Results-based stakeholders; re-positioning; business sustainability, expectancy value-net framework; sustainability centricity.


Business Sustainability retroverts a stakeholder issue into economic value, productive results, that creates value or wealth (Wheeler, Colbert, & Freeman, 2003). This paper aspires to allocate results-based objectivity to stakeholder re-positioning for business to generate value for sustainable term. This is challenging as the evolution of results-based approach needs arduous capacity-building in response to global business sustainability issues (Balogh, St-Pierre & Di Pippo, 2017). Classical concepts of shareholder wealth maximization have three domains, namely, normative, instrumental and descriptive theory (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The three is adapted in this research to be depicted as value-net framework (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2011). The value-net introduces a number of inter-relationships that fosters co-adaptation and shared value creation (Dagnino & Padula, 2002). The architecture focuses primarily on the actors in any generic business environment and especially on the entities’ results-based orientation. The expectancy-value model may be appropriate here to relate values that stakeholders aspire to responses from business actions with respect to situations (Feather, 1990). This postulation attempts to relate relationship of three parameters, results-based stakeholders, options to repositioning and value-net for business sustainability. The left side is the independent variable nomenclatured as results-based stakeholders, the middle part is the re-positioning vector and the right-hand side represents the dependent variable, value-net for business sustainability. The outcome is the business sustainability matrix. In deciding on how to align expectancy value-net with intermediary dynamics for re-positioning, interests of the stakeholders and the firm should co-evolve. There are several reference frames. These reference frames can be linked to various steps in which stakeholder expectations form and manifest themselves. The first stage of the development of stakeholder expectations occurs necessarily on the level of individuals, as they are affected by the actions of organizations and evaluate all firms in their reach with respect to their behaviour.

Full Text : PDF

  1. Aigner, D., Hopkins, J., & Johansson, R. (2003). Beyond compliance: sustainable business practices and the bottom line. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1126-1139.
  2. Balogh, W. R., St-Pierre, L., & Di Pippo, S. (2017). Towards a results-based management approach for capacity-building in space science, technology and applications to support the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Acta Astronautica.
  3. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition. Crown Business.
  4. Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Quattrone, P., & Riccaboni, A. (2013). Redefining corporate accountability through integrated reporting: What happens when values and value creation meet?. Strategic Finance, 95(2), 33-42.
  5. Carroll, A.  & Buchholtz, A. (1996). Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati, OH: South-western Publishing.
  6. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117.
  7. Crawley, K. (2017). The six-sphere framework: A practical tool for assessing monitoring and evaluation systems. African Evaluation Journal, 5(1), 0-0.
  8. Dagnino, G. B., &Padula, G. (2002). Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation. In Innovative research in management, European Academy of Management (EURAM), second annual conference, Stockholm, May (Vol. 9).
  9. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
  10. Drago, W. (1999). Stakeholder influence and environmental sector volatility. Management Research News, 22(4), 1-9.
  11. Dwyer, R. J. (2009). “Keen to be green” organizations: a focused rules approach to accountability. Management Decision, 47(7), 1200-1216.
  12. Egels Zandén, N., & Sandberg, J. (2010). Distinctions in descriptive and instrumental stakeholder theory: A challenge for empirical research. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 35-49.
  13. Feather, N. T. (1990). Bridging the gap between values and actions: Recent applications of the expectancy-value model.
  14. Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 505-527.
  15. Frederick, W. (2004) The Evolutionary Firm and its Moral (Dis)Contents; Business, Science and Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 143-174
  16. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University press.
  17. Freeman, R. & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management.
  18. Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2015). 18 Business Innovation Processes. The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, 339. 
  19. Gavan, V. (2012). Customer Centricity–The Key to a Sustainable Future. Cdn2. hubspot. net.
  20. Greer, C. R., & Downey, H. K. (1982). Industrial compliance with social legislation: Investigations of decision rationales. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 488-498.
  21. Gregory, R., & Keeney, R. L. (1994). Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science, 40(8), 1035-1048.
  22. Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Journal of brand management, 13(1), 10-32.
  23. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review, 20(2), 404-437.
  24. Key, S. (1999). Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder “theory”. Management Decision, 37(4), 317-328.
  25. Knight, F. H. (1923). The ethics of competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 37(4), 579-624.
  26. Kochan, T. A., & Rubinstein, S. A. (2000). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization science, 11(4), 367-386.
  27. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141.
  28. McLarney, C. (2002). Stepping into the light: stakeholder impact on competitive adaptation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 255-272.
  29. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1), 117-127.
  30. 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(4), 853-886.
  31. Nilsson-Ollandt, L. (2017). Value research: Developing value propositions in industrial organizations.
  32. Noe, T. H., & Rebello, M. J. (1994). The dynamics of business ethics and economic activity. The American Economic Review, 531-547.
  33. Parniangtong, S. (2017). Gaining Sustainable Competitive Advantage. In Competitive Advantage of Customer Centricity (pp. 1-18). Springer Singapore. 
  34. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502.
  35. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68.
  36. Prakash, A. (2001). Why do firms adopt ‘beyond‐compliance’ environmental policies? Business strategy and the environment, 10(5), 286-299.
  37. Rinaldi, L. (2013). Stakeholder engagement. In Integrated Reporting (pp. 95-109). Springer International Publishing.
  38. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
  39. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 40(3), 534-559.
  40. Sen, S. K., & Pookayaporn, J. K. (2017). Towards a SDG Compliant Framework for the Open Learning Modules: Experiences from Thailand and Philippines. In Open and Distance Learning Initiatives for Sustainable Development (pp. 255-264). IGI Global.
  41. Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318.
  42. Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world's most successful firms. Journal of Business ethics, 48(2), 175-187.
  43. Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of general management, 28(3), 1-28.
  44. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(2), 139-1