Resumo

Título do Artigo

Measuring value creation for stakeholders – a contribution from the empirical research
Abrir Arquivo

Palavras Chave

Value creation
Stakeholder theory
Managing for stakeholders

Área

Estratégia em Organizações

Tema

Estratégia Corporativa e de Stakeholders

Autores

Nome
1 - Sidnei da Col de Brito
UNIVERSIDADE NOVE DE JULHO (UNINOVE) - Memorial
2 - Daniel Augusto Fazoli
Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA - FEA USP Pós Graduação em Administração

Reumo

This paper aims to contribute with the growing discussions among value creation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Starting from an important gap identified in previous studies, according to what improved methods are needed to measure value creation for stakeholders, this research employed a qualitative approach and provided a full set of metrics for stakeholders’ value creation based on reviewing the literature composed of empirical articles, which can be useful in defining the best strategies in managing for stakeholders.
The stakeholder literature is under development in terms of describing value creation for stakeholders, and at this moment there is no consolidation work on this issue. The point here is to contribute in solving the problem identified by Harrison et al (2010, p.71): “…improved methods are needed for measuring value creation”. Thus, the main objective is providing a full set of metrics for stakeholders’ value creation based on reviewing the literature composed of empirical papers, and then present a new approach to measure value creation for stakeholders based on filling the gaps identified.
First, the concept of value is presented. Harrison and Wicks (2013) discuss value perspective on the utilitarian approach as a broad concept where “anything that has the potential to be worth to Stakeholders”. Then, stakeholder theory is presented as the other foundation for this paper, adopting the idea of value drivers presented by Tantalo and Priem (2016) as a framework for the analysis of results.
This research has a qualitative approach and employ a systematic literature review on previous papers regarding stakeholders and value creation, published between 2000 and 2018, in English language, available on Web of Science (core collection) database. Basic descriptive statistic was used to a better understanding of the sample of articles analyzed, and a qualitative meta-analysis was done considering each paper as a unit of analysis with the lens of Tantalo and Priem (2016) framework.
Different ways to measure value creation are being employed by scholars, what can be a result of the challenge already discussed in the literature about what means “value” for each stakeholder group. Despite, it was possible to see that value still much related to the monetary value - financial return for shareholders, remuneration for employees, and product’s price for customers. Few metrics are used for intangible values. A new set of indicators to measure the value created for primary stakeholders is proposed taking their different value drivers in account.
It was possible to identify the most common metrics adopted and some gaps. The results shed some light on the academic discussions, showing scholars new variables that can be added in their researches in order to have a better picture of the whole stakeholder value creation system, and has also practical implications for managers, whose challenge is creating as much value as possible for all their company’s stakeholders.
Main references: Freeman R.E. (2010). Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation. Journal of Business Ethics 96: 7–9. Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., & Phillips, R.A. (2010). Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74 Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business ethics quarterly, 23(1), 97-124 Tantalo C., Priem, R.L. (2016). Value Creation Through Stakeholder Synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 37-2.