Skip to main content
Log in

Cooperation in Stakeholder Networks: Firms’ ‘Tertius Iungens’ Role

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In stakeholder theory, most research on cooperation has been focused on inter-organizational collaboration field centered at the dyadic level, excluding the relational or network data. Relational or network data are important as the firms do not simply respond to each stakeholder individually but to an interaction of influences from the entire stakeholder set. The purpose of this article is to analyze the cooperation process among the firm and its stakeholders by considering the relational data and to describe the role of the firm in such cooperation processes. The empirical evidence is provided by an inductive in-depth case study on the company ‘Gas-Nat’ and its stakeholders cooperating on the ‘natural gas pipeline program’ in Argentina. To do so, I combined both quantitative sociometric data and qualitative data from grounded theory and ethnographic observations. This research suggests a stakeholder cooperation model based on structural (stakeholder’s position) and relational factors (framing process). The results indicate that stakeholder cooperation is not just determined by stakeholder position, but they can vary depending on the political opportunity structure in the network and on the framing process. It was found that network structure may create a context for selective cooperation but doesn’t explicitly determine it which is different from the previous research in stakeholder network literature. The role of the firm in the cooperation process was found as a tertius iungens role which implies to join, unite, or connect, and it is different from the existing prominent network literature of tertius gaudens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnard, C.I.: 1938, The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiger, R.: 1974, ‘The Duality of Persons and Groups’, Social Forces 53, 181-189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.: 1992, Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.: 1997, ‘The Contingent Value of Social Capital’, Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2), 339-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.: 2000, ‘The Network Structure of Social Capital’, Research in Organizational Behaviour 22, 345-423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K., R. Reed, and D. Lemak: 2004, ‘An Inductive Model of Collaboration from the Stakeholder’s Perspective’, Business & Society 43(2), 162-195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. and P. Lorange: 1988, ‘Competition vs. Cooperation: A Benefit/Cost Framework for Choosing Between Fully-Owned Investments and Cooperative Relationships’, Management International Review (MIR) 28(4), 5-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T.K. and B.S. Teng: 2000, ‘Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tension Perspective’, Organization Science 11, 77-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, And Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. L.: 1996, ‘The Evolution of Cooperation in Strategic Alliances: Initial Conditions or Learning Processes?,’ Strategic Management Journal 17(1), 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.: 1989, ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532-550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C.: 1979, ‘Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification’, Social Networks 1(3), 215-239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J.: 1999, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’, Academy of Management Review 24(2), 191-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. and A. Murrell: 2005, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies: The Roles of Structural and Demographic Determinants’, Business & Society 44(1), 3-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. and D. Shatin: 1981, ‘Leadership and Networking among Neighbourhood Human Service Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 26(3), 434-448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. and S. Wasserman: 1994, ‘Introduction’ in S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioural Sciences, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. xi-xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs B.H. and J. D. Singer: 1993, Empirical Knowledge on World Politics: A Summary of Quantitative Research, 1970-1991 (Greenwood Press, Westport, CT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. and A. Strauss: 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Aldine, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R.V. and R.M. Fernandez: 1989, ‘Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks’, Sociological Methodology 24(2), 89-126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C.: 2000, ‘Grounded Theory Methodology and Consumer Behaviour, Procedures, Practice and Pitfalls’, Advances in Consumer Research 27(1), 261-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A.W.: 1960, ‘The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement’, American Sociological Review 25(2), 161-178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. and Wood, D.J.: 1991, ‘Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 27, 3-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. and M. Gargiulo: 1999, ‘Where do Interorganizational Networks Come From’, American Journal of Sociology 104, 1439-1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G.: 1991, `Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning within International Strategic Alliances', Strategic Management Journal 12, 83–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P., F. Van Den Bosch, and C. Van Riel: 2002, ‘Stakeholder Integration: Building Mutually Enforcing Relationships’, Business & Society 41(1), 36-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C. and S. Vangen: 1996, ‘Working together’, International Journal of Public Sector Management 9(7), 5-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20(2), 404-438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. and A. Wicks.: 1999, ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review 24 (2), 206-222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberg, J., G. Savage, and K. Pajunen: 2003, ‘Strategic Stakeholder Perspective to ESOP negotiations: the case of United Airlines’, Management Decision 41(4), 383-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. and R. K. Merton.: 1954, ‘Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis’, in M. Berger, T. Abel, and C.H. Page, (Eds.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society, (Van Nostrand, New York, NY), pp. 18-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. Cook: 2001, ‘Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks’, Annual Review of Sociology 27(1), 415 – 444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B. and A. Huberman: 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. and B. Menguc: 2006, ‘Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders’, Journal of Business Ethics 66(4), 377-391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, D.: 2005, ‘Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1), 100-130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, S.: 2000, ‘Ethnography and Grounded Theory: A Happy Marriage?’, Advances in Consumer Research 27, 256-260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik: 1978, The External Control of Organizations (Harper & Row, New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.: 1990, ‘Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization’, Research in Organizational Behaviour 12, 295-326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. and A. Van De Ven: 1994, ‘Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships’, Academy of Management Review 19(1), 90-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. and R. Bradley: 1991, ‘Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Case Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, 209-228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T.: 1997, ‘Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887 -910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. and M. Moldoveanu: 2003, ‘When Will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest- And Identity-Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization’, Academy of Management Review 28(2), 204-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.: 1991, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (Sage; London, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G.: 1950, The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, Glencoe, IL)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S.: 1994, Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research 21(3), 491-503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E.: 1995, The Art of Case Study Research (Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin: 1994, `Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview', in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, London), pp. 273–285

  • Suddaby, R.: 2006, ‘From The Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not’, Academy of Management Journal 49(4), 633-642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. and K. Faust: 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S. and J. Galaskiewicz: 1994, Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Welcomer, S., P. Cochran, G. Rands, and M. Haggerty: 2003, ‘Constructing a Web: Effects of Power and Social Responsiveness on Firm-Stakeholder Relationships’, Business & Society 42(1), 43-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.: 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition (Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills, CA).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabet Garriga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garriga, E. Cooperation in Stakeholder Networks: Firms’ ‘Tertius Iungens’ Role. J Bus Ethics 90 (Suppl 4), 623–637 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0596-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0596-9

Keywords

Navigation