, p. 68 – the page range in the reference
list is 853-886. Please check.
Table 5: is it correct that the numbers only add up to 121 and not 150? Is
150 correct here as the sample size is 151?
Bagozzi, & Phillips, L.W. (1982): please supply first author’s initial.
I did not come across mention in the text of Hart & Sharma (2004) or
Narver et al. (2000). Please cite or delete.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
Vol. 00, No. 0, 2011, 1–26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Stakeholder orientation: Development and testing of a framework for
socially responsible marketing
Isabelle Maignana, Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padronb, G. Tomas M. Hultc and O.C. Ferrelld*
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a
Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands; bUniversity of Colorado at Colorado
Springs, College of Business and Administration, Colorado Springs 80933-7150, USA; cMichigan
State University, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, East Lansing 48824-1121, USA;
d
The University of New Mexico, Anderson School of Management, MSC05 3090, 1 University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque 87131, USA
Q1
(Received 22 November 2010; final version received 6 January 2011)
Drawing on the market orientation and stakeholder literatures, we conceptualize and
operationalize stakeholder orientation to explore the potential contribution of the
marketing function in a stakeholder view of the firm. Stakeholder orientation, similar to
market orientation, is operationalized as both an organizational culture and a set of
behaviors. The results of a managerial survey reveal that a new construct of stakeholderoriented behaviors has a strong positive association with market performance, financial
performance, reputation, and employee commitment. Overall, our study illustrates how a
stakeholder view of the firm can help improve managerial practices that contribute to
improved financial, social, and ethical performance.
23
24
25
Keywords: corporate responsibility and sustainability; stakeholder orientation; market
orientation; business ethics
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The concept of stakeholders is now widely embraced by businesses. The stakeholder view
has also been the subject of theoretical and empirical developments in the marketing
literature (Bhattacharya, 2010; Hoeffler, Bloom, & Keller, 2010; Mish & Scammon,
2010). Yet the marketing discipline has not given much attention to the role of the
marketing function in a stakeholder view of the firm. Stakeholder orientation (SO) has
been associated with concern for marketing ethics and social responsibility (Maignan &
Ferrell, 2004). Instead, while acknowledging market orientation (MO) as a core concept in
marketing strategy over the past two decades, marketing scholars have implicitly
positioned customers as the stakeholder group of most interest to marketing research and
practice (Day, 1994; Narver & Slater, 1990). We acknowledge that marketers have
focused on stakeholders other than customers, especially ethical concerns related to
stakeholders such as suppliers (Martin & Johnson, 2010). While specific stakeholders have
been addressed, there have not been studies that focus on an overall SO as it relates to
performance outcomes.
Yet as exemplified in the various corporate scandals that have marked the past decade,
a sole focus on customers is insufficient to ensure both financial performance and socially
responsible corporate behavior. Countrywide Financial provided subprime loans to
46
47
*Corresponding author. Email: ocferrell@mgt.unm.edu
48
49
ISSN 0965-254X print/ISSN 1466-4488 online
q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2011.581384
http://www.informaworld.com
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
2
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
I. Maignan et al.
low-credit-score-customers and claimed to be making the dream of homeownership a
reality, but ultimately failed stakeholders and contributed to a global financial crisis
(Parloff, 2009). A survey of executives identifies the role of stakeholder engagement and
marketing strategies in addressing social trends effectively (Bonini, Mendonca, &
Oppenheim, 2006). However, while a call for more attention to marketing ethics and social
issues is prevalent, companies continue to struggle with tactics for addressing multiple
stakeholder issues effectively. Research has not examined SO as a holistic concept that
includes all primary stakeholders.
An underlying premise of MO is the implementation of the marketing concept and the
focus on satisfying customers’ current and latent needs (Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster,
1993). While MO acknowledges the importance of factors other than customers, research
has not addressed specifics. In order to clarify the potential contribution of the marketing
disciple in achieving better financial, ethical, and social performance, one needs to focus
on a broader set of stakeholders. In order to explore the contribution of the marketing
function in a stakeholder view of the firm, we conceptualize and operationalize the
construct of stakeholder orientation (SO). Accordingly, we put forward a preliminary
definition of SO as the organizational culture and behaviors that induce organizational
members to continuously be aware of, and positively act upon, a variety of stakeholder
issues. Importantly, SO stimulates a general concern for a variety of actors, not any
specific group.
The proposed conceptualization and operationalization of SO helps address two gaps
in the extant literature: (1) exploring the processes that underpin the successful
management of various stakeholder interests; and (2) investigating the role of marketing
thought and processes in the stakeholder view of the firm. We start by conceptualizing SO
as a construct to improve organizational performance. We then operationalize SO by
empirically testing the relationship of SO to a number of organizational performance
constructs. We also examine the association of SO behaviors with diverse business
outcomes. To determine whether a concern for all stakeholders is more or less beneficial
than an emphasis on certain stakeholder groups, we evaluate the relationships using equal
weighting and sample-weighted case-weighted measures of SO. This approach is
supported by normative stakeholder theory that assumes that equal weighting is optimal.
Some researchers view stakeholder theory as primarily or exclusively a moral theory that
challenges preoccupation with setting priorities for specific stakeholders or shareholder
wealth (Boatright, 1994; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Goodpaster, 1991). We present the
theoretical underpinnings of the SO construct in the next section, followed by the
hypotheses, methods, results, and a discussion of the findings and implications.
Conceptual background
The stakeholder view of the firm
The contemporary stakeholder perspective (Freeman, 1984) takes into account the
interests of non-shareholder agents among the groups to whom businesses are responsible.
An individual or group is considered a stakeholder of a business unit when any one of three
characteristics applies: (1) the actor has the potential to be positively or negatively affected
by organizational activities and/or is concerned about the organization’s impact on their or
others’ well-being; (2) the actor can withdraw or grant resources needed for organizational
activities; or (3) the actor is valued by the organizational culture (Frooman, 1999; Maignan
& Ferrell, 2004; Rowley, 1997). Stakeholder theory is grounded on the normative
assumption that ‘all persons or groups with legitimate interests participating in an
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
3
enterprise do so to obtain benefits and that there is no prima facie priority of one set of
Q2 interests and benefits over another’ (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997, p. 68). While the
stakeholder perspective recognizes the intrinsic value of all stakeholders, it also
acknowledges the need for firms to serve the interests of key stakeholder groups in order to
secure their continued support (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Employees, customers,
shareholders, regulators, communities, and suppliers are widely acknowledged as being
among these stakeholders (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004).
Besides advocating and defining the notion of stakeholders, research has focused on
three main areas: (1) examining how various stakeholder groups collaborate with one
another (e.g. Hill & Jones, 1992; Rowley, 1997); (2) surveying the strategies employed by
stakeholders to influence organizational decisions (e.g. Frooman, 1999; Jawahar &
McLaughlin, 2001; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003); and (3) advocating SO as a normative
perspective to provide principles that contribute to an organizational culture supportive of
marketing ethics and social responsibility (e.g. Ferrell & Ferrell, 2008). In marketing, few
have conducted research on the processes that help organizations manage various
stakeholder groups.
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
The stakeholder perspective in marketing
The stakeholder perspective has pervaded the marketing literature on ethics and social
responsibility (e.g. Blodgett, Lu, Rose, & Vitell, 2001; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Sen,
Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006). Some authors have advocated the relevance of the
stakeholder concept to marketing, and have proposed marketing-based approaches to
addressing stakeholder demands (e.g. Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008; Polonsky, 1996).
Bhattacharya and Korschun report that adoption of SO creates research questions that
require further attention. Much of the current stakeholder theory assumes stakeholder
participants are distinct and mutually exclusive. However, the growing consensus is that a
firm’s stakeholders are embedded directly and indirectly in interconnected networks of
relationships. Diverse stakeholders may even join over issues of concern. Stakeholder
orientation from a marketing perspective implies a more expansive perspective than is
found in current MO research. Since the needs of different stakeholder groups are not
necessarily aligned, the coordination of stakeholder interests in MO may be difficult to
implement. This limitation is why MO is selected to focus on customers and competitors.
MO research assumes that it is impossible to include all of the factors that predict
performance. There is a need to focus on the key variables that most influence profitability.
Where MO is narrowly focused, SO is a philosophy that considers not only financial
performance, but also the long-term welfare of all stakeholders. MO developed as a
marketing philosophy parallel to SO developing as a philosophy for organizational social
responsibility. SO initially evolved from business ethics as a normative philosophy to
examine capitalism and societal interests. MO developed as more of an instrumental
philosophy focusing on performance and financial outcomes. A firm whose focus is MO is
mainly concerned about those stakeholders that influence customer buying habits and
financial outcomes. On the other hand, a firm that has a holistic SO perspective is
concerned about developing positive solutions to address all stakeholder issues (Ferrell,
Gonzalez-Padron, Hult, & Maignan, 2010). Our research focuses on how organizations
can leverage their marketing expertise to improve the welfare of all stakeholders, and
consequently improve organizational performance.
Their experience in developing customer relationships well positions marketers to
include stakeholder concerns in strategic planning. In fact, since the early 1990s, the field
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
4
I. Maignan et al.
150
of marketing has witnessed the development and growing acceptance of MO, a concept
that places customers as the focus of marketing philosophy and practice. Across
definitions of MO, the customer stakeholder-group is prevalent:
151
152
Market orientation represents superior skills in understanding and satisfying customers. (Day,
1994, p. 37)
148
149
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Market orientation is the organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates
the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous
superior performance for the business. (Narver & Slater, 1990, p. 21)
We see customer and market orientations as being synonymous . . . . We define customer
orientation as the set of beliefs that puts the customers’ interest first, while not excluding those
of all other stakeholders such as owners, managers, and employees, in order to develop a longterm profitable enterprise. (Deshpandé et al., 1993, p. 24)
To this point, marketing scholars have not been blind to other stakeholders beyond
customers. Jaworski and Kohli (1993, p. 54) note: ‘additional forces in a market (e.g.,
competition, technology, regulation) are considered to belong to the domain of the market
orientation construct’. However, as noted by Matsuno, Mentzer, and Rentz (2000), earlier
operationalizations of MO (e.g. Deshpandé & Farley, 1998; Kohli, Jaworski, & Kumar,
1993; Narver & Slater, 1990) capture mostly customers and competitors as focal domains
for understanding the market environment. Given this caveat, Matsuno and Mentzer
(2000, p. 5) propose a more inclusive definition and operationalization that include
‘relevant individual market participants (e.g., competitors, suppliers, and buyers) and
influencing factors (e.g., social, cultural, regulatory, and macroeconomic factors)’. The
studies by Matsuno and Mentzer (2000) and Matsuno et al. (2000) constitute an important
step toward enlarging the scope of MO. Nevertheless, their research still fails to
characterize the nature of these market forces and does not establish criteria to characterize
relevant ‘individual market participants’ and ‘influencing factors’. In addition, two core
stakeholder groups – employees and investors – are not included. Overall, the literature
on MO indirectly constrains the scope of marketing activities to certain stakeholders, with
a strong emphasis on the customer group and other stakeholders that impact customer
attitudes, preferences, and satisfaction (Ferrell et al., 2010). Advocates of MO would
defend customer orientation as necessary based on existing knowledge about the most
important stakeholders when utilizing resources to maximize profits.
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
Stakeholder orientation: the construct
Emerging marketing and ethics literature suggests that SO can be depicted as: (1) a way of
thinking that is ingrained in organizational culture (Greenley & Foxall, 1996, 1997;
Greenley, Hooley, Broderick, & Rudd, 2004); and (2) a set of organizational behaviors
aimed at fulfilling stakeholders’ demands (Berman, Wicks, Kotha, & Jones, 1999;
Logdson & Yuthas, 1997; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). The distinction between culture and
behaviors is echoed in discussions of MO (e.g. Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater,
1990). Homburg and Pflesser (2000) developed a conceptualization of MO as both culture
(composed of values, norms and artifacts) and behaviors (composed of intelligence
generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness).
We propose that the dimensions of MO identified by Homburg and Pflesser (2000) form
the foundation for the SO marketing construct. As described earlier, we define SO as the
organizational culture and behaviors that induce organizational members to continuously be
aware of, and positively act upon, a variety of stakeholder issues. Organizational culture and
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
5
climate are different. Climate is the operationalization of a company culture of what
happens in a company (Slater & Narver, 1995). Stakeholder issues are ‘the corporate
activities and effects thereof that are of concern to one or more stakeholder communities’
(Maignan & Ferrell, 2004, p. 8). Examples of stakeholder issues include the fairness of
product information, gender discrimination, employee compensation, transparency of
company reports and audits, and the environmental impact of products. We consider as
stakeholder-oriented those behaviors aimed at developing positive solutions to concretely
address stakeholder issues and exclude those activities that are also based on stakeholder
intelligence but aim to bypass issues or manipulate stakeholders’ perceptions.
Similar to MO, one can view SO as a continuous construct; it is neither present nor
absent in an organization. Instead, organizational units are likely to adopt SO to various
degrees. While some may view MO as a subset of SO, the two concepts had different
evolutionary developments. Now with both orientations fully developed, we see their
relationship but we do not attempt to characterize MO as developing as a subset of SO.
In order to evaluate the value added of the SO construct, we advance hypotheses –
illustrated in Figure 1 – aimed at explaining and evaluating the benefits of both MO and
SO empirically.
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
Hypothesis development
Stakeholder-oriented culture
A stakeholder-oriented culture provides organizational members with a pattern of shared
beliefs that assert the intrinsic importance of a variety of stakeholders. Following Homburg
and Pflesser (2000), we hypothesize that a stakeholder-oriented culture is made of three
interrelated components: shared basic values; behavioral norms; and artifacts. Table 1
provides a definition of each of these components and illustrates them with corporate
examples. Shared values are broad concepts such as continuous improvement, innovation,
integrity, and teamwork. An organization, such as Google, that embraces shared values on
innovation and teamwork provides new members with a set of basic assumptions about how
they use their time and work with others. Accordingly, values underpinning a stakeholder
orientation are unlikely to be stakeholder-specific; instead, they assert the importance of
diverse stakeholders. Unlike values, norms have a high degree of specificity and clarify the
nature of desirable behaviors through guiding principles expressed in the form of policies
and procedures (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). Artifacts help affirm and communicate to
organizational members what the organization stands for through media such as stories,
232
233
234
235
STAKEHOLDER ORIENTATION
Market performance
Stakeholder-Oriented culture
Stakeholder-Oriented behaviors
Stakeholder values
Generation of stakeholder intelligence
Financial performance
Stakeholder norms
Dissemination of intelligence
Reputation
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Stakeholder artifacts
Responsiveness to Intelligence
Employee commitment
243
244
245
Figure 1. Antecedents and outcomes of stakeholder-oriented behaviors: hypothesized
relationships.
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
256
257
258
259
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
276
260
275
Artifacts are the visible, tangible, and audible
expression of underpinning values and norms
(Hatch, 1993)
– GM cancer foundation’s Annual Scientific
Conference. This event helps celebrate GM’s
commitment to philanthropic activities – ‘You
Make a Difference’ award designed to
recognize employees who support diversity
Note: Information obtained from the corporate websites of the respective companies (www.gm.com and www.astrazeneca.com, accessed January 3, 2004).
Artifacts
255
Has a set of principles for Safety, Health and
the Environment (SHE), for human resources,
and for social responsibility. For example: ‘ –
as a minimum we meet national and
international regulations, [ . . . ] – we make a
positive contribution in the communities in
which we operate, [ . . . ] – marketing and sales
practices are reputable, [ . . . ]’
– The Chief Executive’s SHE Award; aimed
at celebrating the commitment of the company
and its members to SHE issues – In 2000, the
company celebrated its first birthday by
organizing community initiatives in more than
20 countries
254
Has defined formalized guiding principles in
the following areas: antibribery; conflict of
interest; export controls; gifts and gratuities;
integrity toward the environment and the
community; integrity of information; integrity
in the workplace; and personal integrity
6
Behavioral
norms
253
Has defined a number of core values. For
example: (1) respect for the individual and
diversity; (2) openness, honesty, trust and
support for each other; (3) integrity and high
ethical standards; (4) leadership by example at
all levels
252
Has defined six core values for the conduct of
its business: (1) continuous improvement; (2)
customer enthusiasm; (3) innovation; (4)
integrity; (5) teamwork; (6) individual respect
and responsibility
251
Values can be defined as the pattern of basic
assumptions defining desirable ends and
means that a group has invented, discovered,
or developed, and that have worked well
enough to be considered valid, and, therefore,
to be taught to new members (cf. Kluckhohn,
1951, p. 395; Schein, 1984, p. 3)
Norms dictate the nature of appropriate
behaviors in particular situations (Homburg &
Pflesser, 2000)
249
250
Shared
basic
values
248
AstraZeneca
247
General Motors
246
Definition
Table 1. Components of a stakeholder-oriented culture.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
I. Maignan et al.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
7
rituals, languages, ceremonies, and physical settings (Hatch, 1993; Homburg & Pflesser,
2000). Values, norms, and artifacts are all an important part of an organizational culture. At
General Electric, artifacts include a code of ethics to foster an ethical culture and a diagram
to illustrate the strategy for sustaining competitive advantage. The diagram is published in
the annual report and is available on the company website. Unlike values, which are broad in
scope, norms and artifacts are limited in scope and therefore are likely to be meaningful only
at the level of a single stakeholder group.
Stakeholder values are an important pillar of the SO culture because they generate SO
norms and artifacts. Noticeably, past research has shown that artifacts are the likely
conduit of concrete norms to organizational members (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000).
Accordingly, the presence of stakeholder-oriented norms is likely to be associated with
artifacts underpinning the importance of stakeholders. In summary, the following
hypotheses are advanced:
H1a:
H1b:
H1c:
Stakeholder values are positively associated with stakeholder norms.
Stakeholder values are positively associated with stakeholder artifacts.
Stakeholder norms are positively associated with stakeholder artifacts.
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
Stakeholder-oriented culture and behaviors
Following Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Maignan and Ferrell (2004, p. 10) propose three
types of SO behaviors: (1) the organization-wide generation of intelligence pertaining to
the nature of stakeholder issues; (2) the dissemination of this intelligence throughout the
organization; and (3) the organization-wide responsiveness to this intelligence. The
generation of stakeholder intelligence essentially consists of identifying relevant
stakeholders, clarifying stakeholder issues, and evaluating the organization’s impact on
these issues. A variety of actors generates stakeholder intelligence at different
organizational levels. Subsequently, organizational members require the dissemination
of stakeholder intelligence to ensure that they are all well informed about the issues
driving stakeholders’ needs and the organization’s involvement with these issues.
Intelligence dissemination can take place either formally (e.g. intranet, newsletters) or
informally (e.g. ‘hallway’ interactions), and can circulate both horizontally (across various
departments) and vertically (across lines of authority) (Kohli et al., 1993). The
organization-wide responsiveness to stakeholder intelligence designates initiatives taken
by the organization to enhance its positive impacts and reduce its negative impacts on
stakeholder issues. Examples include the control of labor conditions for supply chain
members, especially in developing countries; environmentally certified products;
programs to assist handicapped customers; and employee volunteerism in the community.
There is a wealth of support in past research that culture serves as a sense-making device
(e.g. Day, 1994) that shapes organizational behavior (Meyer, 1982; Pfeffer, 1981). A
stakeholder-oriented culture is likely to provide organizational members with a solid ground
on which to develop positive stakeholder-oriented behaviors. Past studies suggest that the
three dimensions of culture – values, norms, and artifacts – have a differentiated impact on
behaviors. Since norms prescribe the nature of adequate behaviors in specific situations, they
concretely guide organizational decisions and actions (Bates & Harvey, 1975; Katz & Kahn,
1978). Therefore, we propose that norms asserting the importance of stakeholder issues are
likely to be accompanied by stakeholder-oriented behaviors. While norms exercise
prescriptive power, artifacts have symbolic power; one can use them to motivate, to build
commitment, and to guide behavior in general (Schein, 1984; Smircich, 1983). Artifacts that
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
8
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
I. Maignan et al.
emphasize the importance of stakeholders (e.g. a company event where various stakeholders
are invited) are conducive to SO behaviors. In contrast to norms and artifacts, values are
diffuse, abstract, and do not specify which concrete actions or actors should be favored. Values
assert a general concern for stakeholders and are unlikely to lead directly to SO behaviors (e.g.
Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). Therefore, the following hypotheses are advanced:
H2a:
H2b:
Stakeholder norms are positively associated with SO behaviors.
Stakeholder artifacts are positively associated with SO behaviors.
352
353
354
Benefits of stakeholder-oriented behaviors
355
356
Stakeholder-oriented organizations are dedicated to learning about and addressing
stakeholder issues. When engaging in actions aimed at tackling a stakeholder issue, an
organization acknowledges the importance of that particular issue. A bond between the
organization and the stakeholders who care about the issue is likely to emerge because
these stakeholders perceive congruence between organizational values and norms and
their own values and norms (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Scott & Lane, 2000). For example,
investors who are concerned about environmental degradation may develop a stronger
identification with companies that adopt specific initiatives to reduce emissions or support
environmental conservation. Past research has demonstrated that high levels of
organizational identification result in increased stakeholder resources, such as employee
commitment or good reputation (Bhattacharya, Hayagreeva, & Glynn, 1995; Dutton &
Dukerich, 1994). Building on these findings, we suggest that the bonds of identification
stimulated by a stakeholder orientation translate into increased stakeholder resources.
We adopt Jaworski and Kohli’s (1993, p. 60) definition of employee commitment as
‘the extent to which a business unit’s employees are fond of the organization, and are
willing to make personal sacrifices for the business unit’. Employee commitment was
included in the study because past research found it to be an outcome of organizational
identification and of market-oriented behaviors (Dutton & Dukerich, 1994; Jaworski &
Kohli, 1993; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Organizational reputation was included in the
study because it represents a general assessment of the organization by its various
stakeholders. Following Fombrun and Shanley (1990, cf. p. 235), we define organizational
reputation as stakeholders’ cumulative judgments of a firm. Repetition reflects judgments
about the firm’s concern for stakeholders, including social and ethical performance. In
accordance with Homburg and Pflesser (2000), we distinguish between market and
financial performance. Market performance refers to the effectiveness of an organization’s
marketing activities, and is evaluated with items such as providing value to customers and
obtaining the desired market share (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000, p. 452). One evaluates
financial performance through usual indicators such as return on investments, return on
assets, and profit growth. Our discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
H3:
Stakeholder-oriented behaviors are positively associated with (a) market
performance, (b) financial performance, (c) reputation, and (d) employee
commitment.
389
390
391
392
Methods
In order to test the hypothesized model, we conducted a survey of senior corporate
executives of US-based organizations. Established measures were the basis to evaluate
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
9
employee commitment, market and financial performance, and reputation, while new
measures were developed to assess SO values, norms, artifacts, and behaviors (see
Appendix). To examine the relative importance attributed to each stakeholder group, a
seven-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 ¼ crucial to 7 ¼ negligible for the
respondent’s assessment of ‘overall importance’ of a particular stakeholder group; the
items were reverse coded prior to analysis. In addition to the hypothesized variables, we
included three control variables found to affect businesses’ openness to stakeholders
and/or MO behaviors in past studies (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993;
Maignan & Ralston, 2002). They are (1) percentage of products labeled under a corporate
brand name, (2) number of countries in which the organization operates, and (3) size of the
organization in number of employees.
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
Operationalization of stakeholder orientation
The adequacy of the proposed conceptualization of SO was evaluated through qualitative
research. First, a content analysis of the web pages of 100 companies randomly selected
from the 2003 Fortune 1000 list consisted of searching for and coding information with
respect to: (1) the stakeholders deemed as important by the organization; (2) the values,
norms, and artifacts indicative of stakeholder-oriented culture; and (3) SO behaviors. The
analysis revealed that the different dimensions of SO (values, norms, artifacts, intelligence
generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness) could be found across the 100
web pages surveyed. To complement the content analysis, focus group discussions with
two executive MBA classes and field interviews with 24 top executives (e.g. CEOs, VP
Marketing, VP External Affairs) were conducted to elicit relevant components of SO.
As expected, the qualitative investigation showed that the nature of the stakeholders
considered as relevant varied across firms and business units. However, there were six
stakeholder groups most frequently mentioned on the web pages and by our informants:
customers; employees; shareholders; suppliers; regulators; and local communities.
Accordingly, these six groups were the focus of measurement instruments employed to
assess the different components of SO. Overall, the qualitative inquiry provided support
for the proposed conceptualization of SO as culture and behaviors.
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
Stakeholder values
Three specific values emerged as conducive of an organization-wide concern for
stakeholders: (1) team orientation, which encourages cooperation and support between
members throughout the organization; (2) openness of internal communications; and (3)
ethical values, which assert the importance of ethics as a guide to organizational thinking
and behaviors. The qualitative inquiry revealed that the combination of these three values
– in contrast to the prevalence of one of these three values – was found in the companies
that appeared to give most attention to a variety of stakeholders. For team orientation, four
items were based on a measure proposed by Hult (1998). The openness of internal
communications was assessed with three items drawn from Homburg and Pflesser (2000).
Four new scale items gauge ethical values. In total, 11 items evaluated SO values.
438
439
440
441
Stakeholder norms and stakeholder artifacts
The qualitative study showed that SO norms are made explicit in a variety of
organizational policies relating to specific stakeholders. Examples of such policies include
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
10
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
I. Maignan et al.
those requesting fair and equitable treatment of all suppliers, and those defining the nature
of corporate contributions to the community. Similarly, the artifacts underpinning SO
were found to be stakeholder-specific. Examples include rewards to employees who did
something special for a customer or for the local community, events where suppliers are
invited, and newsletters aimed at shareholders only. In order to develop scale items that
incorporated stakeholder norms and artifacts, we selected two examples of norms and
artifacts for each stakeholder group from the most commonly mentioned; the scales for SO
norms and artifacts each included 12 items.
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
Stakeholder-oriented behavior
There are three constructs relating to stakeholder behaviors, information generation,
information dissemination, and responsiveness. Our qualitative inquiry indicated that
organizations adopt a variety of practices to generate, disseminate, and respond to
intelligence on each of the six stakeholders. However, it became apparent that processes
were similar for all stakeholder groups. For instance, surveys and interviews were
employed among all stakeholders to evaluate their satisfaction with the organization.
Similarly, periodical internal documents (e.g. reports, newsletters) were employed to
spread intelligence about stakeholders throughout the organization. Accordingly, we
asked respondents to evaluate to what extent their organizations adopted a certain behavior
toward each of the six stakeholders to allow for analysis of models where the stakeholders
are assumed to be the same or weighted by the average importance score across the
sample. In total, we used four items per each of the three SO behaviors – intelligence
generation, dissemination, and responsiveness – and measured these items for each of the
six stakeholder groups. These items were based on the behaviors most mentioned during
the qualitative interviews and were inspired by the item wording employed by Jaworski
and Kohli (1993) in their measure of MO. Due to the theoretical focus on stakeholder
orientation at the aggregate level, the scores for the stakeholder groups were summated
into one index resulting in 12 items.
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
Outcome measures
The measure for market performance includes five items adapted from Homburg and
Pflesser (2000) that refers to the effectiveness of an organization’s marketing activities
relative to competitors. Items relate to providing value to customers and obtaining the
desired market share. Three items adapted from Homburg and Pflesser (2000) measure
financial performance relative to competitors: return on investment; return on asset; and
profit growth. Adapted from a measure by Fombrun et al. (2000), four items evaluated
organizational reputation on trustworthiness, quality products, management, and image.
Four items adapted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993) measure employee commitment that
reflects the extent of fondness for the company and willingness to sacrifice.
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
Data collection methods
Prior to collecting the data, we conducted pretests with 15 scholars and 15 business people
that resulted in modifications of the wording of some items and revisions to parts of the
survey instructions. We also conducted pilot studies with 26 executive MBA students and
100 top executives from US organizations. The pilot studies were used to refine the
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
11
measurement instrument (e.g. deleting some items based on basic reliability analyses).
The second pilot study also enabled us to test the data collection methods.
The data collection for the main survey consisted of a sampling frame of 2329 highlevel business executives drawn from the Dun & Bradsheet database. We selected
informants sufficiently high in the organization (e.g. Presidents, Vice-Presidents) to have a
sound understanding of the organizational culture, marketing, and corporate practices
toward a variety of actors. Only public for-profit organizations headquartered in the USA
with a minimum of 500 employees were included in the sample. Of the 2329 executives
targeted, 151 responded for an effective response rate of 6.82 percent (114 surveys were
non-deliverables). Forty-six percent of the companies in the sample sold consumer goods
and services, 16 percent were in the business-to-business market of goods or services, and
38 percent focused on both types of goods and services. The largest portion of firms had
more than 3000 employees.
The extrapolation procedure suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977) was used to
assess non-response bias based on the data provided by the respondents. Although we
found a significant difference between early and late respondents for one construct
(generation of stakeholder intelligence), no systematic differences were found between the
early respondents (those who responded within the first nine days) and late respondents
(those who responded in 28 – 31 days) on the constructs included in the survey. Thus,
based on guidelines by Armstrong and Overton (1977), non-response bias is not an
inhibitor in the analysis of the data.
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
Measurement properties
Table 2 reports the correlations while Table 3 summarizes the means, standard deviations,
average variances extracted, composite reliabilities, factor loadings, and fit indices.
Overall, the 10 constructs, involving 46 purified items, were found to be reliable and valid
in the context of this study. The psychometric properties were evaluated via confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA) using LISREL 8.71 (Jöreskog et al., 2000). Additionally, we
examined the higher-order structure of the SO behavioral construct to provide empirical
rationale for our focus on behavior at the aggregate level. Next, Table 4 reports the
unidimensionality and discriminant validity of the constructs that were assessed by
examining each possible pair of constructs in a series of two-factor CFA models using
LISREL (Anderson, 1987; Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982; Moorman, 1995). Finally, we
determined that common method bias is not a threat to the analysis through a CFA
approach to Harmon’s one-factor test (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sanchez & Brock,
1996).
Given the sample size restrictions, we assessed two measurement models. In the first
model (the ‘antecedents’ model), we included stakeholder values, norms, artifacts, and SO
behaviors. The second CFA (the ‘performance model’) included market and financial
performance, reputation, and employee commitment. To compose items that addressed the
overall concept of SO equally weighted for each stakeholder group, we first summated the
responses for the six stakeholder groups (i.e. customers, suppliers, employees, regulators,
community, and shareholders), and then grouped the items based on assigned dimensions
(i.e. intelligence generation, dissemination, and responsiveness). After deleting the poorfitting items (see deleted items in the Appendix), goodness of fit indexes suggest an
excellent fit of the data.
Given the theoretical arguments underlying the SO relationships in Figure 1, we
conducted two higher-order assessments of this behavioral construct. In addition to the
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
551
552
555
556
557
561
565
566
569
570
571
574
575
576
578
579
1.00
.40
.32
549
553
558
562
563
572
580
1.00
.66
1.00
Empl Com
Notes: SO-IGEN ¼ generation of stakeholder intelligence; SO-IDIS ¼ dissemination of stakeholder intelligence; SO-RESP ¼ responsiveness to stakeholder intelligence; Mkt
Perf ¼ market performance; Fin Perf ¼ financial performance; Empl Com ¼ employee commitment. All correlations are significant at the p , .01 level.
1.00
.57
.54
.57
548
Reputation
547
1.00
.48
.36
.45
.61
550
Fin Perf
546
1.00
.87
.43
.37
.41
.57
554
Mkt Perf
545
1.00
.87
.85
.44
.32
.43
.61
559
560
SO-RESP
543
544
1.00
.71
.76
.65
.37
.37
.35
.50
564
SO-IDIS
542
1.00
.71
.72
.75
.75
.46
.31
.53
.59
567
568
SO-IGEN
541
1.00
.64
.56
.55
.58
.61
.43
.29
.58
.70
573
Artifacts
12
Values
Norms
Artifacts
SO-IGEN
SO-IDIS
SO-RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
577
Norms
540
Values
Table 2. Correlations.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
I. Maignan et al.
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
606
607
608
609
611
612
613
614
615
618
Antecedents
1,390.9
704
.97
.97
.97
.07
151
605
Fit statistics:
x2
Degrees of Freedomfreedom
Delta2 (D2)
CFI
RNI
RMSEA
Sample Size size (nN):
604
1.01
1.52
.95
1.08
58.4%
88.0%
68.5%
76.8%
600
601
2.58
2.99
1.97
2.38
599
5
3
4
4
598
63.0%
38.0%
39.0%
66.5%
72.0%
77.0%
597
1.06
.86
1.24
1.12
1.17
1.05
596
Performancex2
217.0
98
.97
.97
.97
.09
151
.88
.96
.90
.93
.91
.78
.79
.89
.91
.93
Composite reliability
595
2.41
2.35
3.49
3.50
3.72
3.08
603
Variance extracted
.69 to
.86 to
.74 to
.79 to
.75 to
.46 to
.41 to
.79 to
.80 to
.80 to
.83
.98
.94
.96
.85
.74
.71
.88
.89
.92
Factor loadings
592
593
6
6
6
4
4
4
610
Standard deviation
591
Antecedents CFA model
Values
Norms
Artifacts
SO –IGEN
SO –IDIS
SO –RESP
Performance CFA model
Market Performance
Financial Performance
Reputation
Employee Commitment
616
617
Mean
590
Items in scale
589
Construct
Table 3. Summary statistics of the measurement analysis.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
594
602
13
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
14
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
I. Maignan et al.
Table 4. Discriminant validity assessment: pairwise CFAs.
Pair of constructs
Values
Values
Values
Values
Values
Values
Values
Values
Values
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Norms
Artifacts
Artifacts
Artifacts
Artifacts
Artifacts
Artifacts
Artifacts
SO – IGEN
SO – IGEN
SO – IGEN
SO – IGEN
SO – IGEN
SO – IGEN
SO – IDIS
SO – IDIS
SO – IDIS
SO – IDIS
SO – IDIS
SO – RESP
SO – RESP
SO – RESP
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Mkt Perf
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Norms
Artifacts
SO – IGEN
SO – IDIS
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
Artifacts
SO – IGEN
SO – IDIS
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
SO – IGEN
SO – IDIS
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
SO – IDIS
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
SO – RESP
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
Mkt Perf
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
Fin Perf
Reputation
Empl Com
Reputation
Empl Com
Empl Com
x2free
x2fixed
141.86
195.63
258.69
311.00
339.31
360.11
560.86
277.63
263.49
153.92
86.41
108.16
97.03
185.84
193.85
155.54
138.16
90.83
97.96
127.15
253.45
215.39
251.57
188.25
53.49
76.74
295.40
519.79
307.74
233.91
117.76
338.27
525.19
389.67
340.03
326.50
522.48
331.32
346.06
276.73
276.71
278.39
535.99
533.82
252.54
89.32
105.73
62.13
82.22
88.90
102.45
52.10
77.26
77.93
144.99
62.95
81.62
71.14
72.51
17.23
53.68
47.89
61.59
75.08
62.60
96.24
40.61
77.47
66.80
42.06
69.49
60.62
19.16
34.44
40.77
93.29
78.44
24.97
47.57
70.69
87.02
26.88
51.21
42.06
62.46
78.63
69.30
36.88
27.22
74.89
Dx2
(d.f.¼1)
52.54
89.90
196.56
228.78
250.41
257.66
508.76
200.37
185.56
8.93
23.46
26.54
25.89
113.33
176.62
101.86
90.27
29.24
22.88
64.55
157.21
174.78
174.10
121.45
11.43
7.25
234.78
500.63
273.30
193.14
24.47
259.83
500.22
342.10
269.34
239.48
495.60
280.11
304.00
214.27
198.08
209.09
499.11
506.60
177.65
Sign
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
p , .01
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
item loadings reported in Table 3 for each of the three stakeholder-oriented dimensions,
we find that the generation of stakeholder intelligence (loading ¼ .99, t-value ¼ 10.99,
p , .01); dissemination of stakeholder intelligence (loading ¼ .95, t-value ¼ 12.17,
p , .01) and responsiveness to stakeholder intelligence (loading ¼ .98, t-value ¼ 14.20,
p , .01) function as first-order indicators of the higher-order phenomenon of stakeholder-
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
687
688
15
oriented behavior (x2 ¼ 178.3, d.f. ¼ 51, Delta2 ¼ .97, RNI ¼ .97, CFI ¼ .97,
RMSEA ¼ .12).
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
Results
Given the complexity of the relationships coupled with the relatively small sample size
(N ¼ 151), the hypotheses were tested using a series of hierarchical multiple regression
Equations (instead of, for example, structural equation modeling). The least squares
technique was used with the control variables entered as a block in step 1, followed by the
hypothesized variables in step 2 (cases with missing values were excluded list-wise). The
unit of analysis was the ‘strategic business unit’.
For each equation tested, we examined two different hierarchical regression models.
Model 1 represents a ‘standard analysis’ (SA), with the SO norms, artifacts, and behaviors
equally weighted for each stakeholder group. Model 2 represents a ‘sample weighted analysis’
(SWA), wherein the SO norms, artifacts, and behaviors were weighted based on the average
importance placed on each stakeholder group by the overall sample.1 The average scores for
the sample were 4.24 for communities, 4.69 for regulators, 5.13 for suppliers, 5.82 for
shareholders, 5.99 for employees, and 6.56 for customers. Table 5 provides the means for the
overall importance of each stakeholder group by firm size. While the rankings were consistent
with the overall averages, the importance of shareholders and community stakeholders were
significantly different between the smallest firms (less than 500 employees) and the largest
firms (3000 or more employees). There were no significant differences among the number of
countries in which the organization operates for stakeholder importance.
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
Antecedents of stakeholder-oriented behaviors
Table 6 reports the results for the analyses involving the three components of SO culture
(values, norms, artifacts) and the antecedents to SO behaviors (stakeholder norms and
artifacts).
H1a predicted that SO values are positively associated with SO norms. The
hierarchical regression results show a significant, positive effect of SO values on SO
norms in the SA (b ¼ .65, p , .01) and SWA (b ¼ .65, p , .01) analyses. The overall
equation, including SO values and the control variables, had an R2 range of .23 to .50
( p , .01), with the hypothesized variable explaining an additional 20 to 42 percent in the
variance above the effect of the control variables ( p , .01) in the SA and SWA models.
Thus, the results support H1a.
H1b and H1c predicted that SO values and norms are positively associated with
artifacts. The results show a positive effect of values in the SA (b ¼ .18, p , .05) and
SWA (b ¼ .16, p , .05) models as well as norms in the SA (b ¼ .60, p , .01) and SWA
(b ¼ .58, p , .01) models on artifacts. The overall equation had an R2 range of .34 to .55
( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 31 to 52 percent in the
variance above the effect of the control variables ( p , .01). Thus, the results support H1c
in all models and H1b in the SA and SWA models.
H2 predicted that norms and artifacts are positively associated with SO behaviors. The
results show a positive effect of SO norms on SO behaviors in the SA (b ¼ .39, p , .01) and
SWA (b ¼ .37, p , .01) models. Artifacts affected SO behaviors in the SA (b ¼ .31,
p , .01) and SWA (b ¼ .30, p , .01) models. The overall equation had an R2 range of .48 to
.68 ( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 44 to 66 percent in the
variance above control variables ( p , .01). Thus, our findings support H2 in both models.
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
150
Total
**p . .05; *p . .10.
53
3000 or more
Mean
Rank
Mean
Mean
762
19
761
1500– 2999
760
5.99
2
5.24
4
4.71
4
5.47
4
5.37
4
5.11
4
5.13
4
4.33
5
4.71
4
5.41
5
4.47
5
4.72
5
4.69
5
3.53**
6
4.06
6
4.59
6
4.05
6
4.70**
6
4.24
6
Community**
16
Mean
757
17
755
756
1000– 1499
754
2
753
500– 999
750
5.33**
3
5.81
3
5.88
3
6.21**
2
5.94*
3
5.82
3
749
5.63
2
6.00
2
6.47
2
6.11
3
5.98
745
6.47
1
6.42
1
6.71
1
6.37
1
6.72
1
6.56
1
744
Regulators
743
Mean
Rank
Mean
747
748
Suppliers
742
30
752
Shareholders**
739
740
Less than 500
759
Employee
738
Customers
737
N
736
Size (no. employees)
Overall importance of stakeholder groups by company size.
765
Table 5.
763
764
Q3
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
I. Maignan et al.
741
746
751
758
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
785
786
Table 6. Relationships involving the antecedents of stakeholder-oriented behaviors: standardized
regression results.
787
788
789
790
791
792
Standardanalysis
(SA)
Sample weighted
analysis(SWA)
.01
– .08
– .14
.65***
– .00
– .08
– .12
.65***
R2
.45
Adjusted R2
.43
F-value
27.82***
2
DR (from Step 1 to 2)
.42***
H1b and H1c (DV: Stakeholder artifacts)
Step 1: Brand
.08
Countries
– .02
Size
– .03
Step 2: Stakeholder values
.18**
.45
.43
27.73***
.42***
Model andpredictor variables
H1a (DV: Stakeholder norms)
Step 1: Brand
Countries
Size
Step 2: Stakeholder values
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
Stakeholder norms
.09
– .02
– .03
.19**
.60***
.58***
R2
.55
Adjusted R2
.53
F-value
32.59***
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
.52***
H2 (DV: Stakeholder-oriented behaviors)
Step 1: Brand
.01
Countries
.01
Size
.07
Step 2: Stakeholder norms
.48***
.53
.51
30.32***
.50***
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
.00
.01
.09
.37***
812
813
Stakeholder artifacts
.40***
.30***
814
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
.66
.64
38.62***
.64***
.63
.61
40.67***
.61***
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
17
Finding
H1a supported in
both models
H1b supported in
both models
H1c supported in
both models
H2a supported in
both models
H2b supported in
both models
Notes: Standard analysis (SA) ¼ normal multiple regression analysis with equally weighted predictor and
criterion variables. Sample weighted analysis (SWA) ¼ the stakeholder norms, artifacts, and behaviors were
weighted based on the average importance placed on each stakeholder group by the overall sample. A seven-point
Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 ¼ crucial to 7 ¼ negligible.
***
p , .01; **p , .05; *p , .10.
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
Consequences of stakeholder-oriented behaviors
Table 7 reports the results for the business consequences of SO behaviors (i.e. market and
financial performance, reputation, and employee commitment).
H3a predicted that SO behaviors are positively associated with market performance.
The results show a positive effect of SO behaviors on market performance in the SA
(b ¼ .38, p , .01) and SWA (b ¼ .34, p , .01). The overall equation had an R2 range of
.21 to .25 ( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 21 to 25
percent in the variance above the effect of the control variables ( p , .01). Thus, the
findings support H3a in the SA and SWA models.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
18
834
Table 7. Outcomes of stakeholder-oriented behaviors: standardized regression results.
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
I. Maignan et al.
Model and predictor variables
H3a – DV: Market performance
Step 1: Brand
Countries
Size
Step 2: Stakeholder-oriented
(SO)behaviors
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
H3b – DV: Financial performance
Step 1: Brand
Countries
Size
Step 2: Stakeholder-oriented
behaviors (SO)
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
H3c – DV: Reputation
Step 1: Brand
Countries
Size
Step 2: Stakeholder-oriented
behaviors (SO)
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
H3d – DV: Employee commitment
Step 1: Brand
Countries
Size
Step 2: Stakeholder-oriented
behaviors (SO)
R2
Adjusted R2
F-value
DR2 (from Step 1 to 2)
Standard
analysis (SA)
Sample weighted
analysis (SWA)
– .04
.02
– .02
.49***
– .07
.07
– .02
.48***
.24
.21
7.88***
.24***
.23
.20
9.15***
.23***
– .04
– .10
.03
.38***
– .11
– .04
.01
.37***
.16
.13
4.97***
.14***
.15
.13
5.60***
.14***
– .06
.03
– .18**
.47***
– .03
.05
– .13
.46***
.27
.23
7.33***
.23***
.22
.20
8.80***
.20***
– .15*
.08
– .02
.64***
– .10
.07
– .00
.60***
.41
.39
17.71***
.41***
.36
.34
17.51***
.36***
Finding
H3a supported
both models
H3b supported
both models
H3c supported
in both models
H3d supported
both models
Notes: Standard analysis (SA) ¼ normal multiple regression analysis with equally weighted predictor and
criterion variables. Sample weighted analysis (SWA) ¼ the stakeholder norms, artifacts, and behaviors were
weighted based on the average importance placed on each stakeholder group by the overall sample. A seven-point
Likert-type scale was used ranging from 1 ¼ crucial to 7 ¼ negligible.
***p , .01; **p , .05; **p , .10.
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
H3b predicted that SO behaviors are positively associated with financial performance.
The results show a positive effect of SO behaviors on financial performance in the SA
(b ¼ .52, p , .01) and SWA (b ¼ .40, p , .01) models. The overall equation had an R2
range of .12 to .19 ( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 10
to 17 percent in the variance above the control variables ( p , .01). Thus, the results of the
analysis support H3b.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
19
H3c predicted that SO behaviors are positively associated with reputation. The results
show a positive effect of SO behaviors on reputation in the SA (b ¼ .34, p , .01) and
SWA (b ¼ .29, p , .01) models. The overall equation had an R2 range of .21 to .27
( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 19 to 24 percent in the
variance above the effect of the control variables ( p , .01). Thus, the tests support H3c in
the SA and SWA models.
H3d predicted that SO behaviors are positively associated with employee
commitment. The results show a positive effect of SO behaviors in the SA (b ¼ .45,
p , .01) and SWA (b ¼ .35, p , .01) models. The overall equation had an R2 range of .38
to .45 ( p , .01), with the hypothesized variables explaining an additional 37 to 45 percent
in the variance above the effect of the control variables ( p , .01). Thus, the results
support H3d in the SA and SWA models.
Discussion and implications
This research has attempted to answer some of the questions about SO raised by
Bhattacharya and Korschun (2008). We identify the processes in the successful
management of various stakeholder interests and advance the role of marketing thinking
and processes in the stakeholder view of the firm. Similar to MO, SO is operationalized as
both an organizational culture and a set of behaviors. While SO and MO are not mutually
exclusive, they have a similar cultural and behavioral structure resulting in the opportunity
to use similar measures in researching both constructs. Stakeholder-oriented behaviors
have a strong association with market performance, financial performance, reputation, and
employee commitment. As SO is integrated into marketing practice, the definition of
marketing will likely expand to reflect the discipline as a social force with ethical and
social responsibilities. Marketers should view SO as a business philosophy that leads to
competitive advantage as well as financial success. The findings suggest that a firm should
consider a broad set of social actors in assessing the success of all marketing programs.
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
Stakeholder orientation: concept and benefits
The qualitative and quantitative investigations both provided support for a conceptualization of SO that encompasses culture and behaviors. Values encouraging a team orientation,
the openness of internal communications, and ethics served as a foundation on which
concrete stakeholder-oriented norms and artifacts can develop. Relevant norms took the
form of concrete policies dictating desirable behaviors toward specific stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder-oriented artifacts included special events, spatial arrangements, official
brochures, and recognition programs that emphasized the importance of specific
stakeholders. Unlike values, norms and artifacts led directly to stakeholder-oriented
behaviors. These behaviors – comprised of intelligence generation, intelligence
dissemination, and responsiveness – were similar across the six stakeholder groups (i.e.
customers, suppliers, employees, regulators, community, and shareholders).
The empirical evidence supporting SO as a construct underlines the theoretical
contribution of the market orientation (MO) literature. In particular, our findings confirm the
earlier observed distinction and relationship between the cultural and behavioral
dimensions of a strategic orientation (Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). More importantly, the
results demonstrate that cultural components (values, norms, artifacts) and behaviors
(intelligence generation, dissemination, and responsiveness) identified in the MO literature
provide a solid basis for understanding how organizations can successfully manage their
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
20
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
I. Maignan et al.
relationships not only with customers, but also with other stakeholders including suppliers,
employees, regulators, community, and shareholders. Previous research has not found a
construct as broad as SO to explain as much variance in performance as possible. Rather,
researchers have tested MO as the major driver of superior performance. SO is a broader
concept and provides more stakeholder identification associated with performance.
However, these additional stakeholders may vary across organizations. Overall, our study
illustrates how a core concept of marketing strategy – market orientation – can help
understand managerial practices in a stakeholder view of the firm.
Regarding outcomes, the empirical findings reveal that SO behaviors are associated
positively with market and financial performance, reputation, and employee commitment
in all of the eight models tested (see Table 7). As such, SO behaviors have a strong impact
on outcomes when the SO behaviors were equally weighted for each stakeholder group
(‘SA models’), as well as in the ‘sample weighted analysis’ (‘SWA model’), when the SO
behaviors were weighted based on the average importance placed on each stakeholder
group by the overall sample.
These results suggest that holding a wider array of stakeholders at an equal level of
importance to customers is likely to translate into increased stakeholder support. In line
with earlier studies (e.g. Berman et al., 1999), our findings support the instrumental value
of adopting a stakeholder-driven strategy. In addition, given the marketing foundation of
SO, a shifting of focus from marketing as the organizational function that manages
relationships with customers to one that centers on managing relationships with a broader
set of stakeholders has implications for practice and research.
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
Implications for practice
This study should encourage business and public policy leaders to promote the notion of
stakeholders and SO strategy. Our analysis should also encourage managers to coordinate
activities aimed at generating, disseminating, and responding to intelligence about a variety
of stakeholders. This study further reveals that different departments engage in similar
practices to be attentive to and to address the demands of their various stakeholders. By
combining these practices, businesses would become able to manage and act upon
stakeholder information much more systematically and efficiently. This ‘interfunctional
coordination’ effort would prevent the potential neglect of a stakeholder group or important
information, a notion that is also at the core of MO research (e.g. Narver & Slater, 1990).
MO theory and research evolved because firms needed to focus on the stakeholders that are
most likely to lead to better financial performance. This focus did not evolve out of
normative stakeholder theory. We provide strong support for research to determine whether
SO is superior to MO as a management philosophy.
More importantly, developing a focus on SO culture and behaviors helps evaluate
important SO antecedents and market consequences on a systematic basis. To maximize
financial performance, the organization must continuously develop, nurture, and work to
improve in order to systematically address stakeholder issues and secure stakeholders’
support. At the same time, research also indicates that MO is associated with many
variables that likely contribute to financial performance (e.g. market performance,
reputation, and employee commitment). As such, our findings regarding SO do not
diminish the importance of MO, but instead broaden the role of marketing by
incorporating additional stakeholders into cultural and managerial practices that enhance
performance. By including more stakeholders concerned about diverse issues, ethical and
social concerns should become more important.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
21
Implications for research
This exploratory study constitutes an important step toward understanding the SO concept,
its benefits, and its relevance for marketing scholarship and practice. Further research will
improve the appraisal of SO. Our measures were based on theory and the most common
values, norms, artifacts, and practices found in our qualitative inquiry, coupled with the
literature. While we maintained a final set of 30 items in our instrument, the result was
only one item for each stakeholder in measures for norms and artifacts. Additional
research is needed to evaluate whether the selected items are sufficient to cover the broad
scope of the SO concept. In addition, while we included the relative importance of each
stakeholder group in the SWA model, research that weights each individual attribute of SO
values may provide insights that we could not glean from this study. We began with a solid
theoretical foundation to study SO values at the general level, without being stakeholderspecific. Future theory developments may fine-tune the general depiction of SO by
designating specific values to each stakeholder, as well as also potentially weighting these
attributes based on their relative importance for particular stakeholder groups.
Finally, our research calls for studies that more fully explain how SO is likely to lead to
business benefits. A limitation of this study is the use of subjective measures of performance
and reputation due to anonymity of survey respondents, which could be addressed in future
research using objective measures. In addition, we did not test the conceptual argument
suggesting that SO is conducive to increased stakeholder identification (Bhattacharya et al.,
1995; Dutton & Dukerich, 1994). Future research should examine the relevance of the
stakeholder identification argument. Our hope is that this investigation encourages more
research exploring the relevance of established marketing concepts for the study of
organizational relationships with stakeholders other than customers. For instance, studies
could explore the meaningfulness of concepts such as stakeholder value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and trust, as well as organizational initiatives such as ethics programs. This type of
research would probe, and incrementally define, the contribution of marketing in a
stakeholder view of the firm. In a business environment marked by multiple integrity
scandals, holistic-based stakeholder research would help demonstrate how marketing
strategies can contribute to the systematic development and implementation of responsible
and prosperous business practices toward economic, social, and ethical interests.
1012
1013
1014
Note
1015
1.
1016
1017
We also tested a case-weighted model where the SO norms, artifacts, and behaviors were
weighted based on importance placed on each stakeholder group by that case.
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
References
Anderson, J.C. (1987). An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation modeling
of organizational properties. Management Science, 33, 525– 541.
Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 396– 402.
Bagozzi, & Phillips, L.W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic
Q4
construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459–489.
Bates, F.L., & Harvey, C.C. (1975). The structure of social systems. New York: Garner.
Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T.M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter?
The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488– 506.
Bhattacharya, C.B. (2010). Introduction to the special section on stakeholder marketing. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 29, 1 – 3.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
22
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
I. Maignan et al.
Bhattacharya, C.B., & Korschun, D. (2008). Stakeholder marketing: Beyond the four Ps and the
customer. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27, 113– 116.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Hayagreeva, R., & Glynn, M.A. (1995). Understanding the bond of
identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing, 59(October), 46 – 57.
Blodgett, J.G., Lu, L.-C., Rose, G.M., & Vitell, S.J. (2001). Ethical sensitivity to stakeholder
interests: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29,
190– 202.
Boatright, J.R. (1994). Fiduciary duties & the shareholder-management relation: Or, what’s so
special about stakeholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 393– 407.
Bonini, S.M.J., Mendonca, L.T., & Oppenheim, J.M. (2006). When social issues become strategic.
McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 19 – 31.
Day, G.S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,
58(October), 37 – 52.
Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J.U. (1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis.
Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2, 213– 232.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U., & Webster, F.E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and
innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(January),
23 – 27.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 29, 65 – 91.
Dutton, J.M., & Dukerich, J.M. (1994). Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239– 263.
Ferrell, O.C., & Ferrell, L. (2008). A macromarketing ethics framework: Stakeholder orientation and
distributive justice. Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 24 – 32.
Ferrell, O.C., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., Hult, G.T.M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From market orientation
to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29, 93 –96.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N.A., & Sever, J. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 241– 255.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233– 258.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Goodpaster, K. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1,
53 – 73.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24,
191– 205.
Greenley, G.E., & Foxall, G.R. (1996). Consumer and nonconsumer stakeholder orientation in U.K.
companies. Journal of Business Research, 35, 105– 116.
Greenley, G.E., & Foxall, G.R. (1997). Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the
implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 260– 284.
Greenley, G.E., Hooley, G.J., Broderick, A.J., & Rudd, J.M. (2004). Strategic planning differences
among different multiple stakeholder orientation profiles. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
12(September), 163– 182.
Hart, S.L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Emerging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination.
Q5
Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7 –18.
Hatch, M.J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18,
657– 693.
Hill, C.W.L., & Jones, T.M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29,
131– 154.
Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P.N., & Keller, K.L. (2010). Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate
citizenship initiatives: Managerial guidelines and research questions. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 29, 78 –88.
Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational
culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37,
449– 462.
Hult, G.T.M. (1998). Managing the international strategic sourcing function as a market-driven
organizational learning system. Decision Sciences, 29, 193– 216.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
23
Jawahar, I.M., & McLaughlin, G.L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An
organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26, 397– 414.
Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Marketing, 57(July), 53 –70.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (2000). LISREL 8: New statistical features
(2nd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientation in the theory of action: An exploration in
definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E.A. Shils (Eds.), Towards a general theory of
action (pp. 388– 433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kohli, A.K., & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(April), 1 – 18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467– 477.
Logdson, J.M., & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and
organizational moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1213– 1226.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O.C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 3 –19.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights
from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497– 515.
Martin, K.D., & Johnson, J.L. (2010). Ethical beliefs and information asymmetries in supplier
relationships. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29, 38 – 51.
Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J.T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation –
performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64(October), 1 –16.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T., & Rentz, J.O. (2000). A refinement and validation of the MARKOR
scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 527– 539.
McFarlin, D.B., & Sweeney, P.D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35,
626– 637.
Meyer, A. (1982). How ideologies supplant formal structures and shape responses to environments.
Journal of Management Studies, 19, 45 – 61.
Mish, J., & Scammon, D.L. (2010). Principle-based stakeholder marketing: Insights from private
triple-bottom-line firms. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29, 12 – 26.
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, 853– 886.
Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new
product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 318– 335.
Narver, J.C., & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of market orientation on business profitability. Journal
of Marketing, 54(October), 20 –35.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F., & MacLachlan, D.L. (2000). Total market orientation, business
performance, and innovation. Marketing Science Institute Report No. 00-016. Cambridge, MA:
Q5
MSI.
O’Reilly, C. III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 492– 499.
Parloff, R. (2009, January 19). Wall Street: It’s payback time. Fortune, pp. 66 – 69.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational
paradigms. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 3,
pp.1 –52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Polonsky, M.J. (1996). Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: Potential strategic
marketing tools. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1, 209– 229.
Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 887– 910.
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,
204– 219.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
24
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
I. Maignan et al.
Sanchez, J.I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic
employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal,
39, 704– 719.
Schein, E.H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management
Review, 25(2), 3 – 16.
Scott, S.G., & Lane, V.R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 43 – 62.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in
strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34, 158– 166.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of
Marketing, 59(July), 63 –74.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 339– 358.
Appendix 1. Measures
Stakeholder values
(Values: Assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’.)
There is a shared value system to support ethics in our organization. (Ethical values)
In our organization, we place much value on well-established ethical principles.1 (Ethical values)
In our organization, we value ethics as much as financial performance.1 (Ethical values)
In our organization, we place much emphasis on some core ethical values and not just on compliance
rules. (Ethical values)
In our organization, we aspire to implement a strong team spirit. (Team orientation)
Behaving in a supportive manner toward each other is valued very highly in our organization.1
(Team orientation)
In our organization, we put much emphasis on helping our fellow employees grow and develop.1
(Team orientation)
In our organization, we value team work as a source of competitive advantage. (Team orientation)
We strive to build a high degree of information exchange between our organizational units (e.g.
departments, teams). (Openness of internal communications)
In our organization, we place much emphasis on proactive communications. (Openness of internal
communications)
We place much value on maintaining open information flows at all levels of our organization.1
(Openness of internal communications)
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
Stakeholder norms
(Norms: Assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’.)
Our organization uses well-defined policies that specify how employees must behave toward
customers.1
Our business policies dictate demanding quality standards for all our products and services.
Our organization uses clear policies to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all suppliers.
Our business policies provide strict guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest in selecting suppliers
(e.g. based on gifts, friendship, or family connections).1
Our organization has rigorous policies that safeguard the health and safety of all employees in the
workplace.1
Our organization has detailed policies to ensure that each individual employee is treated with much
respect and dignity.
Our business policies specify severe sanctions against employees who engage in activities that
violate laws and regulations.1
Our business policies clearly assert our full commitment to abiding by all applicable laws.
Our organization has tough policies aimed at minimizing the negative impacts of our activities on the
community (e.g. noise, use of natural resources, emissions).1
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
Journal of Strategic Marketing
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
25
We have generous policies that describe the contributions of our organization to the community.
Our organization has demanding policies that describe the proper reporting of financial information
to our shareholders. 1
Our organization embraces extensive corporate governance policies.
1182
Stakeholder artifacts
1183
(Artifacts: Assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’.)
Employees who take care of customers in an exemplary way are rewarded on a regular basis.
Our website offers a platform where all customers can easily get in touch with our employees.1
Our organization often invites suppliers to the conferences or special events we organize.
Our website has a designated area where suppliers can easily interact with representatives of our
organization.1
Our organization has an employee excellence recognition program.
Our organization periodically publishes indicators of employee health and safety.1
We often invite local public policy makers to the conferences or special events we organize.1
We have a team or department dedicated to keeping information flows between our organization and
public policy makers.
Our organization regularly recognizes employees who have done something very positive to help the
community.
Our organization periodically produces a report that details both the positive and negative impacts of
our activities on the community.1
Our website offers a platform where shareholders can receive quick responses to their questions.1
Our organization regularly publishes a bulletin aimed at shareholders with up-to-date information on
new core decisions.
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
Stakeholder-oriented behaviors
(Assessed on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’;
respondents were asked to provide a rating for each of the following stakeholder groups: employees;
customers; regulators; local communities; shareholders; and suppliers.)
Information generation (SO-IGEN)
Our organization generates information about our image among this strategic group at least once a
year.
We seek input from this strategic group before making decisions affecting its functioning or wellbeing.
We generate information about the concerns of this strategic group by regularly meeting with some
of its representatives.
In our organization, periodic surveys, interviews, or other techniques are used to collect information
about the satisfaction of this strategic group with our practices.
Information dissemination (SO-IDIS)
1219
The concerns of this group are communicated in periodical documents (e.g. reports, newsletters)
spread throughout the organization.
Information about the impact of our decisions on this strategic group is often disseminated and
discussed during departmental or interdepartmental meetings.
Information about the satisfaction of this strategic group with our organization is disseminated to our
employees on a regular basis.
We regularly disseminate information at all levels about the emerging concerns of this group.
1220
1221
Responsiveness (SO-RESP)
1215
1216
1217
1218
1222
1223
1224
1225
We are quick to adapt our practices according to the suggestions made by this strategic group.
When we find out that this group is dissatisfied with some of our practices, we immediately seek
solutions for improvement.
We always provide a personalized response to the complaints or concerns raised by this strategic
group.
RJSM 581384—17/5/2011—MAHESH.R—392044———Style 2
26
1226
1227
I. Maignan et al.
We regularly introduce concrete initiatives to enhance our contribution to the well-being or
satisfaction of this group.
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
Market performance
(Mkt Perf: Measure adapted from Homburg and Pflesser (2000): Assessed on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from ‘much better’ to ‘much worse’; ‘In the last three years, relative to your
competitors, how has your organization performed with respect to:’)
Achieving customer satisfaction?
Providing value for customers?
Keeping current customers?
Attracting new customers?
Securing desired market share?
Financial performance
(Fin Perf: Measure adapted from Homburg and Pflesser (2000): Assessed on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from ‘much better’ to ‘much worse’; ‘In the last three years, relative to your
competitors, how has your organization performed with respect to:’)
Return on investment?
Return on assets?
Profit growth?
Reputation
(Reputation: Adapted from a measure by Fombrun et al. (2000); assessed on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.)
We are widely acknowledged as a trustworthy organization.
In general, our organization has a good reputation.
This organization is known to sell reliable products and services.
We are recognized as a well-managed organization.
Employee commitment
(Empl Com: Adapted from a measure by Jaworski and Kohli (1993); assessed on a seven-point
Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.)
Our people are very committed to this organization.
Employees often go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure the organization’s well-being.
The bonds between this organization and its employees are very strong.
It is clear that employees are fond of the organization.
Note: 1 Item deleted in the measurement purification process; in the survey instruction, respondents
were requested to focus on the business unit where they were working.