J Bus Ethics (2017) 144:4157
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2845-4
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation
in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
Thomas Schneider1,2 Sybille Sachs1,3
Received: 24 July 2014 / Accepted: 31 August 2015 / Published online: 8 September 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract In this conceptual paper, we draw on social
identity theory as a means to bridge individuals mem-
berships in social groups with value creation in stakeholder
networks defined by a socio-economic issue. To address
recent calls for microfoundations of stakeholder theory, we
introduce a reconceptualization of stakeholders as social
groups to examine how value is defined and interpreted in
intergroup processes embedded in an issue-based stake-
holder network. We establish a theoretical model of value
creation that links individuals identification with stake-
holder groups to intergroup trust, co-operation, and value
creation. Specifically, we argue that the salience of pre-
existing social identities causes harmful tensions in stake-
holder relationships that negatively impact value creation.
We then propose that the development of a more inclusive
stakeholder identity overcomes these negative intergroup
consequences in multistakeholder settings. We discuss the
impact on value creation of four stakeholder identity rep-
resentations based on the salience of specific and super-
ordinate stakeholder groups. The paper concludes with
implications of our theoretical model for both research and
& Thomas Schneider
t.schneider@fh-hwz.ch
Sybille Sachs
sybille.sachs@fh-hwz.ch
1
Institute for Strategic Management, HWZ University of
Applied Sciences in Business Administration Zurich,
Lagerstrasse 5, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
2
Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern,
Switzerland
3
Department of Business Administration, University of
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
practice related to value creation in issue-based stakeholder
networks.
Keywords Social identity theory
Socio-economic
issues
Stakeholder identities
Stakeholder networks

Stakeholder theory
Value creation
Introduction
Issue-based stakeholder networks, which we define as a set
of interdependent actors affected by a socio-economic
issue, are a source of relevant resources and capabilities for
organizational value creation (Ruhli et al. 2015; Sachs and
Ruhli 2011; Svendsen and Laberge 2005). The co-opera-
tive pooling of these stakeholder resources and capabilities
increases value creation through the integrative develop-
ment of innovative products and services related to the
focal issue (Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2015; Savage et al.
2010). Different from other strategic management theories,
stakeholder scholars consider value creation as being
embedded in the relational contributions among a central
organization and its stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston
1995; Freeman 1984, Harrison and Wicks 2013; Priem
et al. 2013). Post et al. (2002, p. 89) stated that the
capacity of a firm to generate sustainable wealth over time,
and hence its long-term value, is determined by its rela-
tionship with critical stakeholders. By refining this
understanding of interdependent value creation, Rowley
(1997) embedded an organization as a focal actor in a
network of multiple stakeholder relationships. An organi-
zations interconnectedness and position in the stakeholder
network are thereby crucial to access stakeholder resources
and capabilities to engage in a process of value creation.
More recently, research has focused on the challenges to
123
42
value creation in stakeholder networks by accounting for
the decentralized role of organizations in its direct and
indirect relationships with other actors affected by a focal
issue (Frooman 2010; Gray and Stites 2013; Roloff 2008;
Savage et al. 2010; Waddell 2011).
However, stakeholder theory does not provide much
research to address how individuals contribute to organi-
zational value creation in issue-based stakeholder net-
works. Much of the extant work focuses on the
characteristics that stakeholders need to possess to receive
managerial attention for their claims (e.g., Agle et al. 1999;
Mitchell et al. 1997). Another important stream of research
examines the strategies that stakeholders use to influence
organizational value creation both directly or indirectly
through intermediaries (Frooman 1999; Rowley and Mol-
doveanu 2003). Thus, stakeholders are primarily identified
by their relationships with a focal organization (Donaldson
and Preston 1995; Freeman et al. 2010; Jones 1995;
Mitchell et al. 1997). This organization-centered stake-
holder categorization has been complemented by an issue-
based perspective that considers a network of sociopoliti-
cal, economic, and ecological stakeholders (Crane and
Ruebottom 2011; Frooman 2010; Roloff 2008). Despite
this body of research, there exist few attempts to analyze
the underlying value creation processes in issue-based
stakeholder networks. Specifically, there is a need to fur-
ther investigate the preconditions that lead to the co-op-
erative behavior of individuals in multistakeholder settings
(Harrison and Wicks 2013; Neville and Menguc 2006;
Pajunen 2006).
We address this research gap in two steps. First, we shift
the focus from organization-centered stakeholder relation-
ships to those in a decentralized stakeholder network.
Second, we draw on the social identities of individuals as
members of issue-based stakeholder groups as our unit of
analysis. In doing so, we complement organizational
stakeholder ties as the traditional unit of analysis with
insights related to the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors
of individuals affiliated with an issue-based stakeholder
group. Such a microfoundation of value creation is in line
with recent calls by scholars from strategy (Bridoux and
Stoelhorst 2014; Felin and Foss 2008) and stakeholder
(Freeman et al. 2010; McVea and Freeman 2005) theory to
analyze the co-operative behavior of individuals in stake-
holder relationships.
The purpose of this paper is to present a microfounda-
tion of value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks
by applying insights from social identity theory (SIT). We
address the question of the consequences of salient stake-
holder identities on intergroup trust, co-operation, and
value creation. In developing this perspective, our con-
ceptual contribution is twofold. First, we redefine the def-
inition of valuein the context of a socio-economic
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
issueas influenced by the salient stakeholder group
memberships of the affected individuals. Second, we pre-
sent four different identity representations (i.e., specific,
superordinate, dual, and no-stakeholder identity) that affect
value creation among members of different stakeholder
groups. We argue that the salience of specific stakeholder
identities reinforces relational tensions in an issue-based
stakeholder network by shifting individuals attention to
intergroup differences in norms, values, and goals. Indi-
viduals are motivated to establish a positive evaluation of
their preexisting stakeholder ingroup through comparison
with relevant outgroups in a process of deductive identity
salience (Hewstone et al. 2002; Hogg and Abrams 1988).
In contrast, frequent communication and interaction leads
individuals to perceive integrative solutions as part of a
superordinate stakeholder identity in the context of a socio-
economic issue. This more inclusive stakeholder identity
facilitates value creation among the representatives of
specific stakeholder groups by emphasizing similarities in
norms, values, and goals through a process of inductive
identity salience (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000; Hewstone
et al. 2002). Finally, the simultaneous salience of both a
specific and superordinate stakeholder identity (dual
stakeholder identity) incorporates the highest potential for
value creation, as individuals recognize both the similari-
ties and differences in their stakeholder relationships.
To provide a comprehensive view of the impact of
stakeholder identity representations on value creation, we
develop a theoretical model and derive the corresponding
propositions for future empirical testing. We consider that
intergroup trust and co-operation mediate the relationship
between the four stakeholder identity representations and
the process of value creation (Jones 1995; Harrison et al.
2010; Harrison and Wicks 2013). In the theoretical model,
we suggest a new conceptual approach for a microfoun-
dation of value creation by adopting a social identity per-
spective on the relationships among individuals affected by
a focal socio-economic issue. SIT (Tajfel and Turner 1979;
Turner et al. 1987) considers that individuals classify
themselves and others into social groups that are cogni-
tively derived from personal dispositions and contextual
characteristics. In this tradition, we define a stakeholder
group as a collective of two or more individuals who
perceive and evaluate themselves on the basis of shared
norms, values, and goals in the context of a socio-economic
issue. Further, we define a stakeholder identity as indi-
viduals knowledge of their affiliation to a stakeholder
group and the related value and emotional importance
derived from this group affiliation. We thereby position
stakeholder groups and stakeholder identities as value
creation drivers for individuals in issue-based stakeholder
networks. A stakeholder identity can be derived from
organizationsor any other social collective affected by a
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
socio-economic issueand it enables its members to
compare themselves with other stakeholder groups in an
issue-based stakeholder network (Ashforth and Mael
1989).
In developing our theoretical model, we recognize pre-
vious stakeholder research on social identities and inter-
group interactions: the differentiation of interest- and
identity-based motivations for stakeholder mobilization
(Rowley and Moldoveanu 2003), the effect of organiza-
tional identity on stakeholder responsiveness (Brickson
2005; Bundy et al. 2013; Scott and Lane 2000), the
porosity of stakeholder identities (Barraquier 2013), or the
identification of stakeholder groups (Crane and Ruebottom
2011). By adding to this research, we suggest that an
important component for understanding value creation in
stakeholder relationships is embedded in the salience of
social groups that constitute an issue-based stakeholder
network. By describing the deductive and inductive iden-
tity salience processes, we analyze the impact of four
stakeholder identity representations on intergroup trust, co-
operation and, hence, value creation in stakeholder rela-
tionships affected by a socio-economic issue.
Our conceptual paper is organized as follows. First, we
review the literature on issue-based stakeholder networks
and highlight the concept of value creation in stakeholder
theory. We then draw on SIT to present a stakeholder
identity perspective on value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks. Second, we introduce the deductive
and inductive identity salience processes to develop our
theoretical model that connects the stakeholder identity
representations with value creation through the mediating
concepts of intergroup trust and co-operation. We then
derive propositions for future empirical testing of the
model. Finally, we discuss the models implications for
practice and present a future research agenda.
Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder
Networks
Stakeholder theory was introduced to the strategic man-
agement field to address the organizational challenges of an
increasingly interconnected and globalized society. In his
seminal book, Freeman (1984) argued that the predomi-
nating logic of profit maximization no longer accounted for
the complexity of the modern business world (see also
Blair and Stout 1999; Jones and Felps 2013). The central
proposition of stakeholder theory implies that the purpose
of an organization is to create as much value as possible for
its stakeholders, whereby the integration of relevant
stakeholder interests into the organizational value creation
processes accounts for the challenges of business in society
(Freeman et al. 2010). As a consequence, extant
43
stakeholder theory research focuses on topics such as the
identification of stakeholders, the evaluation of stakeholder
legitimacy and claims, the role of business in society, and
the taxonomy of stakeholder theories (Scherer and Patzer
2011). Surprisingly, it is only recently that scholars have
focused on the value creation content and process in
stakeholder relationships (Garriga 2014; Harrison and
Wicks 2013; Jones and Felps 2013; Sachs and Ruhli 2011).
Value is a central concept in the strategic management
field; however, there is little consensus on its definition and
creation (Bowman and Ambrosini 2010; Lepak et al.
2007). The stakeholder approach differs from other
strategic management theories in that it addresses value
creation as embedded in the relationships between a focal
organization and its stakeholders (Freeman et al. 2010; Post
et al. 2002). The understanding of what is valuable in
stakeholder relationships must be clarified with each
organizational stakeholder (Harrison and Wicks 2013). In
this regard, Garriga (2014, p. 491) stated that For deter-
mining what is valuable and how value is perceived by the
stakeholder, we should consider that value is a subjective
concept, is not a single phenomenon, is multifaceted and
can be different for each stakeholder group. Conse-
quently, the understanding of value and its creation is
distinct to each of an organizations stakeholder
relationships.
Advancements in stakeholder theory have reshaped the
classical hub and spoke model in which a central orga-
nization creates value in its bilateral stakeholder relation-
ships (Fassin 2009). Rowley (1997) argued that
organizations are embedded in a network of stakeholders
that possess multiple and interdependent relationships
among each other. Further, a focal organization does not
necessarily occupy the hub of the stakeholder network. The
density of the stakeholder network and the centrality of an
organizations position were found to be important deter-
minants for decision-makers to influence value creation in
direct and indirect stakeholder relationships (Rowley
2000). More recent research shifts the perspective from a
focal organization to complex socio-economic issues that
define decentralized stakeholder networks (Frooman 2010;
Roloff 2008). Stakeholders are no longer conceptualized by
their relationships with a focal organization, but as actors
who can affector are affected bya shared socio-eco-
nomic issue (see Freemans (1984, p. 46) influential and
similar, but organization-centric, definition of stakehold-
ers). Frooman (2010) argues that adopting an issue-based
perspective enables decision-makers to account for an
organizations complex and dynamic environment by
anticipating the claims of stakeholders that maintain no
direct relationship with an organization (see also Frooman
1999; Neville and Menguc 2006; Rowley 1997). Such a
conceptualization of issue-based stakeholder networks
123
44
acknowledges that no single organization has the power to
approach a focal socio-economic issue alone (Roloff 2008).
In an interconnected and globalized society, value cre-
ation in an issue-based stakeholder network is dependent
on co-operation among actors from the public, private, and
not-for-profit sectors to take into account the dynamics and
complexity of the corresponding stakeholder relationships
(Gray 1989; Huxham and Vangen 2005). In this context,
co-operation is defined as the deliberate interaction of
interdependent actors that do not rely on either market or
hierarchical mechanisms to establish integrative solutions
(Hardy et al. 2005). Value creation is considered as the
result of pooling the resources and capabilities of stake-
holders affected by a socio-economic issue (Sachs and
Ruhli 2011; Priem et al. 2013; Savage et al. 2010;
Svendsen et al. 2001).
Stakeholder scholars built on the resource-based view
(RbV) of strategy literature to relate resources and capa-
bilities to stakeholder relationships in the context of socio-
economic issues (Sachs and Ruhli 2011; Savage et al.
2010; Svendsen et al. 2001). The RbV suggests that dif-
ferences in value creation among organizations are based
on the accumulation of heterogeneous resources and
capabilities (Wernerfelt 1984). Organizations that are able
to accumulate resources and capabilities that are rare,
valuable, non-substitutable, and imperfectly imitable will
create more value than its competitors (Barney 1991).
Resources are [] stocks of available factors that are et al. 1987) represents a theoretical perspective on the
owned or controlled by the organization and capabilities
are an organizations capacity to deploy resources (Amit corresponding intra- and intergroup processes that has been
and Schoemaker 1993, p. 35). By considering context
factors, RbV scholars argue that an organizations strategic
behavior is clarified by examining the stakeholder rela-
tionships they are embedded in. Dyer and Singh (1998)
stated that an organizations idiosyncratic relationships
render accessible the resources (such as financial, intel-
lectual, or human capital) that do not lie within the orga-
nizations boundaries. An issue-based stakeholder network
represents an opportunity to access such heterogeneous
stakeholder resources and capabilities. The co-operative
integration of these resources and capabilities may result in
a process of value creation through the development of
innovative products and services regarding the focal issue.
Other stakeholder research reveals that relationship
quality represents a strategic precondition for co-operative
value creation (Freeman et al. 2010). Specifically, trust is
central for realizing the co-operative potential in stake-
holder relationships (e.g., Bosse et al. 2009; Harrison et al.
2010; Harrison and Wicks 2013; Jones 1995). However,
there exists little research on the antecedents of stakeholder
relationship quality and its impact on value creation in
issue-based stakeholder networks. The next section of the
paper presents a social identity perspective to address how
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
conceptualizing stakeholders as social groups affects the
quality of interactions and co-operative value creation in an
issue-based stakeholder network. We thereby contribute to
recent calls for microfoundations of value creation from
both strategy (e.g., Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2014) and
stakeholder (Freeman et al. 2010; McVea and Freeman
2005) researchers.
A Social Identity Perspective on Issue-Based
Stakeholder Networks
A social identity represents an individuals knowledge
that he belongs to a certain group together with some
emotional and value significance to him of this group
membership (Tajfel 1972, p. 292). Moreover, it enables
individuals to locate themselves vis-a-vis others and the
social environment (Turner et al. 1987). Such social cate-
gorization of the self and others into in- and outgroups
leads to the perception of stereotypical group characteris-
tics and normative expectations of group behavior (Hogg
and Terry 2000). In this regard, the social identity that
becomes salient in an individuals mind influences their
social perception, attitude, and behavior toward members
of the same ingroup and toward those of contextually rel-
evant outgroups (Hogg and Terry 2000). Originating in
social psychology, SIT (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner
relationship between an individuals social identity and the
widely applied in other fields including organizational
science (e.g., Ashforth and Mael 1989; Haslam 2004; Hogg
and Terry 2000), sociology (e.g., Polletta and Jasper 2001),
and political science (e.g., Huddy 2001).
Individuals are members of many different social
groups, and any social identification theory must explain
how a specific social identity becomes salient. SIT research
implies that social identity salience is dependent on both
cognitive accessibility and situational fit (Turner et al.
1987). Cognitive accessibility relates to a social identity
that arises from an individuals past experiences and pre-
sent motivations: the more readily available that a social
category is, the higher the probability that it becomes
salient in a relevant context (Oakes 1987). Situational fit
depends on how well a social identity contrasts the simi-
larities among members of an ingroup to the differences
toward members of relevant outgroups. Further, situational
fit also depends on how well a social identity aligns an
individuals normative expectations with the prevalent
intergroup reality (Oakes 1987). A social identity with a
good situational fit is likely to establish a distinction
between ingroup similarities and outgroup differences that
incorporates an individuals normative expectations. Taken
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
together, cognitive accessibility and situational fit deter-
mine which social identity becomes salient for an indi-
vidual in the context of a socio-economic issue.
If we take organizations and other social collectives as
stakeholder groups, then their members define their social
self-concepts through a self-referential process by the
prototypical characteristics of a salient stakeholder identity
(Ashforth et al. 2008). As the salience of stakeholder
identities is dependent on context, then these stakeholder
groups and their prototypical characteristics are meaningful
for a given socio-economic issue and the stakeholder net-
work that it defines. If an individual identifies with a salient
stakeholder group, then their subjective understanding of
value is defined by the corresponding conception at the
collective level. In this regard, SIT offers a perspective on
value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks that
links an individuals identification with a stakeholder group
to the intergroup processes related to a socio-economic
issue. For example, Rowley and Moldoveanu (2003) argue
that a stakeholder groups collective interest and identity
act as primary mobilization drivers against a focal orga-
nization. On the one hand, stakeholder groups mobilize
because of their members shared interests regarding a
targeted organization; on the other hand, the mobilization
serves individuals in testifying their commitment to and
feelings of solidarity with the other ingroup members
(Ashforth and Kreiner 1999). Rowley and Moldoveanu
(2003) state that a salient stakeholder identity serves as a
behavioral motive to trigger action through the strength of
its members identification. The more strongly an indi-
vidual identifies with a stakeholder group, the more they
are motivated to express this stakeholder identity through
action in the relationships with other stakeholder groups. In
addressing stakeholder identities from an organizational
perspective, Crane and Ruebottom (2011) propose that
decision-makers should identify stakeholders both by
organization-centered relationships and by their members
social identities. Crane and Ruebottom (2011, p. 85) further
argue that this approach helps to avoid firm-centrism by
adding social identities that are more relevant to the self-
identification of actors.
In applying a social identity perspective on individual
co-operation related to value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks, we must specify the assumptions and
the boundaries of such an approach. First, we assume that
the actors are social groups whose members share a
stakeholder identity in the context of the focal socio-eco-
nomic issue. This assumption is reasonable for public,
private and not-for-profit sector organizations (e.g., Ash-
forth and Mael 1989; Hogg and Terry 2000), and for social
groups with a lower organization level (e.g., Crane and
Ruebottom 2011; Haslam and Ellemers 2005; Polletta and
Jasper 2001). In this regard, our analysis does not include
45
stakeholders that consist of a single individual, as there are
no relevant intra- or intergroup processes to analyze. Sec-
ond, we assume that value is defined subjectively among
the representatives engaged in intergroup relationships
embedded in an issue-based stakeholder network (Garriga
2014). In this regard, we do not assume objective and
measureable value derived from stakeholder utility func-
tions (e.g., Bosse et al. 2009; Harrison et al. 2010). Third,
we focus on norms, values, and goals as prototypical
characteristics shared among members of stakeholder
groups. These characteristics are derived from normative
(norms, values) and instrumental (goals) stakeholder theory
and provide a reasonable constraint for other boundless
available group characteristics. Stakeholder theory research
finds that shared norms, values, and goals are reasonable
predictors of stakeholder interests and actions regarding
co-operative value creation (Harrison and Wicks 2013;
Jones 1995; Jones et al. 2007; Rowley and Moldoveanu
2003). Fourth, we assume that individuals can be members
of different stakeholder groups or organizations that are
affected by a socio-economic issue. However, due to
cognitive accessibility and situational fit, only a single
stakeholder identity can become salient to define an indi-
viduals self-concept at a particular time and situation.
Finally, we only consider social groups or organizations if
their members are affected by, or can affect, a focal socio-
economic issue. That is, social groups need to claim a stake
in a socio-economic issue to unfold a stakeholder identity.
A Model of the Impact of Stakeholder Identities
on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder
Networks
Drawing on the presented insights from stakeholder theory
and SIT, we now develop a theoretical model and derive
the corresponding propositions to analyze the impact of
stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks. The model provides a two-stage
microfoundation of value creation, based on the concep-
tualization of stakeholders as social groups. In the first
stage, we argue that a deductive identity salience process
based on individuals memberships in preexisting stake-
holder groupsresults in a focus on intergroup differences
and increased tensions in stakeholder relationships. Fur-
ther, we argue that an inductive identity salience process
facilitates the development of a more inclusive social
collective in an issue-based stakeholder network. Such a
salient superordinate stakeholder identity leads to the per-
ception of similarities among individuals affected by a
socio-economic issue. In the second model stage, we dis-
cuss four different identity representations as the result of
the two processes of stakeholder identity salience.
123
46
Depending on the salience of a specific and superordinate
stakeholder identity, we analyze the impact on intergroup
trust, co-operation, and value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks. Figure 1 presents an overview of the
theoretical model and the derived propositions.
Deductive Identity Salience Process
A deductive identity salience process takes place if the
individuals derive the prototypical attributes of stakeholder
groups from preexisting mental categories (e.g., Postmes
et al. 2005; Turner 1991). Hence, the salience of a stake-
holder identity depends on the cognitive accessibility and
situational fit of its mental representation. A salient
stakeholder identity informs the collective perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviors of its members by defining their
social self-concept. In issue-based stakeholder networks,
we assume that individuals self-concepts are primarily
affected by the prototypical norms, values, and goals
derived from the mental representations of salient stake-
holder identities. This topdown process implies that the
members of a salient stakeholder group behave in their
collective interest when considering a socio-economic
issue (Rink and Ellemers 2007; Tajfel and Turner 1979).
The individuals who affiliate with a specific stakeholder
group through deductive identity salience do not have to
experience interpersonal attraction nor do they need a
history of interaction. Rather, the recognition of shared
norms, values, and goals, together with an emotional sig-
nificance at the group level, leads the individuals to iden-
tify with a salient stakeholder group and gives meaning to
its members (e.g., Postmes et al. 2005; Turner et al. 1987).
In their original SIT conceptualization, Tajfel and Turner
(1979) stated that individuals are motivated to establish and to
maintain a positive self-concept through the enactment of a
social identity. Hence, a salient social identity allows indi-
viduals to assimilate with ingroup members and to differen-
tiate from outgroup members (Brewer 1991; Tajfel and
Turner 1986). To establish and to maintain a positive self-
concept, individuals evaluate their salient ingroup member-
ship by comparing it to relevant outgroups. This motivated
intergroup comparison leads to an enhanced ingroup evalu-
ation and, less often, to the devaluation of relevant outgroups
(Brewer 1999; Hewstone et al. 2002). Therefore, positive
discrimination is based on the prototypical characteristics of
the ingroup members in contrast to those of the outgroup
members (Ashforth et al. 2008; Postmes et al. 2006).
Multiparty negotiation research analyzes the impact of
deductive identity salience on integrative solutions and
shows that individuals exhibit less co-operative intentions
and prosocial behavior when a relevant social identity
becomes salient in dealing with outgroup members (e.g.,
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
Brewer and Kramer 1986; De Dreu et al. 2000; Haslam
2004). Insko et al. (2001) find that individuals engage less
co-operatively in integrative problem solving when their
group affiliation is made salient, compared with when they
participate as independent individuals. Based on these
causes of cognitive and motivational intergroup compar-
ison, SIT explains how deductive identity salience nega-
tively affects the quality of the stakeholder relationships in
the context of a socio-economic issue (Tajfel and Turner
1979). By defining their social self-concepts through a
salient stakeholder group, individuals differentiate them-
selves from the background of a socio-economic issue. The
motivation for positive ingroup discrimination leads to
tensions in the issue-based stakeholder relationships the
more strongly individuals identify with a stakeholder
ingroup (Hewstone et al. 2002). They draw on shared
norms, values, and goals to either improve the evaluation
of their salient ingroup or to devalue relevant outgroups in
an issue-based stakeholder network.
To address a socio-economic issue, a recurring multi-
stakeholder setting facilitates the development of integra-
tive approaches and solutions in issue-based stakeholder
networks (Calton and Payne 2003; Hemmati 2002; Wad-
dell 2011). The individuals who participate in a multi-
stakeholder setting most often represent the members of a
larger stakeholder group. For example, regarding the socio-
economic issue of rising healthcare costs, the participating
representatives in a multistakeholder setting possibly
include health insurants, health insurance companies,
government agencies, hospitals, patient advocacy groups,
physicians, and pharmaceutical companies. If an individual
represents the health insurants, then the corresponding
stakeholder identity becomes salient due to cognitive
accessibility and situational fit. The deduced prototypical
norms, values, and goals (e.g., low healthcare premiums,
improved quality of medical treatment, equal access to
healthcare) are dimensions on which the salient stakeholder
ingroup can be compared with relevant outgroups. By
focusing on intergroup differences related to rising
healthcare costs, the health insurant representative is
motivated for positive discrimination, either through an
improved evaluation of ingroup members or through the
devaluation of outgroup members. In this regard, the sal-
ience of specific stakeholder groups in the context of a
socio-economic issue predicts a decreased stakeholder
relationship quality based on intergroup effects such as
negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. This
leads to proposition 1:
Proposition 1 A prevalent process of deductive identity
salience leads to tensions in issue-based stakeholder
relationships, due to differences in norms, values, and
goals between preexisting stakeholder groups.
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
Inducve
process of
stakeholder
salience
P2
Identy-based tensions due to the representaon of
stakeholder idenes
-Specic stakeholder identy
- Superordinated stakeholder identy
- Dual stakeholder identy
- No stakeholder identy
P1
Deducve
process of
stakeholder
salience
Fig. 1 Impact of stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks: a theoretical model
Inductive Identity Salience Process
While the deductive identity salience process increases
perceived differences in issue-based stakeholder relation-
ships, the inductive identity salience process potentially
results in the development of an inclusive stakeholder
group emerging from perceived similarities (Fiol et al.
2009; Maitlis 2005; Swaab et al. 2007). An inductive
identity salience process was found to be based on regular
interactions and communication among members of
stakeholder groups affected by a socio-economic issue
(Postmes et al. 2005; Reicher and Hopkins 2002). In this
regard, a multistakeholder setting represents an organiza-
tional arrangement that allows the stakeholder representa-
tives regular interactions and communications, which are
central to the inductive development of shared norms,
values, and goals (e.g., Brewer and Kramer 1986). If
stakeholder representatives are given the possibility to
reflect on similarities regarding a socio-economic issue,
then a superordinate stakeholder identity can emerge
through a bottom-up process of inductive identity salience.
SIT research reveals that interpersonal relationships
facilitate integrative outcomes of multiparty negotiations
because the representatives display more prosocial behav-
ior and choose alternatives that benefit the involved parties
(Gaertner and Dovidio 2000; Loewenstein et al. 1989).
Further, communication among negotiators was found to
foster a shared identity that improves the outcomes in
distributive social dilemmas (Bouas and Komorita 1996) as
well as in integrative settings (Nadler 2004). In line with
these insights, we argue that stakeholder representatives
need to interact and communicate frequently to establish a
superordinate identity during a multistakeholder setting.
They need to perceive high task and outcome
47
Issue-based stakeholder network
Trust
P5
Value
P3
creaon
P4
Cooperaon
interdependence in that no single actor can approach the
focal issue on their own and, thus, co-operation represents
a necessity to establish value creation (e.g., Bridoux and
Stoelhorst 2015; Dyer and Singh 1998; Gulati 2007;
Rowley 1997). Furthermore, the perception of integrative
approaches or solutions among stakeholder groups is an
important incentive to engage in co-operative value cre-
ation (Post et al. 2002).
The recognition of such integrative approaches or
solutions can be challenging due to the widespread
assumption that stakeholder interests are inherently con-
flicting and only feasible by tradeoffs. This perception of
conflicting interests is accentuated if the total amount of
the economic resources related to a focal issue is assumed
to be fixed and if the stakeholder groups are expected to
enforce their partial interests to appropriate the biggest
possible share (Hardy et al. 2005). However, through
analyzing real-world business practices, Harrison and
Wicks (2013) argue that organizational decision-makers
are able to integrate their stakeholder groups various
norms, values, and goals. Particularly in the context of
socio-economic issues, a shared interest exists among
interdependent stakeholder groups to co-operatively realize
the value creation potential in their relationships. The
stakeholder representatives need to cognitively reframe
their competitive striving into a co-operative opportunity to
increase the amount of available resources (e.g., Andriof
and Waddock 2002; Freeman et al. 2004; Neville and
Menguc 2006). This recognition of integrative solutions is
based on ongoing interactions during which shared norms,
values, and goals are established to trigger the salience of a
superordinate stakeholder identity.
In a multistakeholder setting, the representatives of the
participating stakeholder groups have the opportunity to
123
48
frequently interact and communicate. The corresponding
process of inductive identity salience is based on the bot-
tom-up development of shared norms, values, and goals of
a more inclusive issue-based collective. Regarding the
previous illustration of rising healthcare costs, the engaged
stakeholder representatives need to perceive themselves as
interdependent and to recognize the possibility of integra-
tive approaches or solutions. Consequently, the participat-
ing stakeholder representatives start to identify with a
superordinate group during the ongoing multistakeholder
setting and the relationship quality in the issue-based
stakeholder network increases due to the perception of a
common ingroup. This leads to proposition 2:
Proposition 2 Aprevalent process of inductive stake-
holder identity salience leads to improved issue-based
stakeholder relationships, due to the development of shared
norms, values, and goals related to a superordinate
stakeholder group.
Four Stakeholder Identity Representations
In issue-based stakeholder networks, stakeholder identities
that are based on a deductive (specific stakeholder identity)
or an inductive (superordinate stakeholder identity) identity
salience process define the affected individuals social self-
concepts. We argue that these two distinct identity salience
processes result in four different stakeholder identity rep-
resentations that impact intergroup trust, co-operation, and
value creation in an issue-based stakeholder network.1
Table 1 presents the proposed antecedences to and conse-
quences of these four stakeholder identity representations.
Specific Stakeholder Identity Representation
If a deductive identity salience process is prevalent in an
issue-based stakeholder network, the affected individuals
define their social self-concepts by drawing on the norms,
values, and goals of their preexisting stakeholder groups.
The individuals focus on differences toward relevant out-
groups by trying to establish a positive distinctiveness of
their salient stakeholder ingroup against the background of
a socio-economic issue (Hogg and Abrams 1988). Conse-
quently, individuals evaluate the members of their salient
stakeholder ingroup (we) more positively than those of
relevant outgroups (they; Gaertner and Dovidio 2000;
Hewstone et al. 2002). This intergroup evaluation bias
1
Note that during an inductive identity salience process, intergroup
trust, co-operation, and value creation develop simultaneously due to
continuous interactions and communication among the stakeholder
representatives. However, for explanatory reasons, we retain a linear
process in our model.
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
leads to relational tensions that induce negative behavior
(discrimination), attitudes (prejudice), and social percep-
tion (stereotypes) between the members of different
stakeholder groups (e.g., Scheepers et al. 2006).
The stakeholder relationship quality represents a
strategic precondition for integrative value creation (Free-
man et al. 2010). Specifically, the existence of trust is
important to realize the co-operative potential in stake-
holder relationships (e.g., Bosse et al. 2009; Harrison et al.
2010; Harrison and Wicks 2013; Jones 1995). We define
intergroup trust in an issue-based stakeholder network as
the willingness of the members of a specific stakeholder
ingroup to accept their vulnerability to the actions of those
of stakeholder outgroups (e.g., Mayer et al. 1995; Pirson
and Malhotra 2011). The negative intergroup consequences
triggered by a deductive identity salience process nega-
tively affect stakeholder relationship quality and, hence,
intergroup trust in the context of a socio-economic issue is
reduced.
To explain the willingness to co-operate in the direct
and indirect stakeholder relationships affected by a socio-
economic issue, Harrison et al. (2010) argue that intergroup
trust must be based on a norm of generalized exchange and
reciprocity (see also Bosse, et al. 2009; Harrison and Wicks
2013). As value creation in an issue-based stakeholder
network is dependent on the co-operative sharing of
stakeholder resources and capabilities, a norm of general-
ized exchange and reciprocity increases stakeholder con-
tribution and reduces the perceived risk of being exploited
(Asher et al. 2005; Savage et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2009).
In this regard, decreased relationship quality through a
process of deductive identity salience leads the stakeholder
groups to be less willing to co-operatively contribute to
value creation related to a socio-economic issue.
Superordinate Stakeholder Identity Representation
If an inductive identity salience process is prevalent in an
issue-based stakeholder network, individuals define their
social self-concept through the shared norms, values, and
goals of a superordinate stakeholder group established
through interactions and communication. This focus on
similarities increases the perceived entity and cohesion
among the participants of a multistakeholder setting and
reduces intergroup tensions based on the motivation to
positively distinct specific stakeholder groups (Cabrera and
Cabrera 2002; Gaertner and Dovidio 2000; Turner et al.
1987). On the one hand, the salience of a superordinate
stakeholder group leads to increased positive beliefs and
feelings among the members of this more inclusive stake-
holder collective related to a socio-economic issue (e.g.,
Brewer 1979; Brewer and Kramer 1986; Gaertner and
Dovidio 2000). On the other hand, the members of a
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks 49

Table 1 Issue-based stakeholder networks: stakeholder identity representations

Representations of stakeholder identity Specific stakeholder Superordinate stakeholder Dual stakeholder No-stakeholder
identities identity identity identity

Process of group formation Deductive Inductive Deductive/inductive Non-existent

Salience of
Specific stakeholder group High Low Medium to high No
Superordinate stakeholder group Low High Medium to high No
Focus during stakeholder interactions Differences Similarities Similarities and Non-existent
differences
Identity-based tensions in issue-based High Low Medium Non-existent
stakeholder network
Trust in issue-based stakeholder network Low High Medium Non-existent
Co-operation in issue-based stakeholder Low Medium High Non-existent
network
Value creation in issue-based stakeholder Low Medium High Non-existent
network

superordinate stakeholder group expect each other to align
their behavior to the mutually developed norms, values,
and goals to advocate their interests (Williams 2001). The
resulting low levels of intergroup tensions in a multi-
stakeholder setting enhance the stakeholder relationship
quality and high levels of intergroup trust exist in the
superordinate stakeholder identity representation.
However, we argue that co-operation is at a medium
level for a prevalent superordinate stakeholder identity
representation, because a possible drawback is the low
salience of the specific stakeholder ingroups. If individuals
are expected to abandon their specific stakeholder identities
in favor of a superordinate stakeholder collective, then they
face a threatening situation during a multistakeholder set-
ting. SIT-related research suggests that the threat of having
to abandon a valued social identity increases the motivation
for positive ingroup distinctiveness and thus leads to
intergroup stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination (e.g.,
Hewstone and Brown 1986; Hornsey and Abrams 1999).
Consequently, the perception of identity threat leads to
reduced co-operation among the stakeholder groups if a
superordinate stakeholder identity becomes prevalent in an
issue-based stakeholder network. Moreover, a salient
superordinate stakeholder identity reduces the availability
of stakeholder resources and capabilities during a multi-
stakeholder setting. The dissolving of the specific stake-
holder groups boundaries means that the corresponding
stakeholder resources and capabilities are no longer cog-
nitively and organizationally accessible to its
representatives.
Dual Stakeholder Identity Representation
If both the deductive and inductive identity salience pro-
cesses are prevalent in an issue-based stakeholder network,
then the individuals define their social self-concept by
identifying simultaneously with both a specific and a
superordinate stakeholder group. This leads to the dual
stakeholder identity representation. As depicted in Fig. 2, a
dual stakeholder identity representation retains the specific
stakeholder groups boundaries within a more inclusive
superordinate stakeholder collective. In contrast, a super-
ordinate stakeholder identity representation dilutes the
specific stakeholder groups boundaries.
Regarding the simultaneous identification with two
social groups of different inclusiveness, Gaertner and
Dovidio (2000, p. 49) remark: [] we believe that it is
possible for members to conceive of two groups as distinct
units within the context of a superordinate identity (for
example, parents and children within a family, or sales-
people and accountants within a company). Empirical
social psychology and organizational science research
yield support for the dual identity concept (e.g., Foreman
and Whetten 2002; Hewstone and Brown 1986; Hornsey
and Abrams 1999).
Individuals for whom a dual stakeholder identity
becomes salient perceive both the differences in the norms,
values, and goals between the specific stakeholder groups,
as well as the corresponding similarities of a superordinate
stakeholder group. The intergroup tensions in an issue-
based stakeholder network are at a medium level because,
on the one hand, the individuals motivation to positively
differentiate a salient stakeholder ingroup from relevant
stakeholder outgroups persists. On the other hand, the
simultaneous salience of a superordinate stakeholder
identity shifts the stakeholder representatives attention
toward similarities in norms, values, and goals in the
context of a socio-economic issue. These antagonistic
consequences of a dual stakeholder representation result in
a medium intergroup trust level.

123
50
Superordinate Identy
Fig. 2 Superordinate stakeholder identity and dual stakeholder identity
Further, compared with the superordinate stakeholder
identity representation, co-operation in an issue-based
stakeholder network is enhanced for a prevalent dual
stakeholder identity representation because of two reasons.
First, in addition to the positive consequences of similari-
ties in norms, values, and goals related to a superordinate
stakeholder identity, the simultaneous salience of specific
stakeholder identities leads to an increased probability of
stakeholder resources and capabilities being fed into a co-
operative process. If the stakeholder representatives per-
ceive a salient dual stakeholder group, then they retain the
cognitive and organizational accessibility of their stake-
holder ingroups resources and capabilities. Second, the
simultaneous salience of specific stakeholder groups
enables individuals to perceive themselves as distinct from
a superordinate stakeholder collective and, thus, reduces
the threat of having to abandon a specific stakeholder
identity (Brewer 1991; Gaertner and Dovidio 2000; Hew-
stone and Brown 1986). As an individuals positive dis-
tinctiveness motivation is reduced in a dual stakeholder
representation, their willingness to co-operate with mem-
bers of relevant stakeholder outgroups increases in the
context of a socio-economic issue.
No-Stakeholder Identity Representation
If neither the deductive nor inductive identity salience
process becomes prevalent in an issue-based stakeholder
network, then intergroup trust, co-operation, and value
creation do not apply to the no-stakeholder identity repre-
sentation. In this regard, the no-stakeholder identity
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
Dual Identy
representation mirrors the boundary conditions of our
theoretical model. First, if accessibility or situational fit do
not trigger the salience of specific stakeholder groups, then
the deductive identity salience process does not affect an
individuals social self-concept in the context of a socio-
economic issue. Second, if individuals do not define
themselves as members of specific stakeholder groups, then
they are unable to acknowledge the interdependences in the
stakeholder groups relationships nor will they recognize
the potential for integrative solutions related to a socio-
economic issue. Consequently, no inductive identity sal-
ience process can take place to establish a superordinate
stakeholder group in an issue-based stakeholder network.
Relationships Between Intergroup Trust, Co-
operation, and Value Creation
For reasons of space, the described impacts of the four
stakeholder identity representations are provided as an
overview in Table 1. We continue our argumentation
addressing the relationships between intergroup trust, co-
operation, and value creation among stakeholder groups in
an issue-based stakeholder network.
As the representatives of stakeholder groups are
dependent on each other to find integrative approaches and
solutions for socio-economic issues, the quality of the
direct and indirect relationships in an issue-based stake-
holder network is of importance to realize these co-oper-
ative opportunities (e.g., Savage et al. 2010; Wang et al.
2009). In specific, trust in their relationships leads
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
stakeholder groups to accept their vulnerability and facil-
itates the development of a generalized exchange norm in
their issue-based ties (Harrison et al. 2010). As a conse-
quence, stakeholder groups that provide resources and
capabilities in a deliberative manner assume that others
will reciprocate and do not expect exploitative behavior by
opportunistic others (Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2015; Jones
1995). Therefore, intergroup trust is an important precon-
dition for co-operation in multistakeholder settings as it
facilitates the provision of resources and capabilities into a
co-operative process, the results of which can be appro-
priated by all stakeholder groups affected by a socio-eco-
nomic issue. This leads to proposition 3:
Proposition 3 The higher the level of intergroup trust in
issue-based relationships, the more resources and capa-
bilities are provided into a co-operative multistakeholder
setting.
Co-operative stakeholder relationships based on inter-
group trust have been associated with various positive
value creation effects regarding reduced transaction and
agency costs (e.g., Foss and Foss 2005; Jones 1995;
Mayer et al. 1995; Pirson and Malhotra 2011). In addition,
we argue that the co-operative provision of resources and
capabilities facilitates value creation in stakeholder rela-
tionships through the development of integrative approa-
ches and solutions related to a socio-economic issue (see
also Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2015; Ruhli et al. 2015).
Once the heterogeneous resources and capabilities of
different stakeholders are accessible through a multi-
stakeholder setting, the participants become able to co-
operatively invent new products and services (Dyer and
Singh 1998). Furthermore, the knowledge of how to
engage in a multistakeholder setting can turn itself to a
value creation capability of a stakeholder group (Sachs
and Ruhli 2011).
We propose that in the context of a salient dual stake-
holder representation, the co-operative pooling of hetero-
geneous resources and capabilities results in the highest
level of value creation through the development of inno-
vative products and services. On the one hand, the super-
ordinate stakeholder identity facilitates the integrative
process among the participants in a multistakeholder set-
ting by emphasizing similarities and a sharing behavior
by a fusion of the self with the community (Bridoux and
Stoelhorst 2015, p. 10). On the other hand, the salience of
specific stakeholder groups accentuates different resources
and capabilities in a multistakeholder setting. As a result,
the apprehension of similarities and differences in issue-
based stakeholder relationships leads to innovative prod-
ucts and services, as well as improved relational capabili-
ties through mutual learning and experience.2 This leads to
proposition 4:
51
Proposition 4 The more stakeholder resources and
capabilities are co-operatively shared, the higher the level
of value creation through the development of innovative
products and services in an issue-based stakeholder
network.
Finally, we argue that intergroup trust not only affects
value creation among stakeholder groups through the
indirect co-operation path, as stated in propositions P 3 and
P 4, but it also has a direct impact. Thereby, intergroup
trust is evaluated by the stakeholder group members as a
desirable end on its own, and not just as a means to
establish co-operative stakeholder relationships. If stake-
holder group members prefer to be embedded in networks
with a prevalent generalized exchange and reciprocity
norm, then they perceive intergroup trust as valuable on its
own (Harrison and Wicks 2013). Therefore, establishing
intergroup trust in stakeholder relationships adds to value
creation over and above the instrumental motivation to find
integrative solutions related to a socio-economic issue.
This leads to proposition 5:
Proposition 5 Intergroup trust positively affects value
creation in an issue-based stakeholder network, as it is
valued both as a means and an end in stakeholder
relationships.
Conclusion
This paper provides a microfoundation of value creation by
introducing SIT to bridge an individuals stakeholder
identities with co-operation in the intergroup relationships
embedded in an issue-based stakeholder network.
Addressing the subjective concept of value as interpreted at
a group level, we define a stakeholder as a collective of two
or more individuals who perceive and evaluate themselves
on the basis of shared norms, values, and goals in the
context of a socio-economic issue. Closely related, a
stakeholder identity represents an individuals knowledge
2
We are aware that we postulate a direct link of innovative products
and services to value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks
(see also Van de Ven et al. 1999). This link is not undisputed in the
economic literature and various conditional effects have been
analyzed (Lepak et al. 2007). However, for reasons of space, we do
not provide a full review of this literature and stick to the established
RbV argumentation that the combination of heterogeneous resources
leads to innovation and, hence, value creation in an organizational
context. Barney (1991, p. 107) stated: Indeed, firms with such
resources will often be strategic innovators, for they will be able to
conceive of and engage in strategies that other firms could either not
conceive of, or not implement, or both, because these other firms
lacked the relevant firm resources. In addition, Sachs and Ruhli
(2011) as well as Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2015) provide a detailed
discussion of this line of argumentation regarding issue-based
stakeholder networks.
123
52
of their affiliation with a stakeholder group and the related
value and emotional importance derived from this group
affiliation. Based on the processes of deductive and
inductive identity salience, we analyze the impact of
specific and superordinate stakeholder identities on the
quality of the intergroup relationships in an issue-based
stakeholder network. We argue that the process of deduc-
tive identity salience leads to a focus on differences among
members of specific stakeholder groups. In contrast, the
process of inductive identity salience highlights the col-
lective development of similarities in norms, values, and
goals among stakeholder representatives affected by a
socio-economic issue. We propose that this emergence of a
superordinate stakeholder identity depends on the percep-
tion of the interdependencies among stakeholder groups
and the recognition of integrative approaches or solutions.
Through analyzing the processes of deductive and induc-
tive identity salience, we present four possible stakeholder
identity representations in issue-based stakeholder net-
works. We then develop a theoretical model that links the
four stakeholder identity representations to integrative
value creation among stakeholder groups. For each of these
stakeholder identity representations (specific stakeholder
identity, superordinate stakeholder identity, dual stake-
holder identity, and no-stakeholder identity), we analyze
the consequences on intergroup trust and co-operation as
antecedences of value creation. We argue that trust among
the stakeholder groups in an issue-based stakeholder net-
work is highest only if a superordinate stakeholder identity
becomes salient. In contrast, we propose that intergroup co-
operation and value creation are highest if both the specific
and the superordinate stakeholder identities become salient.
Our model has implications for research and practice
regarding integrative value creation among actors that are
affected by a socio-economic issue.
Implications for Research
The first research implication relates to value creation in
issue-based stakeholder relationships. Traditionally, studies
on the stakeholder theory of value creation adopt the per-
spective of decision-makers who engage with their orga-
nizations stakeholders (Crane and Ruebottom 2011).
While acknowledging the usefulness of this perspective,
we argued that conceptualizing stakeholders as social
groups adds to the understanding of value creation among
actors affected by a socio-economic issue. In this regard,
having something at stake embraces the social self- development of a collective understanding of value cre-
concepts of the affected individuals as group members
(Rowley and Moldoveanu 2003). Future studies should
address the usefulness of stakeholder groups and identities
in explaining the subjective understanding of value and the
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
process of value creation in issue-based stakeholder net-
works. Specifically, multistakeholder setting case studies
that analyze socio-economic issues are a promising method
to investigate the development of stakeholder identities in a
longitudinal approach. It is likely that the stakeholder
representatives strength of identification with the specific
and superordinate stakeholder group will vary over time
(e.g., Gaertner and Dovidio 2000) or that prototypical
norms, values, and goals are subject to change (Corley and
Gioia 2004). An investigation of identity change processes
or the subjective conceptualization of value during a
multistakeholder setting can be based on in-depth inter-
views with stakeholder representatives.
A second research implication concerns the process of
deductive identity salience. Previous studies exist on both
the personal and role identities of organizational decision-
makers in their interactions with stakeholder representa-
tives (e.g., Arino et al. 2005); however, social self-defini-
tion has attracted less attention. In our theoretical model,
we suggest that cognitive accessibility and situational fit
are antecedences of stakeholder identity salience. Future
research should focus on the relative importance of these
two predictors in issue-based stakeholder networks. It is
not yet clear whether cognitive accessibility and situational
fit are independent predictors of identity salience and,
hence, for the proposed stakeholder identity representa-
tions. To investigate these mental processes in detail,
researchers can draw on the SIT tradition of laboratory
experiments that are designed to analyze cognitive pro-
cesses and causal effects (e.g., Haslam et al. 1999).
Regarding the concrete operationalization of our proposi-
tions, Haslam (2004) provides an excellent overview of
how to manipulate and measure social identity salience
both as independent and dependent variables.
A third research implication addresses the factors that
trigger the emergence of a superordinate stakeholder group.
Although the positive consequences of a salient superor-
dinate group are recognized as a means to reconcile
intergroup conflicts (e.g., Gaertner and Dovidio 2000), it is
less clear how such an inclusive identity can be established
effectively by inductive group formation. Despite regular
interactions and communication among the representatives
of specific stakeholder groups (e.g., Postmes et al. 2005;
Swaab et al. 2007), we propose that the perception of
interdependence and the recognition of integrative
approaches or solutions facilitate the development of a
superordinate stakeholder identity. Future research should
investigate the impact of these preconditions on the
ation. Indeed, we recognize the existence of other factors or
conditional effects that explain the development of a
superordinate stakeholder identity. However, it is not our
intention to formulate a saturated set of superordinate
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
stakeholder salience drivers. Rather, we propose a first step
by focusing on the interdependence among stakeholder
groups and the recognition of integrative approaches or
solutions.
A fourth research implication is related to the simulta-
neous salience of both a specific and a superordinate
stakeholder group in the dual stakeholder identity repre-
sentation. Although social psychology scholars acknowl-
edge the concept of a dual identity (Crisp et al. 2006;
Gaertner and Dovidio 2000; Hogg and Terry 2000), the
consequences of relative identification strength with a
specific and a superordinate stakeholder group should be
further investigated. We argue that the dual stakeholder
identity representation contains the highest potential for co-
operative value creation because of the simultaneous con-
sideration of the similarities and the differences in norms,
values, and goals among the members of stakeholder
groups. Future empirical studies should analyze the con-
sequences of relative identity strength through the co-op-
erative behavior of stakeholder groups in issue-based
stakeholder networks. We acknowledge that our concep-
tualization of co-operation as the pooling of stakeholder
resources and capabilities presents challenges for empirical
testing. Previous research has tended to focus on financial
measures to assess value creation in stakeholder relation-
ships (Harrison and Wicks 2013). However, we encourage
multi-method research to explore identity strength in
multistakeholder settings. A promising technique is the use
of experimental vignettes that confront the multistake-
holder setting participants with a set of future develop-
ments. In this regard, the causal mechanisms of a dual
stakeholder identity can be assessed in a real case.
A final research implication stems from our proposed
microfoundation of value creation in issue-based stake-
holder networks. As SIT represents an integrated theoreti-
cal perspective that relates an individuals social self-
concept to intra- and intergroup processes, our model
allows for the analysis of different levels of trust, co-op-
eration, and value creation in the context of a socio-eco-
nomic issue (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner et al. 1987).
To date, research focuses on organizational stakeholder
relationships as the unit of analysis (for exceptions, see
Crane and Ruebottom 2011; de Luque et al. 2008; McVea
and Freeman 2005; Rowley and Moldoveanu 2003). We
argue that conceptualizing stakeholders as social groups
introduce its members as an additional unit of analysis.
Therefore, researchers can develop and apply multi-level
instruments to investigate the implications of salient
stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks. Specifically, research related to the
RbV of strategy would profit from a multi-level approach
that considers a group perspective on heterogeneous
resources and capabilities. We assume that the
53
understanding of what constitutes resources and capabili-
ties that are rare, valuable, non-substitutable, and imper-
fectly imitable depends on which stakeholder identities
become salient in the context of a socio-economic issue.
Implications for Practice
Our model has practical implications for organizational
decision-makers attempting to establish value creation in
issue-based stakeholder networks. First, we propose that a
social identity perspective enables decision-makers to
analyze their organizations dynamic context in detail and
provides a comprehensive framework to anticipate direct
and indirect stakeholder claims related to a socio-economic
issue. Once the various stakeholder groups are identified,
organizational decision-makers should closely monitor
possible intergroup tensions in the relevant issue-based
stakeholder network. Negative stereotypes, prejudices, and
discrimination reduce intergroup co-operation and value
creation, because the stakeholder representatives do not
perceive enough trust to provide their resources and
capabilities to an integrative process. Therefore, we sug-
gest that organizational decision-makers should adopt a
decentralized perspective on issue-based stakeholder net-
works to take into account their direct and indirect stake-
holder relationships. Perspective-taking supports
organizational decision-makers in assessing an issue from
different viewpoints and to get an idea of the available
stakeholder resources and capabilities. Further, a careful
analysis of stakeholder groups also informs the organiza-
tional decision-makers knowledge of the collective norms,
values, and goals regarding a focal issue.
Second, organizational decision-makers should be aware
of the preconditions that facilitate the emergence of a
superordinate identity in issue-based stakeholder networks.
Regular interactions and communication among stake-
holder representatives are based on a time-consuming
process to establish the perception of interdependencies
and the recognition of integrative approaches and solutions.
A focus on short-term outcomes is detrimental for the
development of collective norms, values, and goals. In this
regard, organizational decision-makers, in addition to
stakeholder representatives, should reflect on the underly-
ing governance systems of multistakeholder settings. In
order to establish co-operative value creation, there should
be a careful consideration of the initial interaction design,
the shared definition of a socio-economic issue, and the
recognition of the affected stakeholder groups (e.g.,
Hemmati 2002; Waddell 2011).
Third, initiators and facilitators of multistakeholder
settings need to take into account the specific and super-
ordinate stakeholder identity effects on intergroup trust and
123
54
co-operation during the stakeholder interaction process. In
the initial stages of a multistakeholder setting, the partici-
pants specific stakeholder identities are likely to become
highly salient to structure the social context based on path
dependencies. To counteract the potential detrimental
effects of high specific stakeholder salience, the stake-
holder representatives should be given the opportunity to
frequently communicate and interact to define and agree
shared norms, values, and goals. A useful intervention to
facilitate the development of such a common ground relies
on the explicit formulation of a multistakeholder settings
mission, vision, or purpose statement (Ruhli et al. 2015).
However, the emergence of a superordinate stakeholder
identity is not a panacea for increased co-operative
behavior among the stakeholder representatives in the
context of a socio-economic issue (Gaertner and Dovidio
2000). As we argued, the salience of a superordinate
stakeholder group increases trust among members of dif-
ferent stakeholder groups, whereas the additional salience
of the specific stakeholder identities leads to the highest
levels of co-operation. Therefore, in the advanced stages of
a multistakeholder setting, the participants should be
reminded of their specific stakeholder affiliations against
the background of a salient superordinate identity. The
increased salience of their specific stakeholder ingroups
facilitates the participants cognitive and organizational
accessibility to their stakeholder resources and capabilities.
These can then be shared in a process of co-operative value
creation in an issue-based stakeholder network.
A final practical implication concerns the limitations of
our models applicability. We developed a theoretical
framework that explains value creation in issue-based
stakeholder networks by taking into account the impacts of
salient stakeholder identities. In this regard, we implicitly
assume that an issue is of importance for an individuals
social self-concept. However, the most important boundary
condition of our theoretical model is represented by
stakeholder identity salience. If individuals do not identify
with a salient stakeholder identity in the context of a socio-
economic issue, then they will not engage in activities
consistent with the interests of their specific stakeholder
group. In such a situation, conceptualizing stakeholders as
social groups does not yield additional insights into value
creation in an issue-based stakeholder network. A second
limitation addresses the assumption that stakeholder groups
are generally motivated to co-operatively strive for inte-
grative solutions in the context of a socio-economic issue.
Stakeholder representatives also participate in multistake-
holder settings to negotiate their claims on a fixed amount
of resources, to find a quick solution for a temporary
problem, or to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the other
actors in an issue-based stakeholder network (Hardy et al.
2005). None of these motivations is consistent with the
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
long-term co-operative recognition of integrative stake-
holder approaches or solutions as proposed in our theo-
retical model.
In conclusion, we believe that a SIT perspective on
value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks con-
tributes to scholarship and practice in several ways. We
presented the mediating role of stakeholder identity rep-
resentations by recognizing the importance of both
deductive and inductive group formation. Stakeholder
research predominately considers an organizations stake-
holder relationships. In the present paper, however, we
focused on how individuals define their social self-concepts
in the context of socio-economic issues. In doing so, we
derived a future research agenda and developed practice
recommendations to inform the stakeholder management
field about the potential of conceptualizing stakeholders as
social groups when striving for co-operative value creation
in issue-based stakeholder networks.
References
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters
to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience,
corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Manange-
ment Review, 42, 507525.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and
organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 3346.
Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. A. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder
engagement. In J. Andriof, S. A. Waddock, B. Husted, & S.
Sutherland Rahmen (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp.
1942). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Arino, A., de la Torre, J., & Ring, P. S. (2005). Relational equality
and inter-personal trust in strategic alliances. European Man-
agement Review, 2, 1527.
Asher, C. C., Mahoney, J. M., & Mahoney, J. T. (2005). Towards a
property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm.
Journal of Management and Governance, 9, 532.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty
work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 413434.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organisation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 2039.
Ashforth, B. E., Spencer, H. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification
in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions.
Journal of Management, 34, 325374.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-
tage. Journal of Management, 17, 99120.
Barraquier, A. (2013). A group identity analysis of organizations and
their stakeholders: Porosity of identity and mobility of attributes.
Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 4562.
Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of
corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85, 248328.
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholder,
reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 30, 447456.
Bouas, K. S., & Komorita, S. S. (1996). Group discussion and
cooperation in social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 22, 11441150.
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2010). How value is created, captured
and destroyed. European Business Review, 22, 479495.
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup
situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 307324.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and
different at the same time. Personality and Psychology Bulletin,
17, 475482.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or
outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429444.
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social
dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision
framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
543549.
Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a
link between organizational identity and organizations relations
with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 576609.
Bridoux, F. M., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for
stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous
motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 107125.
Bridoux, F. M., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2015). Stakeholder relationships
and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint
value creation. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/
amr.2013.0475.
Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic
cognition and issue salience: Toward and explanation of firm
responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 38, 352376.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas.
Organization Studies, 23, 687710.
Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with paradox:
Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking
process for addressing messy problems. Business and Society,
42, 742.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change
in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 49, 173208.
Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social
identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics 102, 7787.
Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Recategorization and
subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from
common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32, 230243.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of
social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic
review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 889905.
De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., & Waldman, D. A. (2008).
Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate
to subordinates perceptions of leadership and firm performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 626654.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 6592.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative
strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advan-
tage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660679.
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84, 113135.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the
routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and
Decision Economics, 29, 489502.
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & OConnor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable
identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34, 3255.
Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. A. (2002). Members identification with
multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science, 6,
618635.
55
Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Resources and transaction costs: How
property rights economics furthers the resource-based view.
Strategic Management Journal, 26, 541553.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de
Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.
Cambridge: University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. L. (2004). Stakeholder
theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization
Science, 15, 364369.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 191205.
Frooman, J. (2010). The issue network: Reshaping the stakeholder
model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27, 161173.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The
common ingroup identity model. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.
Garriga, E. (2014). Beyond stakeholder utility function: Stakeholder
capability in the value creation process. Journal of Business
Ethics, 120, 489507.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for
multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, B., & Stites, J. P. (2013). Sustainability through partnerships.
http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Part
nerships.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2015.
Gulati, R. (2007). Managing network resources: Alliances, affilia-
tions, and other relational assets. Oxford: University Press.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and
collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 5877.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for
stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 5874.
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value and
firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 97124.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. London: SAGE.
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and
organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and contri-
butions. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39118).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999).
Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype
consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
809818.
Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and
sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. London: Earthscan.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact and conflict in
intergroup encounters. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575604.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social
psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 121140.
Hornsey, M. J., & Abrams, D. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a
response to an overly-inclusive group. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 543550.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical
examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22,
127156.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The
theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
123
56
Insko, C. A., et al. (2001). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity
reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 95111.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of
ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20,
404438.
Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2013). Stakeholder happiness enhance-
ment: A neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 349379.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and
stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 137155.
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation
and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 180194.
Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social
utility and decision making in interpersonal context. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426441.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemak-
ing. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 2149.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model
of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20,
709734.
McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach
to stakeholder management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14,
5769.
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, 853886.
Nadler, J. (2004). Rapport in legal negotiation: How small talk can
facilitate email dealmaking. Harvard Negotiation Law Review,
9, 225253.
Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity:
Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakehold-
ers. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377391.
Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner,
M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell
(Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization
theory (pp. 117141). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pajunen, K. (2006). Stakeholder influences in organizational survival.
Journal of Management Studies, 43, 12611288.
Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational
trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization
Science, 22, 10871104.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social
movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283305.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the
corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational
wealth. Stanford, CA: University Press.
Postmes, T., Baray, G., Haslam, S. A., Morton, T., & Swaab, R. I.
(2006). The dynamics of personal and social identity formation.
In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group:
Advances in social identity (pp. 215236). London: Sage.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005).
Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and
deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89, 747763.
Priem, R. L., Butler, J. E., & Sali, L. (2013). Toward reimagining
strategy research: Retrospection and prospection on the 2011
AMR decade award article. Academy of Management Review,
38, 471489.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2002). Psychology and the end of history:
A critique and a proposal for the psychology of social
categorization. Political Psychology, 22, 383407.
123
T. Schneider, S. Sachs
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared
organizational identity: The norm congruity principle. British
Journal of Management, 18, 1727.
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-
focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics,
82, 233250.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory
of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22,
887910.
Rowley, T. J. (2000). Does relational context matter? An empirical
test of a network theory of stakeholder influences. In J.
M. Logsdon, F. J. Wood, & L. E. Benson (Eds.), Research in
stakeholder theory: The sloan foundation minigrant project (pp.
2135). Toronto: Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics.
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,
204219.
Ruhli, E., Sachs, S., Schmitt, R., & Schneider, T. (2015). Social
innovation in multistakeholder settings. Journal of Business
Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2589-1.
Sachs, S., & Ruhli, E. (2011). Stakeholders matter. Cambridge:
University Press.
Savage, G. T., Bunn, M. D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E.
J., & Williams, E. S. (2010). Stakeholder collaboration: Impli-
cations for stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business
Ethics, 96, 2126.
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. (2006).
Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features,
and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 90, 944960.
Scherer, A. G., & Patzer, M. (2011). Where is the theory in
stakeholder theory? A meta-analysis of the pluralism in stake-
holder theory. In R. A. Phillips (Ed.), Stakeholder theory: Impact
and prospects (pp. 140162). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to
organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25,
4362.
Svendsen, A. C., Boutilier, R. G., Abbott, R. M., & Wheeler, D.
(2001). Measuring the business value of stakeholder relation-
ships. http://www.cbern.ca/cms/One.aspx?objectId=7189701&
contextId=625751&CrmObjectId=10926779. Accessed 19 Feb
2015.
Svendsen, A. C., & Laberge, M. (2005). Convening stakeholder
networks. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 19, 91104.
Swaab, R., Postmes, T., van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared
cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in
negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
187199.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel
(Eds.), The context of social psychology (pp. 69119). London:
Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3348). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The
psychlogy of intergroup relations (pp. 724). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,
M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-catego-
rization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks 57

Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S.
(1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Waddell, S. (2011). Global action networks. Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wang, H. C., He, J., & Mahoney, J. T. (2009). Firm-specific
knowledge resources and competitive advantage: the roles of
economic- and relationship-based employee governance mech-
anisms. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 12651285.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 171180.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an
affective context for trust development. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 26, 377396.

123
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.