No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
DIMENSIONS OF PROXIMITY IN STAKEHOLDER CHOICE REFLECTED IN THE CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE-BASED INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIPS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In order to better understand the stakeholder choices of knowledge-based organisational actors, this study focuses on a novel application of Huber's (2012) dimensions of proximity salience, namely spatial proximity, social proximity and cognitive proximity. The population of the study is made up of knowledge-based organisational actors involved in developing an innovation ecosystem, in terms of stakeholder network creation. The extent to which the three proximity dimensions of stakeholder salience is evident in the stakeholder choices of these innovation-focused actors seeking knowledge-based collaborators is explored. Our findings show how various forms of proximity prompt the decision of who to work with among a diverse population of experts involved in building a cross-national innovation ecosystem. The various explanations that motivate stakeholder choice matched Huber's proximity dimensions. The findings provide new insight into stakeholder choice among knowledge-based organisations, and highlight a new proximity dimension indirectly linked to cognition proximity. Termed the “potential proximity” dimension, it involves attraction to stakeholders that represent strategic value.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Asher, C.C., Mahoney, J.M. and Mahoney, J.T. (2005). “Towards a property rights foundation for a stakeholder theory of the firm”. Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-005-1570-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ATTRACT (2021), Understand more about ATTRACT and its impact. [online] Available at: https://attract-eu.com/frequently-asked-questions/ [Accessed on 2022, 25 November]Google Scholar
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000). “Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 717–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. (2010). “The spatial evolution of innovation networks: a proximity perspective”. In: The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Utrecht University: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridoux, F. and Stoelhorst, J.W. (2016). “Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 229–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantamessa, M., Cascini, G., and Montagna,. F. (2012) “Design for innovation.” In DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 747–756. ISBN: 978-953-7738-17-4.Google Scholar
Chenail, R.J. (2012), “Conducting qualitative data analysis: Qualitative data analysis as a metaphoric process.” Qualitative Report, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 248–253. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1818Google Scholar
Driscoll, C. and Starik, M. (2004). “The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 55–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertler, M. S. (2004). Manufacturing Culture: The Institutional Geography of Industrial Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, F. (2012). “On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: Personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster”. Regional Studies, Vol 46, No. 9, pp. 1169–1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.569539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jawahar, I.M. and McLaughlin, G.L. (2001). “Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 397–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/259184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepsen, A. L., and Eskerod, P. (2009). “Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world”. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, T. and Windsperger, J. (2017). Seeing through the network: Competitive advantage in the digital economy. Journal of Organization Design, Journal of Organization Design, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-017-0016-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lähdesmäki, M., Siltaoja, M. and Spence, L.J. (2019). “Stakeholder salience for small businesses: A social proximity perspective”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 158, No. 2, pp. 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3707-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and 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, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Chrisman, J.J. and Spence, L.J. (2011). “Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family Firms”. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 235–255. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41304428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A. and Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in digital world. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 223–238. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26629644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Whitwell, G.J. (2011). “Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. and Oord, Van den, A. (2007). “Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity”. Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, R., Tello, P., and Nordberg, M. (2017) The ATTRACT programme: A strategic proposal. [online] https://attract-eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ATTRACT-1.pdf [Accessed on 2022, 5 November]Google Scholar
Powell, W.W. and Snellman, K. (2004). “The knowledge economy”. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, pp. 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streubert, H.J. and Carpenter, D.R. (Eds.) (1995), “Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative”. Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Tashman, P. and Raelin, J. (2013). “Who and what really matters to the firm: Moving stakeholder salience beyond managerial perceptions”. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 591–616. doi: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuyts, S., Colombo, M.G., Dutta, S. and Nooteboom, B. (2005). “Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access