Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Stakeholder theory
Ritika Mahajan a, Weng Marc Lim b, c, d, *, Monica Sareen a, Satish Kumar b, e, Rajat Panwar f
a
Department of Management Studies, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
b
Sunway Business School, Sunway University, Sunway City, Selangor, Malaysia
c
School of Business, Law, and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
d
Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
e
Indian Institute of Management Nagpur, India
f
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Stakeholder theory (ST) is a profound theory in business ethics and organizational management. Though several
Bibliometric analysis ST reviews are available, they remain restricted to functional or niche areas. Specifically, no study, to date, has
Stakeholder attempted to review ST research in its entirety. To address this noteworthy gap, this study endeavors to (i) offer a
Stakeholder theory
comprehensive definition of ST and (ii) retrospect ST research and prospect its promising avenues for future
Systematic literature review
growth. Given the large corpus (n = 988) and long history (1969–2021) of ST research, this study adopts and
performs a systematic literature review using bibliometric analysis (performance analysis and science mapping).
Consequently, this study reveals (i) the productivity (publication) and impact (citation) of ST research and its
contributors (journals, authors, countries), (ii) the major thematic clusters of ST research (ST and sustainability,
ST and organizational performance, ST and strategic management, and ST and stakeholder management), and (iii) the
promising avenues to advance ST research across all its major thematic clusters.

1. Introduction evidenced in the present review. Hence, ST can be defined as a theory

Stakeholder theory (ST) is a theory of business ethics and organiza­
tional management (Schaltegger et al., 2019). According to ST, orga­
nizations aim to generate multiple benefits for different stakeholders (i.
e., groups and individuals who can affect or be affected by the organ­
ization—e.g., civil societies, communities, customers, employees, gov­
ernments, shareholders, suppliers) (Freeman, 1984). The origin of ST
can be traced to the 1960s when Stanford Research Institute first pro­
posed the concept of stakeholder, emphasizing that organizations need
the support of not only their shareholders but also their stakeholders in
order to exist and thrive. Therefore, a clear imperative was drawn be­
tween maximizing dividends for shareholders and satisfying the needs of
stakeholders. However, it was not until the early 2000s that ST research
prominently appeared in top business journals (Laplume et al., 2008),
and since then, the body of knowledge on ST has more than doubled, as
that (i) encourages organizations to acknowledge and consider their stake­
holders, which exist internally or externally to the organization, (ii) promotes
understanding and managing stakeholder needs, wants, and demands, and
thus (iii) represents a holistic and responsible framework that goes beyond
the focus of shareholders in decision-making processes, which, in turn, (iv)
enables organizations to be strategic, maximize their value creation, and
safeguard their long-term success and sustainability.
Various researchers have contributed to improving the theoretical
understanding of ST and its potential application in practice. Table 1
represents a collection of review studies on ST research, ranging from
the application and advancement of ST in mainstream management to
operations management, project management, supply chain manage­
ment, and sustainability performance management and assessment,
among others. Notwithstanding the contributions of these reviews,
when taken independently, they can only provide a niche representation

* Corresponding author at: Sunway Business School, Sunway University, Sunway City, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: lim@wengmarc.com, marcl@sunway.edu.my, marclim@swin.edu.au, wlim@swinburne.edu.my (W.M. Lim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114104
Received 12 December 2022; Received in revised form 5 June 2023; Accepted 8 June 2023
Available online 24 June 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Table 1 through the support of stakeholders).

Review studies on ST research. Against this backdrop, this study aims to retrospect ST research in its
Review Focus Corpus Coverage entirety and prospect its promising avenues for future growth, thereby
answering the following research questions (RQs):
Aaltonen and ST in project 55 1995 to 2015 for
Kujala (2016) management articles International Journal of RQ1. What is the productivity (publication) trend of ST research?
Project Management, RQ2. Which are the most impactful (cited) ST research?
Project Management RQ3. Which are the major contributors (journals, authors, countries/
Journal, and International territories) of ST research?
Journal of Managing
Projects in Business only
RQ4. Which are the major themes of ST research?
Bhattacharya ST in supply chain 300 Not mentioned RQ5. Where can ST research venture into the future?
and Fayezi management articles To do so, this study conducts a systematic literature review using
(2021) bibliometric analysis, wherein the former enables this study to disclose
De Gooyert et al. ST in operations 144 Up to 2014 for Decision
its review process in a transparent and replicable manner (Lim et al.,
(2017) management articles Support Systems, European
Journal of Operational 2022), whereas the latter enables this study to leverage the objectivity
Research, Expert Systems and power of a quantitative analytical technique that is capable of
with Applications, Journal handling and analyzing a large corpus (Donthu et al., 2021). Notewor­
of the Operational Research thily, bibliometric analysis is a well-established and well-published re­
Society, Management
Science, and Omega only
view technique for conducting systematic literature reviews (Chopra
Govindan and ST in reverse logistics 59 January 2004 to August et al., 2021; Kumar, Lim, Sivarajah, & Kaur, 2022a; Kumar, Sharma,
Bouzon (2018) articles 2015 Rao, Lim, & Mangla, 2022b; Lim, 2022; Mukherjee, Kumar, Mukherjee,
Laplume et al. ST in mainstream 179 1984 to 2007 & Goyal, 2022a; Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b; Singh, Lim,
(2008) management articles
Jha, Kumar, & Ciasullo, 2023). In doing so, this study contributes to (i)
Silva et al. ST in sustainability 76 Up to 2017
(2019) performance articles the objective assessment of ST research productivity and impact, (ii) the
measurement and objective discovery of major thematic clusters of ST research, and (iii)
assessment the objective curation of promising ways forward for ST research (Lim,
Tan and Salo ST in ethical 163 2010 to June 2020 Kumar, & Ali, 2022; Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b).
(2021) marketing in articles
blockchain-based
sharing economy 2. Theoretical background
The present ST in its entirety 988 Up to 2021
review articles 2.1. Historical context of stakeholder theory (ST)

of the state of ST research. Indeed, mapping and synthesizing ST
research is challenging due to its large volume and tensions in its half-
century corpus (Freeman et al., 2020). To date, no review has attemp­
ted to retrospect ST research in its entirety, which, if done well,1 can
provide a representative, state-of-the-art overview of the current state
and propel meaningful ways forward for the future of ST. More impor­
tantly, undertaking a systematic literature review of ST in its entirety is
necessary, important, relevant, and urgent, even if some albeit frag­
mented or outdated reviews have been conducted in the past, in order to
(i) evaluate current performance (i.e., the current extent of contributions
and contributors), (ii) update knowledge (i.e., the business environment is
evolving and thus necessitates timely updates on current progress and
future directions), and (iii) locate gaps and ways forward (i.e., identifying
areas that have been underexplored or overlooked and opportunities for
further research and innovation) (Kraus et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2022).
Indeed, promoting the (continued) use of ST is valuable as it (i) provides
a holistic approach to decision-making (i.e., balancing the needs, wants,
and demands of various stakeholders, not just shareholders), (ii) upholds
ethics (i.e., enabling organizations to be more responsible in their stra­
tegies and operations), (iii) manages risks (i.e., anticipate and mitigates
potential issues that might harm organizational operations, perfor­
mance, and reputation due to stakeholder concerns and actions), (iv)
promotes innovation (i.e., stakeholders as a resource for ideas and in­
spirations), and (v) safeguards legitimacy (i.e., social license to operate
1
We build on Lim et al. (2022) and operationalize systematic literature re­
views that are “done well” as (i) content relevant (i.e., ST is grounded on business
ethics and organizational management, which falls within the “business,
management, and accounting” subject field in major scientific databases—e.g.,
Scopus), (ii) source quality assured (e.g., filtering based on major journal ranking
and rating lists—e.g., ABDC, CABS), (iii) rigorous (e.g., bibliometric analysis
consisting of performance analysis and science mapping), (iv) transparent and
replicable (i.e., disclosure of review process), and (v) knowledge advancing (i.e.,
retrospective and prospective insights).
The term “stakeholder” can be traced back to its origin at the Stan­
ford Research Institute in 1963, but has clearly evolved over time, with
Freeman’s 1984 book, “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach”, serving as a foundational work. Freeman posited that com­
panies should consider the interests of all stakeholders, rather than
focusing solely on shareholders, to create value for everyone involved
and achieve long-term success. This marked the formal introduction of
ST into the field of strategic management. According to the theory, a
stakeholder is defined as any entity (e.g., individual or group) who can
influence or is influenced by mission-driven organizations (i.e., set out to
accomplish objectives). Freeman laid the groundwork and established
benchmarks for stakeholder research, which was followed by a series of
significant studies contributing to ST research (Table 2).
Donaldson and Preston (1995) expanded on Freeman’s work,
arguing that companies possess a moral obligation to consider the in­
terests of all stakeholders, and that effective stakeholder management
can contribute to long-term profitability. They identified three theo­
retical approaches to addressing stakeholders: (i) the descriptive
approach, which views organizations as entities comprising various
stakeholder groups with their own interests (i.e., the least comprehen­
sive view, setting the stage for consideration of stakeholder claims or
concerns), (ii) the instrumental approach, which emphasizes the sig­
nificance of stakeholder management due to its contribution to financial
outcomes (i.e., a progressive view that sets the stage for balancing
financial and stakeholder interests), and (iii) the normative approach,
which prioritizes stakeholders as the “ends” rather than the “means” to
achieve financial outcomes (i.e., the most comprehensive view of
stakeholders, focusing solely on them).
To evaluate stakeholder influence, Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed
the attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, which, when consid­
ered collectively, can serve as helpful indicators for determining the
necessary management attention required for any stakeholder. Other
studies such as Jones and Wicks (1999) proposed a unified ST that in­
tegrated diverse perspectives and approaches. The authors acknowl­
edged that the field of ST had become fragmented, with different

2
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Table 2 disclosures, emphasizing the need to consider a broad range of factors

Evolution of ST. beyond financial performance in corporate decision-making. Gibson
Year Author Title Key contributions (2000) highlights the importance of ethical considerations in ST and
corporate decision-making, while El Akremi et al. (2018) stress the
1984 Freeman Strategic management: Introduced ST and
A stakeholder approach advocated for taking into ethical dimension of corporate responsibility, underscoring the need to
account the interests of all treat stakeholders fairly and responsibly.
stakeholders Within strategic management, Matos and Hall (2007) investigate the
1995 Donaldson and The stakeholder theory Asserted the moral application of ST in incorporating sustainable development practices
Preston of the corporation: obligation to consider
Concepts, evidence, and stakeholders and
into supply chain management. They propose that life cycle assessment
implications suggested three (LCA) can help identify sustainability risks and opportunities in the
theoretical approaches for supply chain, and a sustainability-focused strategy can result in a
stakeholder engagement competitive advantage. Harrison et al. (2010) discuss the significance of
1997 Mitchell, Agle, Toward a theory of Introduced the attributes
stakeholder management in strategic decision-making and provide a
and Wood stakeholder of power, legitimacy, and
identification and urgency as valuable framework for understanding the link between stakeholder management
salience: Defining the indicators for guiding and competitive advantage. Ferraro et al. (2015) explore the role of
principle of who and stakeholder management robust action in addressing grand challenges such as climate change and
what really counts poverty, and Guerci et al. (2016) find that green human resource man­
1999 Jones and Wicks Convergent stakeholder Proposed a unified ST that
theory integrates diverse
agement practices can effectively translate stakeholder pressures into
perspectives and environmental performance, leading to improved environmental per­
methodologies formance and stakeholder satisfaction.
2003 Phillips, What stakeholder Clarified the Within marketing, Line and Wang (2017) apply ST to propose oper­
Freeman, and theory is not misconceptions about ST
ationalizing market-oriented destination marketing (MODM) to better
Wicks and emphasized its role as
a framework for understand and respond to market needs. They argue that MODM is a
understanding and critical aspect of destination marketing, as it focuses on satisfying
addressing the interests of customer needs, identifying growth opportunities, and building
various stakeholders competitive advantage.
2010 Parmar, Stakeholder theory: The Presented an overview of
Within accounting and finance, Berman et al. (1999) highlight the
Freeman, state of the art the current state of ST, its
Harrison, Wicks, applications across potential benefits of stakeholder-oriented management practices for
Purnell, and de different fields, and financial outcomes. Jensen (2002) explores the relationship between
Colle discussed the potential value maximization and ST, arguing that they are not necessarily
contributions of
mutually exclusive and that maximizing shareholder value can be
stakeholder management
to corporate social consistent with fulfilling a corporation’s ethical responsibilities towards
responsibility, its stakeholders. Banerjee et al. (2003) examine the application of ST to
sustainability, and ethical corporate environmentalism, focusing on various industry types. They
conduct. suggest that stakeholder pressures, including those from regulators and
customers, can impact a company’s environmental practices and
scholars concentrating on various aspects of the stakeholder. To address financial performance. Van der Laan Smith et al. (2005) propose that
this issue, they put forth a unified theory of stakeholders that integrated stakeholders influence firms to disclose more social information, and the
three perspectives: instrumental, normative, and descriptive. The degree of social disclosure depends on the economic, social, and cultural
instrumental perspective focuses on the strategic importance of stake­ environment of the country where the firm operates. Artiach et al.
holders to the organization, while the normative perspective emphasizes (2010) study the determinants of corporate sustainability performance,
the ethical obligations organizations have toward stakeholders, and the including ST, and find that stakeholders play a crucial role in the
descriptive perspective examines the empirical relationships between adoption and implementation of sustainable practices in organizations.
organizations and stakeholders. By integrating these perspectives, the Deng et al. (2013) suggest that corporate social responsibility can be an
authors aimed to develop a more comprehensive and cohesive ST. important driver of financial outcomes in the context of mergers and
Lastly, Phillips et al. (2003) clarified what ST is not, asserting that ST is acquisitions and emphasize the importance of considering stakeholder
not solely a normative theory of corporate social responsibility or a interests in financial decision-making. Liao et al. (2015) investigate the
theory of business ethics. Instead, ST serves as a foundational framework relationship between gender diversity, board independence, environ­
for understanding and managing the interests of various stakeholders, mental committees, and greenhouse gas disclosures, suggesting that ST
whose implications can then be extended to other areas such as corpo­ could explain why companies with more diverse boards and indepen­
rate social responsibility, ethics, and sustainability. Today, stakeholders dent directors are more likely to disclose information about their
have become a critical consideration across all aspects of decision- greenhouse gas emissions.
making (Ahmed et al., 2023; Azam, 2023; Castillo, 2022; Jones-Khosla More often than not, ST is utilized for stakeholder analysis—a key
and Gomes, 2023; Kopelman, 2022), with different strategies devel­ method for stakeholder management that recognizes and examines
oped and implemented to engage with them effectively (Acquah et al., stakeholders to determine the best practices for organizations to engage
2023; Bansal et al., 2023; Ismail and Hilal, 2023; Lim, 2023a, 2023b; with them (Fassin, 2009). This has led to numerous definitions and
Saha et al., 2023). frameworks (Friedman and Miles, 2006) for identifying and managing
stakeholder engagement (Neville and Menguc, 2006; Balmer, 2017).
The growth of ST has not gone unchallenged. For example,
2.2. Expansion of ST in business, management, and accounting Donaldson and Preston (1995) questioned the existence and selection of
legitimate stakeholders, the superiority of ST over alternative theories,
The prominence of ST can be observed across various fields, such as and the distinction of ST from general management. To address these
business ethics, strategic management, marketing, and accounting and questions, Jones and Wicks (1999) leveraged on the instrumental
finance. approach to ST and coined convergent ST, which provided principles for
Within business ethics, Roberts (1992) explores how ST can be applied managers to develop moral workplaces without endangering organiza­
to understand the determinants of corporate social responsibility tional performance. In response, Freeman (1999) criticized convergent

3
R. Mahajan et al.
ST and counterpropose with divergent ST to account for diverse stake­
holder views in showing different but useful ways of understanding
organizations, and thus, reinforcing the value of the normative approach
to ST. More recently, empirical ST research has focused on how orga­
nizations interacted with stakeholders (i.e., the application of ST), such
as how organizations manage stakeholders (Gambeta et al., 2019;
Hörisch et al., 2020) and how stakeholders affect organizations
(Kannan, 2018) across specific domains of business, management, and
accounting (Hussain et al., 2018, Jones et al., 2018). Yet, no study, to
date, has sought to evaluate the performance and map the intellectual
structure of ST research in its entirety, which is a retrospection that is
inarguably required in order to acquire an objective understanding of
the progress of ST and chart meaningful pathways to advance ST.
3. Methodology
3.1. Corpus curation
To curate a corpus of relevant ST research for review, we conducted a
search up to 2021 (search period) for “stakeholder theory” (search
keyword) in the “article title, abstract, and keywords” search field on
Scopus, which is a search database that holds one of the largest collection
of scientific documents (Donthu et al., 2021). Only “business, manage­
ment, and accounting” (subject area) “articles” and “reviews” (document
type) published in “English” (language) were included. These search
criteria, which are in line with Lim et al. (2022), led to the return of
2,230 documents (Fig. 1).
To refine the corpus of relevant ST research, we filtered the 2,230
documents by journal (source type) ranking and rating (source quality). In
particular, we included documents that are published in journals (i)
ranked “A*” or “A” by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) in
the 2019 Journal Quality List (JQL) or (ii) rated “4*”, “4” or “3” by the
Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) in the 2021 Academic
Journal Guide (AJG). These filtering criteria, which are in line with Sahoo
Fig. 1. The review process of corpus curation and analysis.
4
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
et al. (2022), led to the exclusion of 1,242 documents and the inclusion
of 988 documents (Fig. 1).
3.2. Corpus analysis
To analyze the corpus, bibliometric analytical techniques are
employed (Fig. 1). Bibliometric analysis involves using quantitative
methods to assess scholarly documents and their scientific information
(Donthu et al., 2021). As a method to review the literature objectively
(Mukherjee et al., 2022b), bibliometric analysis, which typically consists
of a performance analysis and a science mapping (Donthu, Kumar,
Mukherjee, Pandey, & Lim, 2021; Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar, & Donthu,
2022b), has become increasingly common in systematic literature re­
views (Kraus et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2022), including those in business
and management literature (Boubaker et al., 2022). Bibliometric anal­
ysis helps mitigate potential biases that may arise in manual and qual­
itative reviews, especially when handling a large corpus of materials
(Donthu et al., 2021), such as the 988 documents in this review, by
employing quantitative tools.
A performance analysis is conducted to outline the productivity
(publication) trend of ST research (RQ1), followed by the most impactful
(cited) ST research (RQ2), and the primary contributors (journals, au­
thors, countries/territories) of ST research (RQ3). Subsequently, science
mapping is carried out using (i) bibliographic coupling for all 988
documents to reveal the major thematic clusters of ST research, which
groups documents together based on shared common references and
word-cloud analysis for each cluster according to the frequency of
keywords used by authors (RQ4), and (ii) trend analysis to uncover the
emerging topics of ST research (RQ5). These analyses, consistent with
Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, Pandey, & Lim, 2021; Mukherjee, Lim,
Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b, were performed using VOSviewer for
bibliographic coupling (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010) and the bib­
liometrix package in the R software (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017), with
Biblioshiny installed to facilitate data import and conversion for
R. Mahajan et al.
generating analytics such as performance analysis, science mapping, and
temporal analysis (Kraus et al., 2022). Unlike reviews that are typically
conducted manually in the past (Lim et al., 2022), the use of software for
reviewing the literature such as the present one signals the state of
advancement in technology, where reviews can now be carried out with
greater ease, efficiency, and effectiveness (i.e., the 3Es) while mitigating
potential bias and blunders (i.e., the 2Bs) when they leverage rather than
shun technology (Kraus et al., 2022).
The performance analysis of publication productivity (publishing
trend) (RQ1), impact (citation evaluation) (RQ2), and contributors
(journals, authors, countries/territories) (RQ3) provides a comprehen­
sive profile of publications in the field. This is analogous to profiling
cases or participants in empirical studies but with a more rigorous
analytical approach, answering RQ1 to RQ3 (Donthu, Kumar, Mukher­
jee, Pandey, & Lim, 2021; Kraus et al., 2022; Mukherjee, Kumar,
Mukherjee, & Goyal, 2022a; Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b).
Additionally, the implementation of science mapping using biblio­
graphic coupling, a common technique in bibliometric reviews, com­
pares to factor analysis in quantitative studies and thematic analysis in
qualitative studies. This mapping aids in achieving RQ4, which focuses
on retrospective knowledge mapping in the field (Donthu, Kumar,
Mukherjee, Pandey, & Lim, 2021; Kraus et al., 2022; Mukherjee, Kumar,
Mukherjee, & Goyal, 2022a; Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b).
Lastly, conducting a trend analysis of the keywords that frequently
appear in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles from each major
thematic cluster over the past decade (2011–2021) helps identify
trending topics, promising avenues for future research, and broadening
the understanding and application of ST. This analysis is further
augmented by identifying emerging yet underexplored topics through
the word cloud associated with each thematic cluster. Consequently, this
comprehensive approach helps answer RQ5, focused on charting the
future of the field, by delivering a rigorous and nuanced agenda for
future ST research.
The subsequent section presents the outcomes of the bibliometric
analyses using a combination of figures, tables, and textual descriptions,
which were obtained through the use of VOSviewer and Biblioshiny.
4. Findings
4.1. Performance analysis of ST research (RQ1–RQ3)
4.1.1. Productivity (publication) trend of ST research (RQ1)
The year-wise productivity (publication) trend of ST research is
Fig. 2. Productivity (publication) trend of ST research.
5
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
depicted in Fig. 2. The figure indicates that ST research has a history of
more than half a century, dating back to 1969. However, there was no
publication activity between 1970 and 1982, which was a period
dominated by management theories such as Chester Barnard’s functions
of the executive and Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory—these theories
assumed that organizations existed in stable contexts and focused on
enhancing predictability, certainty, and behavioral control. In 1984, R.
Edward Freeman made an explicit call on managers to focus on stake­
holders (Parmar et al., 2010). The growth of ST research following this
call varied, and it was not until the edge of the new millennium that ST
research begun to proliferate exponentially (Goyal, 2020).
These observations could be attributed to various factors. First, ST, as
a new theory that was formally established in the 1980s, required time
(1990–2000) to gain acceptance among management scholars. Second,
the mainstream focus of management scholars prior to ST was to
maximize shareholder value. In that sense, ST, which calls upon man­
agers to go beyond shareholders and proactively invest valuable atten­
tion and resources onto stakeholders, represents a paradigm shift that
cannot be embraced within a short period. Third, the interconnection
between stakeholders was less prominent prior to the dot.com revolu­
tion. Noteworthily, the widespread adoption of the internet facilitated
personal and informational connections among stakeholders, enabling
stakeholders to gain instantaneous access to information that they could
readily act upon. With the growing interconnections among knowl­
edgeable stakeholders who could take collective actions against orga­
nizations (e.g., buycott versus boycott), management scholars embraced
and established the importance of looking into stakeholder
management.
4.1.2. Most impactful (cited) ST research (RQ2)
The top 20 most impactful (cited) ST research according to the total
citations received in Scopus are listed in Table 3. The table shows that
Mitchell et al. (1997), who defined the stakeholder identification and
salience principles of who and what really counts on the basis of power,
legitimacy, and urgency, emerges top with 5,753 citations. Orlitzky
et al. (2003), who performed a meta-analysis of corporate social and
financal performance, come second, and Carroll (1999), who explained
the development of corporate social responsibility, is third on the list
with 3,689 and 2,826 citations, respectively. Other ST research on the
list concentrate on the conceptualization and relationship of constructs
relevant to stakeholders. For example, Hill and Jones (1992) coined a
stakeholder-agency theory, Rowley (1997) established a network theory
of stakeholder influences, Berman et al. (1999) dived into the
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Table 3
Most impactful (cited) ST research.
Author(s) Title Journal Year TC C/P

Mitchell, Agle, and Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who Academy of Management Review 1997 5,753 221.27
Wood and what really counts
Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis Organization Studies 2003 3,689 184.45
Rynes
Carroll Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct Business and Society 1999 2,826 117.75
Rowley Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences Academy of Management Review 1997 1,393 53.58
Berman, Wicks, Kotha, Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder Academy of Management 1999 1,301 54.21
and Jones management models and firm financial performance Journal
Roberts Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder Accounting, Organizations, and 1992 1,123 36.23
theory Society
Agle, Mitchell, and Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate Academy of Management 1999 1,025 42.71
Sonnenfeld performance, and CEO values Journal
Hill and Jones Stakeholder-agency theory Journal of Management Studies 1992 1,017 32.81
Surroca, Tribó, and Corporate responsibility, and financial performance: The role of intangible resources Strategic Management Journal 2010 975 75.00
Waddock
Jensen Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function Business Ethics Quarterly 2002 962 45.81
Freeman, Wicks, and Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited” Organisation Science 2004 893 47.00
Parmar
Maignan and Ferrell Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework Journal of the Academy of 2004 882 46.42
Marketing Science
Jones and Wicks Convergent stakeholder theory Academy of Management Review 1999 779 32.46
Barringer and Harrison Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships Journal of Management 2000 753 32.74
Jawahar and Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach Academy of Management Review 2001 637 28.95
McLaughlin
Barnett and Salomon Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and Strategic Management Journal 2006 619 36.41
financial performance
Phillips, Freeman, and What stakeholder theory is not Business Ethics Quarterly 2003 596 29.80
Wicks
Doh and Guay Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the Journal of Management Studies 2006 595 35.00
United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective
Banerjee, Iyer, and Corporate environmentalism: Antecedents and influence of industry type Journal of Marketing 2003 592 29.60
Kashyap
Friedman and Miles Developing stakeholder theory Journal of Management Studies 2002 528 25.14

Note(s): TC = Total citations. C/P = Citations per publication.

relationship between stakeholder management models and firm finan­

Table 4
cial performance, Jones and Wicks (1999) introduced convergent ST,
Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) journals for ST research.
and Barringer and Harrison (2000) worked on creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Attempts to ensure that ST progresses Most productive (published) journals Most impactful (cited) journals for ST
for ST research research
on the right path are also observed through Phillips et al. (2003), who
explained what stakeholder theory is not, and Friedman and Miles Journal TP Journal TC
(2002), who focused on developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 261 Journal of Business Ethics 17,552
Journal of Cleaner Production 65 Academy of Management 9,650
4.1.3. Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) journals for ST Review
Business and Society 46 Strategic Management Journal 5,556
research (RQ3) Business Ethics Quarterly 42 Business and Society 5,134
The top 20 most productive (published) and impactful (cited) jour­ Business Strategy and the 36 Business Ethics Quarterly 4,690
nals for ST research are listed in Table 4. The table shows that ST Environment
research is multidisciplinary, ranging from business ethics to accounting Journal of Business Research 35 Organization Studies 4,290
Strategic Management Journal 30 Journal of Management Studies 3,349
and finance, cleaner production, economics, hospitality and tourism,
Journal of Management Studies 17 Journal of Cleaner Production 2,852
management, and marketing. The top three most productive (published) Journal of Management 13 Academy of Management 2,685
journals for ST research are Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Journal
Production, and Business and Society with 261, 65, and 46 publications, European Journal of Marketing 13 Journal of Management 2,457
respectively, whereas the top three most impactful (cited) journals for International Journal of Project 12 Business Strategy and the 2,163
Management Environment
ST research are Journal of Business Ethics, Academy of Management Re­ Academy of Management Review 12 Organisation Science 1,999
view, and Strategic Management Journal with 17,552, 9,650, and 5,556 Organisation Science 11 Journal of the Academy of 1,406
citations, respectively. Noteworthily, 29.2% of these journals were Marketing Science
ranked “A*” and 69.2% were ranked “A” by the ABDC 2019 JQL while Technological Forecasting and 10 Accounting, Organizations and 1,252
Social Change Society
9.3% were rated “4*”, 17.8% were rated “4”, and 42.1% were rated “3”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 Tourism Management 1,055
in the CABS 2021 AJG. These observations imply that ST research is well Accounting and Finance 10 Annals of Tourism Research 1,053
accepted among top business journals across various business disciplines Tourism Management 10 Journal of Business Research 988
while the theoretical foundation of ST research falls back to its theo­ International Journal of 10 International Journal of Project 812
retical origins as a theory of business ethics and organizational Production Economics Management
International Journal of 9 Journal of Marketing 759
management. Hospitality Management
Long Range Planning 8 European Journal of Marketing 689
4.1.4. Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) authors for ST
Note(s): TP = Total publications. TC = Total citations.
research (RQ3)
The top 20 most productive (published) and impactful (cited)

6
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Table 5 Table 6
Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) authors for ST research. Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) countries/territories for ST
Most productive (published) authors for Most impactful (cited) authors for
research.
ST research ST research Most productive (published) Most impactful (cited) countries/
countries/territories for ST research territories for ST research
Author TP Author TC
Country TP Country TC
Freeman R.E. 16 Mitchell R.K. 7,060
Harrison J.S. 13 Agle B.R. 6,927 United States 362 United States 34,477
Wicks A.C. 12 Wood D.J. 5,784 United Kingdom 166 Australia 9542
Phillips R. 12 Wicks A.C. 4,489 Australia 105 United Kingdom 9049
Jones T.M. 8 Orlitzky M. 3,698 Canada 103 Canada 8048
Mitchell R.K. 7 Rynes S.L. 3,689 China 68 Spain 4027
Lee S. 7 Schmidt F.L. 3,689 France 47 China 3354
Crilly D. 6 Freeman R.E. 3,465 Spain 46 Netherlands 3135
Bosse D.A. 5 Jones T.M. 3,406 Italy 46 Italy 2715
Fassin Y. 5 Carroll A.B. 2,826 Netherlands 42 France 2056
Govindan K. 5 Harrison J.S. 2,534 Germany 42 Germany 1923
Qian C. 5 Phillips R. 2,207 India 30 Singapore 1539
Agle B.R. 4 Roberts R.W. 1,404 Hong Kong 24 Switzerland 1314
Barnett M.L. 4 Rowley T.J. 1,393 South Korea 22 New Zealand 1139
Doh J.P. 4 Parmar B.L. 1,347 New Zealand 21 Hong Kong 1054
Greenwood M. 4 Berman S.L. 1,334 Denmark 20 South Korea 948
van der Laan Smith J. 4 Jensen M.C. 1,318 Finland 20 Denmark 741
Van Buren III H.J. 4 Kotha S. 1,301 Switzerland 17 Belgium 670
Sarkis J. 4 Barnett M.L. 1,249 Singapore 14 Austria 655
Sirgy M.J. 4 Tribó J.A. 1,144 Taiwan 13 Finland 647
Surroca J. 1,144 Brazil 12 India 642

Note(s): TP = Total publications. TC = Total citations. Note(s): TP = Total publications. TC = Total citations.

authors for ST research are listed in Table 5. The table shows that R.
Edward Freeman, University of Virginia, United States, is the most
productive (published) author with 16 publications. Freeman is a
pioneer in the field who first established ST in 1984. He is followed by
Jeffrey S. Harrison, University of Richmond, United States, with 13
publications, and Andrew C. Wicks, University of Virginia, United
States, and Robert Philips, York University, Canada, with 12 publica­
tions each. The table also shows that Ronald K. Mitchell, Texas Tech
University, United States, is the most impactful (cited) author with
7,060 citations. Mitchell is a thought leader in the field who focused on
defining and selecting legitimate stakeholders for organizations. He is
followed by Bradley R. Agle, Brigham Young University, United States,
with 6,927 citations, and Donna J. Wood, University of Northern Iowa,
United States, with 5,784 citations.
4.1.5. Most productive (published) and impactful (cited) countries/
territories for ST research (RQ3)
The top 20 most productive (published) and impactful (cited)
countries/territories for ST research are listed in Table 6. The table
shows that the United States (TP: 362, TC: 34,477), the United Kingdom
(TP: 166, TC: 9.049), and Australia (TP: 105, TC: 9,542) are the top three
most productive (published) and impactful (cited) countries/territories
for ST research. While European and North American countries are the
most productive and impactful, there is also notable representation from
Asian countries/territories such as China, India, Hong Kong, Singapore,
and South Korea, Oceanic countries such as Australia and New Zealand,
and South American countries such as Brazil. Nonetheless, the bulk and
core of ST research resides in the United States, as seen by its two-to-
three-fold performances in productivity and impact as compared to
the next most published and cited country (i.e., United Kingdom and
Australia, respectively).
To understand the connections between countries/territories, a co-
authorship analysis of cross-country collaborations for ST research
was conducted and illustrated in Fig. 3. In the early years of ST (1969 to
1998), only a single cross-country/territory collaboration was found
between Canada and Finland (Nasi et al., 1997) (Panel A). In the ensuing
period (1999 to 2008), which comprises 186 publications and 37,631
citations, cross-country/territory collaborations increased exponen­
tially, especially between the United States and countries such as
Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and Singapore (Panel B). In the next
period (2009 to 2018), which contains 498 publications and 32,364
citations, cross-country/territory collaborations proliferate even
further, with the majority of cross-country/territory collaborations
witnessed between North America and regions such as Asia, Europe, and
Oceania. Finally, in the latest period (2019 to 2021), which consists of
276 publications and 3,092 citations, the trend of cross-country/
territory collaborations continued to grow, especially among regions,
including that between developed and developing nations, as evidenced
by the links between the United States and developing nations such as
Brazil, China, and India. These observations suggest that the United
States remains as a lynchpin for ST research and that cross-country/
territory collaborations are now a commonplace in the field.
4.2. Science mapping of ST research (RQ4–RQ5)
4.2.1. Major themes of ST research (RQ4)
The major themes of ST research were unpacked using bibliographic
coupling, wherein citing publications that share common references
form a common thematic cluster (Donthu et al., 2021). In total, four
thematic clusters of ST research were unpacked through bibliographic
coupling—namely stakeholder theory and sustainability, stakeholder theory
and organizational performance, stakeholder theory and strategic manage­
ment, and stakeholder theory and stakeholder management. The most im­
pactful (cited) ST publications in each thematic cluster are presented in
Table 7 and the most researched ST topics in each thematic cluster are
illustrated using the word clouds depicted in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and
Fig. 7.
4.2.1.1. Cluster 1: Stakeholder theory and sustainability. Cluster 1 is the
largest cluster of ST research, composing 266 publications that have
been cited 12,788 times. This cluster is also fairly new with an average
publication year of 2015.92. The theme of this cluster is ST and sus­
tainability, encapsulating topics such as corporate social responsibility,
environmental management, proactive environmental strategies, green
innovation, social sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable
operations, and sustainable supply chain, among others (Fig. 4). The
publications in this cluster adopt ST to study sustainability issues at the
organizational, national, and international level. The most cited publi­
cations in this cluster showcase the utility of ST in addressing sustain­
ability issues (Table 7). Noteworthily, Darnall et al. (2010) (452

7
R. Mahajan et al.
Fig. 3. Cross-country/territory collaborations for ST research. Note(s): Each line represents a collaboration between two countries/territories and the thickness of
each line represents the extent of that collaboration.
citations) adopted ST to explain the connection between stakeholder
pressures and proactive environmental practices, whereas Matos and
Hall (2007) (402 citations) applied ST in a life cycle assessment of sus­
tainable supply chain development, Sautter and Leisen (1999) (397 ci­
tations) employed ST to develop a tourism planning model that
promotes collaborations among stakeholders, Evans et al. (2017) (316
citations) used ST as a lynchpin to establish a unified perspective of
sustainable business models, and Nicholas et al. (2009) (280 citations)
utilized ST to gauge the perspectives of local communities of a world
heritage site.
4.2.1.2. Cluster 2: Stakeholder theory and organizational performance.
Cluster 2 is the second largest cluster of ST research, comprising 238
publications. The average publication year of ST research in this cluster
is about a year older than Cluster 1 (APY: 2014.72). However, ST
research in this cluster produced the greatest impact among all clusters,
as evidenced by the highest number of citations that its publications
have accumulated (23,773 citations). The theme of this cluster is ST and
organizational performance, including topics such as firm performance,
financial performance, social performance, and sustainability perfor­
mance, among others (Fig. 5). The publications in this cluster adopt ST
as a lens to understand a wide spectrum of organizational performance.
This can also be seen through the most cited publications in this cluster,
which showcase the utility of ST in understanding the performance of
organizations (Table 7). Noteworthily, Orlitzky et al. (2003) (3,689 ci­
tations) adopted ST to foreground a meta-analysis on corporate social
and financial performance, whereas Agle et al. (1999) (1,025 citations)
applied ST to investigate the stakeholders that matter to the CEO. They
also tested the Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder salience model,
establishing that, in the opinions of CEOs, the stakeholders’ character­
istics, power, legitimacy, and urgency are significantly associated with
stakeholder salience. In contrast, Hill and Jones (1992) (1,017) took a
stakeholder-agency theory as a starting point and constructed a frame­
work to examine the implicit and explicit relationships between man­
agers and stakeholders, including the features of strategic behavior of
the organization, the design of mechanisms for aligning incentives, and
the emergence of institutional structures, whereas Surroca et al. (2010)
8
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
(975 citations) used ST in conjunction with the resource-based view to
reveal that no direct relationship exists between corporate responsibility
and financial performance though an indirect relationship can exists
through the mediating effect of intangible resources. Finally, Barnett
and Salomon (2006) (619 citations) utilized ST in conjunction with
modern portfolio theory to study the relationship between social re­
sponsibility and financial performance, revealing a curvilinear rela­
tionship, whereby social screening causes investors to reduce their
selection of investments, though it can also lead to an increase in
financial returns when implemented appropriately.
4.2.1.3. Cluster 3: Stakeholder theory and strategic management. Cluster
3 is the third largest cluster of ST research, containing 223 publications
that have been cited 23,712 times. ST research in this cluster is older
than the other clusters with an average publication year of 2011.34.
However, the impact of this cluster fares closely with Cluster 2, signaling
the influence of its publications. The theme of this cluster is ST and
strategic management, encapsulating topics such as business ethics,
business philosophy, corporate governance, corporate objectives, fidu­
ciary duties, moral responsibility, organizational identity, and social
contracts, among others (Fig. 6). The most cited publications in this
cluster showcase the utility of ST across a range of strategic management
issues (Table 7). Mitchell et al. (1997) (5,753 citations) adapted ST and
coined the theory of stakeholder identification and salience to enable
managers to ascertain who and what really counts (i.e., the stake­
holder’s power to influence the organization, the legitimacy of the
stakeholder’s relationship with the organization, and the urgency of the
stakeholder’s claim against the organization), whereas Berman et al.
(1999) (1,301 citations) adopted ST to examine the relationship be­
tween stakeholder management models and financial performance. In
contrast, Freeman et al. (2004) (893 citations) clarified the mis­
conceptions regarding ST and posited that truth and freedom are best
served by viewing business and ethics as intertwined. This article was
written in response to the article “The Corporate Objective Revisited” by
Sundaram and Inkpen (2004). Other scholars such as Maignan and
Ferrell (2004) (882 citations) took an ST approach to propose an inte­
grative framework of corporate social responsibility and marketing,
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Table 7 Table 7 (continued )

Most impactful (cited) ST research across four thematic clusters. Author(s) Title Year Journal TC
Author(s) Title Year Journal TC
Cluster 4: Stakeholder theory and stakeholder management (TP: 215, TC:
Cluster 1: Stakeholder theory and sustainability (TP: 266, TC: 12,788, and APY: 19,379, and APY: 2011.43)
2015.92) Carroll Corporate social 1999 Business and 2826
Darnall, Adopting proactive 2010 Journal of 453 responsibility: Evolution Society
Henriques, and environmental strategy: Management of a definitional construct
Sadorsky The influence of Studies Rowley Moving beyond dyadic 1997 Academy of 1393
stakeholders and firm ties: A network theory of Management
size stakeholder influences Review
Matos and Hall Integrating sustainable 2007 Journal of 402 Jensen Value maximization, 2002 Business Ethics 962
development in the Operations stakeholder theory, and Quarterly
supply chain: The case of Management the corporate objective
life cycle assessment in function
oil and gas and Barringer and Walking a tightrope: 2000 Journal of 753
agricultural Harrison Creating value through Management
biotechnology interorganizational
Sautter and Managing stakeholders: 1999 Annals of 397 relationships
Leisen A tourism planning Tourism Banerjee, Iyer, Corporate 2003 Journal of 592
model Research and Kashyap environmentalism: Marketing
Evans, Business model 2017 Business 316 Antecedents and
Vladimirova, innovation for Strategy and the influence of industry type
Holgado, Van sustainability: Towards a Environment
Note(s): TP = Total publications. TC = Total citations. APY = Average publi­
Fossen, Yang, unified perspective for
Silva, and creation of sustainable cation year.
Barlow business models
Nicholas, Thapa, Residents’ perspectives 2009 Annals of 280 taking into account stakeholder communities and concerns. Finally,
and Ko of a world heritage site: Tourism
Jones and Wicks (1999) (779 citations) proposed a fresh approach to ST
The Pitons Management Research
Area, St. Lucia known as convergent ST, which consolidates divergent trends in the
Cluster 2: Stakeholder theory and organizational performance (TP: 238, TC: field. However, as mentioned previously, Freeman (1999) opposed
23,773, and APY: 2014.72) convergent ST and counter-propose with divergent ST to account for
Orlitzky, Corporate social and 2003 Organization 3689 diverse stakeholder views in showing different but useful ways of un­
Schmidt, and financial performance: A Studies
Rynes meta-analysis
derstanding organizations.
Agle, Mitchell, Who matters to CEOs? An 1999 Academy of 1025
and Sonnenfeld investigation of Management 4.2.1.4. Cluster 4: Stakeholder theory and stakeholder management.
stakeholder attributes Journal Cluster 4 is the fourth largest cluster of ST research, consisting of 215
and salience, corporate
performance, and CEO
publications with 19,379 citations. ST research in this cluster is older
values than Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 but closer to Cluster 3 at an average pub­
Hill and Jones Stakeholder-agency 1992 Journal of 1017 lication year of 2011.43. The theme of this cluster is ST and stakeholder
theory Management management, including topics such as festival stakeholder, stakeholder
Studies
analysis, stakeholder approach, stakeholder collaboration, stakeholder
Surroca, Tribó, Corporate responsibility 2010 Strategic 975
and Waddock and financial Management concerns, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder influence, stakeholder
performance: The role of Journal integration, stakeholder management, stakeholder model, stakeholder
intangible resources perspective, stakeholder relationships, stakeholder roles, stakeholder
Barnett and Beyond dichotomy: The 2006 Strategic 619 salience, and stakeholder strategy, among others. The publications in
Salomon curvilinear relationship Management
between social Journal
this cluster adopt ST to study stakeholder issues. This can be seen
responsibility and prominently through the most cited publications in this cluster. Carroll
financial performance (1999) (2,826 citations) adopted ST and described the evolution of
Cluster 3: Stakeholder theory and strategic management (TP: 223, TC: 23,712, corporate social responsibility as part of business ethics and stakeholder
and APY: 2011.34)
management, whereas Rowley (1997) (1,393 citations) adapted ST in
Mitchell, Agle, Toward a theory of 1997 Academy of 5753
and Wood stakeholder Management conjunction with a social network analysis to develop a network theory
identification and Review of stakeholder influences that explain the concurrent impact of multiple
salience: Defining the stakeholders and predict organizational responses to these stakeholder
principle of who and pressures. In contrast, Jensen (2002) (962 citations) employed ST in
what really counts
Berman, Wicks, Does stakeholder 1999 Academy of 1301
conjunction with the corporate objective function and emphasized the
Kotha, and orientation matter? The Management importance of uniting organizational stakeholders in value creation and
Jones relationship between Journal maximization efforts in order to keep managers accountable for their
stakeholder management actions, whereas Barringer and Harrison (2000) (753 citations) used ST
models and firm financial
to scrutinize value creation through interorganizational relationships,
performance
Freeman, Wicks, Stakeholder theory and 2004 Organisation 893 and Banerjee et al. (2003) (592 citations) utilized ST in conjunction with
and Parmar “The corporate objective Science corporate environmentalism and discovered four associated antecedents
revisited” in the form of public concern, regulatory forces, competitive advantage,
Maignan and Corporate social 2004 Journal of the 882 and top management commitment, which may be moderated by in­
Ferrell responsibility and Academy of
marketing: An Marketing
dustry type based on the degree of the industry’s environmental impact.
integrative framework Science
Jones and Wicks Convergent stakeholder 1999 Academy of 779
theory Management
4.3. Trending topics and future research directions for ST research (RQ5)
Review
Building on the major themes characterizing the body of knowledge
or intellectual structure of ST research, a trend analysis is conducted to

9
R. Mahajan et al.
Fig. 4. Word cloud representation of publications in Cluster 1.
Fig. 5. Word cloud representation of publications in Cluster 2.
identify the trending topics that can serve as promising avenues for
future research to advance the understanding and utility of ST. The trend
analysis reveals the frequency of the keywords that appeared most
frequently in the title, abstract, and keywords of articles in each major
thematic cluster in the most recent decade (2011–2021). Emerging
topics that remain underexplored are also identified based on the word
cloud of each major thematic cluster to supplement the trending topics
identified based on the trend analysis in order to curate a richer and
more meaningful agenda for future ST research.
4.3.1. Promising avenues for future research on ST and sustainability
ST research on sustainability is in itself relative recent in comparison
with ST research in other areas. The trending topics of this domain in
recent times include stakeholder engagement, resource-based view, circular
economy, barriers to sustainability, supply chain management, and green
innovation (Fig. 8), whereas the emerging topics in the area include
climate change, disaster response, emerging economies, and public policy
(Fig. 4). Climate change and disaster response are grand sustainability
challenges that cannot by tackled by any single organization or stake­
holder; instead, these challenges need to be addressed collectively,
which makes ST highly profound and suitable. While the enablers of
sustainability have been recognized (e.g., circular economy, green
10
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
innovation, supply chain management, resource-based view), they
remain underleveraged. Similarly, barriers to sustainability exists,
especially in emerging economies where public policies on sustainability
remain underdeveloped, and thus, need to be addressed. Therefore,
prospective researchers are encouraged to pursue the following future
RQs (FRQs):
FRQ1. What are the grand challenges of sustainability, and how can
these grand challenges be addressed using ST-inspired solutions?
FRQ2. Who are the salient stakeholders in the circular economy and
supply chains, and how can their collective resources be leveraged to co-
create greener and more sustainable solutions?
FRQ3. What are the covert and overt barriers to sustainability, and
how can public policies play a more prominent role in engaging and
galvanizing salient stakeholders to mitigate or overcome these barriers?
4.3.2. Promising avenues for future research on ST and organizational
performance
ST research on organizational performance is highly popular and
impactful. The trending topics of this domain in recent times include
corporate financial performance, corporate governance, legitimacy theory,
and corporate social responsibility (Fig. 9), whereas the emerging topics in
the area include board characteristics, board diversity, corporate
R. Mahajan et al.
Fig. 6. Word cloud representation of publications in Cluster 3.
Fig. 7. Word cloud representation of publications in Cluster 4.
philanthropy, and environmental social governance (Fig. 5). With the
growing power of stakeholders (e.g., boycott, buycott, investment,
divestment) and increasing stakeholder pressures (e.g., importance,
urgency), both from shareholders and non-shareholders, organizations
have to multitask and concurrently satisfy stakeholder needs, wants, and
demands in order to maintain their legitimacy. Good corporate gover­
nance, as seen through signals sent via board characteristics, board di­
versity, and environmental social governance, is crucial as it holds
managers and upper echelons accountable in ensuring that stakeholder
concerns are duly acknowledged and actioned upon. Similarly, corpo­
rate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility should not be
conducted for namesake but rather for real impact that does not harm
corporate financial performance. Therefore, prospective researchers are
encouraged to pursue the following FRQs:
FRQ4. How can organizations leverage board characteristics, board
diversity, and corporate governance to satisfy multiple stakeholder
11
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
demands, and how do satisfying these demands shape organizational
legitimacy and the benefits thereof?
FRQ5. What are stakeholders’ expectations of corporate philan­
thropy and corporate social responsibility, how can these expectations
be satisfied, and what are the results of satisfying these expectations on
organizational performance?
FRQ6. How can organizations achieve superior and sustainable
corporate economic, environmental, and social performance while
engaging in corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility?
4.3.3. Promising avenues for future research on ST and strategic
management
ST research on strategic management is fairly popular and impactful.
The trending topics of this domain in recent times include value creation
and organizational justice (Fig. 10), whereas the emerging topics in the
area include business philosophy, competitive advantage, moral
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Fig. 8. Trend analysis of trending topics for Cluster 1.

Fig. 9. Trend analysis of trending topics for Cluster 2.

responsibility, social contracts, stakeholder synergy, and revisiting corporate
objective (Fig. 6). Noteworthily, the COVID-19 pandemic is an unprec­
edented externality that has provided managers with a unique oppor­
tunity to reimagine the kind of future that should be pursued by their
organizations. This phenomenon is popularly known as The Great Reset
and has led to organizations revisiting and reshaping their business
philosophy and corporate objectives, which in turn, impacts on their
value creation activities and equivalent competitive advantages. More­
over, the moral responsibility of organizations to involve and care for its
internal and external stakeholders has never been greater, with these
stakeholders demanding for organizational justice in ensuring that
organizational activities do not come at the expense of their wellbeing,
thereby necessitating managers to revisit and improve their social con­
tracts with a myriad of stakeholders in synergistic ways. Therefore,
prospective researchers are encouraged to pursue the following FRQs:
FRQ7. What stakeholder artefacts can organizations rely on to revisit
and reshape their business philosophy and corporate objectives?
FRQ8. What values do organizations and stakeholders look for in the
new normal and how can organizations and stakeholders co-create and
deliver these values in mutually benefitting ways?
FRQ9. How can organizations manage and leverage stakeholders to
create, regain, and sustain competitive advantages in the new normal?

12
R. Mahajan et al. Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104

Fig. 10. Trend analysis of trending topics for Cluster 3.

FRQ10. What social contracts and mechanisms can organizations
pursue to uphold organizational justice and safeguard themselves from
intentional and unintentional exploitation of stakeholders?
4.3.4. Promising avenues for future research on ST and stakeholder
management
ST research on stakeholder management represents core knowledge
in the field. The trending topics of this domain in recent times include
corporate governance and sustainability (Fig. 11), whereas the emerging
topics in the area include accountability narrowing, audit committees,
assessment frameworks, business downsizing, and virtual stakeholder
engagement. Noteworthily, stakeholders today live in a hyperconnected
digital and information society where opinion seeking, giving, and
sharing can happen within a few clicks or swipes on smart devices,
which signals opportunities for virtual stakeholder engagement. Indeed,
stakeholder engagement is more important than ever due to the
continuous disruptions and unprecedented externalities in the market­
place that have forced many organizations to downsize, which, more
often than not, negatively impacts on stakeholders (e.g., employees,
local communities) and thus requires careful stakeholder management
strategies and actions. Moreover, stakeholders today are increasingly
holding organizations accountable for their activities across various
aspects of sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental, social), thereby
elevating the importance of corporate governance mechanisms such as
accountability narrowing, audit committees, and assessment frame­
works. Therefore, prospective researchers are encouraged to pursue the
following FRQs:
FRQ11. How can organizations leverage new-age technologies to

Fig. 11. Trend analysis of trending topics for Cluster 4.

13
R. Mahajan et al.
engage and manage their stakeholders?
FRQ12. What can organizations do to enable stakeholders to
empathize and understand legitimate organizational downsizing?
FRQ13. What criteria should assessment frameworks entail to enable
effective execution and auditing of stakeholder management?
FRQ14. What best practices should audit committees adopt to sup­
port effective stakeholder management?
FRQ15. How can organizations engage in accountability narrowing,
and how can audit committees and assessment frameworks empower
this form of corporate governance?
5. Conclusion
In sum, this study delivers an extensive exploration into the histor­
ical progression of ST research. The subsequent sections will first delve
into the core findings, offering an invaluable perspective into the field’s
evolution. Subsequently, focus will be shifted to the inherent limitations
of the present study and potential pathways for forthcoming inquiries.
This dialogue sets the stage for the concluding remarks, which under­
score the significant contributions of this study to the domain of ST
research.
5.1. Key takeaways
Employing various bibliometric analytical techniques, several key
takeaways are discernable.
The performance analysis of ST research demonstrates that the
number of publications has increased since the 1990s, with fluctuating
growth rates and acceleration from the 2000s due to theoretical ad­
vancements. The most cited publication on stakeholder identification
and salience principles is Mitchell et al. (1997), with 5,753 citations. The
Journal of Business Ethics is both the most productive (with 261 publi­
cations) and most impactful (with 17,552 citations) journal. The anal­
ysis also reveals R. Edward Freeman as the most productive author with
16 publications, and as a pioneer in ST since 1984. In contrast, Ronald K.
Mitchell has the most impactful publication, with 7,060 citations. The
majority of ST research originates in the United States, boasting two to
three times more productivity and impact than the United Kingdom and
Australia, which are the next most published and cited countries,
respectively. Taken collectively, the insights from the performance
analysis contribute to offering an objective evaluation of current prog­
ress while also providing a useful directory of key contributions and
contributors of the field (Mukherjee et al., 2022b).
Furthermore, the science mapping of ST research indicates that ST is
firmly established as an influential theory in business ethics and orga­
nizational management, with four major research streams: ST and sus­
tainability, ST and organizational performance, ST and strategic
management, and ST and stakeholder management. These themes are
validated using alternative bibliometric data, ensuring their reliability
and validity in this review. More importantly, this study uncovers
trending and emerging topics within each of these major ST research
streams, which should contribute to the continued growth and prolif­
eration of ST research. The first set of questions (FRQ1–3) focuses on
identifying sustainability challenges and barriers, and how ST can offer
solutions through engagement and co-creation. The second set
(FRQ4–6) examines how ST can shape organizational legitimacy and
benefits by meeting stakeholder demands through corporate governance
and social responsibility. The third set (FRQ7–10) investigates the
values and social contracts that organizations and stakeholders can rely
on to develop their business philosophies and objectives while managing
and leveraging stakeholder engagement for competitive advantage.
Finally, the last set of questions (FRQ11–15) explores the roles of new
technologies, organizational downsizing, assessment frameworks, and
audit committees in promoting effective stakeholder management and
accountability. These questions underscore the significance of ST in
fostering sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships between
14
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
organizations and their stakeholders. Taken collectively, the insights
from the science mapping of current themes and future trends herein
contribute to delivering a comprehensive synthesis and impartial map­
ping of the field’s knowledge in the past and the present while also
earmarking the promising pathways that can expand the scope of the
field in the future (Mukherjee et al., 2022b).
5.2. Limitations and future review directions
Notwithstanding the aforementioned contributions from the perfor­
mance analysis and science mapping of ST research, this study remains
limited in several ways, which could pave the way for supplementary
reviews of the field. First, this study is limited to bibliometric insights of
ST research. While this review method was well justified based on the
conventions for conducting a bibliometric review, we concede that finer-
grained details exist that may be uncovered through alternative review
methods. For example, a content analysis of each major thematic cluster
or research stream of ST research could be conducted as separate sup­
plementary reviews that provide a deeper dive to extend the overarching
overview of insights unpacked through the present study. Alternatively,
a content analysis of the theories that have been used in conjunction for
ST research, or the methods that have been used in ST research, could be
pursued in new review studies of the field. These suggestions are in line
with Lim et al. (2022), who highlighted that multiple review studies of
the field can be pursued, provided that they provide new ways of un­
derstanding the current progress and engineering the future progress of
the field. Second, this study is limited to ST research from top-tier
journals ranked by ABDC (A* or A) or rated by CABS (4*, 4, or 3)
available in the Scopus database. While this was a justified decision as it
enabled the study to make an objective evaluation and mapping of novel
and rigorous knowledge in the field (Sahoo et al., 2022), we do not
discount the possibility of uncovering alternative insights that may have
been overlooked (e.g., budding ideas from conference papers, con­
trasting findings from replications in lower-tier journals) and thus could
be subjected to further scrutiny in future ST reviews that aim to extend
the insights of the present review using bibliometric analysis. Third, this
study is limited to a facilitating role to knowledge creation—that is, it
does not create new knowledge about ST. Thus, it is important that
prospective authors pursue conceptual and empirical ST research, which
may be inspired by the trending and emerging topics identified along
with the FRQs presented herein this study.
5.3. Concluding remarks on overall contributions
This study produces a comprehensive retrospective of ST research
and demonstrates several substantial theoretical and practical contri­
butions to the field in line with Kraus et al. (2022), Lim et al. (2022), and
Mukherjee, Kumar, Mukherjee, & Goyal, 2022a; Mukherjee, Lim,
Kumar, & Donthu, 2022b.
Through performance analysis, this study traces the trajectory of ST
research from its inception, revealing a vivid account of its theoretical
progression, as indicated by the escalating publication productivity and
citation impact. Seminal works, influential authors, and leading journals
surface through this analysis, paving a roadmap of the field’s theoretical
journey. Significant theoretical milestones, including the principles of
stakeholder identification and salience by Mitchell et al. (1997), emerge
as cornerstones shaping the discourse of ST research.
Furthermore, this study sets ST firmly within the broad academic
ecosystem, celebrating its roots in the United States while acknowl­
edging noteworthy contributions from other global territories. The
directory of top contributors, both authors and journals, also provides
essential guidance for stakeholder consultation, making a tangible
impact on practical approaches.
Through the science mapping of ST research, this study verifies the
theory’s influential position within business ethics and organizational
management. The delineation of four primary research streams and the
R. Mahajan et al.
unearthing of trending and emerging topics within these streams un­
derscore the versatility and adaptability of ST theory. The FRQs pro­
posed for each research stream inject impetus for deeper theoretical
exploration and innovation, thereby stimulating the evolution and
expansion of ST research.
By assessing the theoretical landscape of ST research and prognos­
ticating future directions, this study becomes a significant beacon for
ongoing growth and diversification of ST theory. The identification of
promising research avenues, combined with an empirical foundation for
subsequent scholarly discussions, further nurtures this growth.
However, acknowledging the spirit of fostering theoretical progres­
sion, this study recognizes its boundaries. Complementary reviews that
delve into the nuances of ST’s major thematic clusters, or that explore
theories and methods used in conjunction with ST research, are rec­
ommended. Broader exploration beyond top-tier journals is also
encouraged, which should help to identify potential breakthroughs from
the wider scientific and scholarly community.
While this study plays a pivotal role in knowledge creation by
charting the ST research landscape, it simultaneously motivates re­
searchers to undertake novel empirical and conceptual journeys. Guided
by the trends and topics this study surfaces, these new research initia­
tives should contribute to the theoretical advancement of ST research
and fortify the foundation for future scholarly exploration in this field.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ritika Mahajan: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Writing - original draft.
Weng Marc Lim: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Valida­
tion, Supervision. Monica Sareen: Investigation, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Software, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Satish
Kumar: Validation, Supervision, Software, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Rajat
Panwar: Project administration, Investigation, Conceptualization, Su­
pervision, Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data is available on Scopus.
References
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2016). Towards an improved understanding of project
stakeholder landscapes. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8),
1537–1552.
Acquah, I. S. K., Baah, C., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., & Afum, E. (2023). Green procurement
and green innovation for green organizational legitimacy and access to green
finance: The mediating role of total quality management. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 42(3), 24–41.
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 Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.
Ahmed, Y. I., Ahmed, M. M., & Nayel, M. T. (2023). The impact of corporate social
responsibility practices on employees’ engagement: The mediating role of organizational
identification. Global Business and Organizational Excellence.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science
mapping analysis. J. Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D., & Walker, J. (2010). The determinants of corporate
sustainability performance. Accounting & Finance, 50(1), 31–51.
Azam, M. S. (2023). How can we build human resources (HR) that deliver value? Global
Business and Organizational Excellence: A systematic literature review of traditional
and transformational HR roles.
15
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
Balmer, J. M. (2017). The corporate identity, total corporate communications,
stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum.
European Journal of Marketing, 51(9/10), 1472–1502.
Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2003). Corporate environmentalism:
Antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 106–122.
Bansal, S., Garg, I., & Singh, S. (2023). Corporate social responsibility: Insights from COVID-
19 and stakeholder theory. Global Business and Organizational Excellence.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship
between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122.
Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation
matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.
Boubaker, S., Goodell, J. W., Kumar, S., & Sureka, R. (2022). COVID-19 and finance
scholarship: A systematic and bibliometric analysis. International Review of Financial
Analysis, 102458.
Bhattacharya, A., & Fayezi, S. (2021). Ameliorating food loss and waste in the supply
chain through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Industrial Marketing Management, 93,
328–343.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Castillo, M. (2022). Managing corporate social responsibility through social learning.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 42(1), 10–21.
Chopra, M., Saini, N., Kumar, S., Varma, A., Mangla, S. K., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Past,
present, and future of knowledge management for business sustainability. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 328, Article 129592.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental
strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies,
47(6), 1072–1094.
De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., Van Kranenburg, H., & Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the
role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective.
European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410.
Deng, X., Kang, J. K., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder
value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1),
87–109.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct
a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research,
133, 285–296.
El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do
employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a
multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management,
44(2), 619–657.
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E. A., &
Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a
unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 26(5), 597–608.
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1),
113–135.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically:
Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24
(2), 233–236.
Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business
& Society, 59(2), 213–231.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate
objective revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of
Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gambeta, E., Koka, B. R., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2019). Being too good for your own good: A
stakeholder perspective on the differential effect of firm-employee relationships on
innovation search. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 108–126.
Gibson, K. (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26
(3), 245–257.
Govindan, K., & Bouzon, M. (2018). From a literature review to a multi-perspective
framework for reverse logistics barriers and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production,
187, 318–337.
Goyal, L. (2020). Stakeholder theory: Revisiting the origins. Journal of Public Affairs,
e2559.
Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into
environmental performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 262–289.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders,
stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 31(1), 58–74.
Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management
Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
R. Mahajan et al.
Hörisch, J., Schaltegger, S., & Freeman, R. E. (2020). Integrating stakeholder theory and
sustainability accounting: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275,
Article 124097.
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability
performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics,
149(2), 411–432.
Ismail, S. S. M., & Hilal, O. A. (2023). Behaving green. who takes the lead? The role of
responsible leadership, psychological ownership, and green moral identity in motivating
employees green behaviors. Global Business and Organizational Excellence.
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate
objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 235–256.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, N. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. In Business Ethics and
Strategy (pp. 361–376). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder
theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 43(3), 371–391.
Jones-Khosla, L. A., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2023). Purpose: From theory to practice. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence.
Kannan, D. (2018). Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for
the sustainable supplier selection process. International Journal of Production
Economics, 195, 391–418.
Kopelman, R. E. (2022). A unique approach to achieving organizational excellence: The
cube one framework. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 41(6), 37–46.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., … Ferreira, J. J.
(2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice.
Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577–2595.
Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Sivarajah, U., & Kaur, J. (2022a). Artificial intelligence and
blockchain integration in business: Trends from a bibliometric-content analysis.
Information Systems Frontiers.
Kumar, S., Sharma, D., Rao, S., Lim, W. M., & Mangla, S. K. (2022b). Past, present, and
future of sustainable finance: Insights from big data analytics through machine
learning of scholarly research. Annals of Operations Research.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory
that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence,
environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting
Review, 47(4), 409–424.
Lim, W. M. (2022). Ushering a new era of Global Business and Organizational Excellence:
Taking a leaf out of recent trends in the new normal. Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, 41(5), 5–13.
Lim, W. M. (2023a). The workforce revolution: Reimagining work, workers, and
workplaces for the future. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 42(4), 5–10.
Lim, W. M. (2023b). Transformative marketing in the new normal: A novel practice-
scholarly integrative review of business-to-business marketing mix challenges,
opportunities, and solutions. Journal of Business Research, 160, Article 113638.
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature
reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal, 42
(7–8), 481–513.
Line, N. D., & Wang, Y. (2017). Market-oriented destination marketing: An
operationalization. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 122–135.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An
integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.
Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2007). Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: The
case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of
Operations Management, 25(6), 1083–1102.
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.
Mukherjee, D., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., & Goyal, K. (2022a). Mapping five decades of
international business and management research on India: A bibliometric analysis
and future directions. Journal of Business Research, 145, 864–891.
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022b). Guidelines for advancing
theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148,
101–115.
Nasi, J., Nasi, S., Phillips, N., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (1997). The evolution of corporate
social responsiveness: An exploratory study of Finnish and Canadian forestry
companies. Business & Society, 36(3), 296–321.
Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding
of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.
Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage
site: The Pitons Management Area. St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3),
390–412.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S.
(2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4
(1), 403–445.
16
Journal of Business Research 166 (2023) 114104
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An
application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6),
595–612.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
Saha, S., Das, R., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., Malik, A., & Chillakuri, B. (2023). Emotional
intelligence and leadership: Insights for leading by feeling in the future of work.
International Journal of Manpower.
Sahoo, S., Kumar, S., Sivarajah, U., Lim, W. M., Westland, J. C., & Kumar, A. (2022).
Blockchain for sustainable supply chain management: Trends and ways forward.
Electronic Commerce Research.
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a tourism planning model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328.
Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2019). Business cases for sustainability: A
stakeholder theory perspective. Organization & Environment, 32(3), 191–212.
Silva, S., Nuzum, A. K., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Stakeholder expectations on
sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 204–215.
Singh, A., Lim, W. M., Jha, S., Kumar, S., & Ciasullo, M. V. (2023). The state of the art of
strategic leadership. Journal of Business Research, 158, Article 113676.
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization
Science, 15(3), 350–363.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial
performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5),
463–490.
Tan, T. M., & Salo, J. (2021). Ethical marketing in the blockchain-based sharing
economy: Theoretical integration and guiding insights. Journal of Business Ethics.
Van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in
social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
Ritika Mahajan is an Assistant Professor at Malaviya National Institute of Technology,
Jaipur, India. She has published in international journals such as Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, International Journal of Educational Management, and The Inter­
national Journal of Management Education. She can be contacted at ritika.dms@mnit.ac.in.
Weng Marc Lim is a Professor and the Dean of Sunway Business School at Sunway Uni­
versity in Malaysia as well as an Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University of Technol­
ogy’s home campus in Melbourne, Australia and international branch campus in Sarawak,
Malaysia. He has authored ± 100 manuscripts in journals ranked ‘A*’ and ‘A’ such as
European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Inter­
national Marketing, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Marketing Theory, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, and Psychology & Marketing, among others. He has also presented his work and
led high-level policy discussions at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and the World Economic Forum. Contact: @limwengmarc on Instagram and
Twitter or his personal homepage at https://www.wengmarc.com.
Satish Kumar is a Professor and Chairperson at Indian Institute of Management Nagpur in
India and an Adjunct Professor in Sunway Business School at Sunway University in
Malaysia. He is a leading bibliometric analysis expert in business whose reviews have
appeared in numerous journals ranked ‘A*’ or ‘A’ such as European Financial Management,
European Journal of Finance, Global Finance Journal, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, International Journal of Information Management, International Journal of Manage­
rial Finance, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Small Business Economics, and
Small Group Research, among others. He can be contacted at satish@iimnagpur.ac.in.
Monica Sareen is a Research Scholar at Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur,
India. She has published in international journals such as The International Journal of
Management Education. She can be contacted at sareenmonica94@gmail.com.
Rajat Panwar is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Sustainable Natural Re­
sources Graduate Certificate at Oregon State University, USA. He has published in inter­
national journals such as Business & Society, Business Ethics: A European Review, Business
Strategy and Development, Business Strategy and the Environment, California Management
Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Public Affairs,
and Management Decision, among others. He can be contacted at rajat.panwar@oregon­
state.edu.