Multistakeholder issue networks have been characterized as power-free, egalitarian forms of corporate–civil society engagement. Using a communication-centered conceptualization of power, our study finds that potential sources of power subtly manifest through communication and interaction patterns in multistakeholder issue networks. Our results indicate that organizations’ institutional status and resources are significant predictors of network power.
ArenasD.LozanoJ. M.AlbaredaL. (2009). The role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 175-197.
2.
AtoubaY.ShumateM. (2010). Interorganizational networking patterns among development organizations. Journal of Communication, 60, 293-317.
3.
BäckstrandK. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290-306.
4.
BarnettM.DuvallR. (Eds.). (2005). Power in global governance. In BarnettM.DuvallR. (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BeckmanT.ColwellA.CunninghamP. H. (2009). The emergence of corporate social responsibility in Chile: The importance of authenticity and social networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 191-206.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BrønnP. S. (2010). Adapting the PZB service quality model to reputation risk analysis and the implications for CSR communication. Journal of Communication Management, 16, 77-94.
9.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BurtR. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In LinN.CookK.BurtR. S. (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 31-56). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
11.
CarringtonP. J.ScottJ.WassermanS. (Eds.). (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CastellsM. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
CastellsM. (2011). Network theory: A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773-787.
14.
CheynsE. (2011). Multi-stakeholder initiatives for sustainable agriculture: Limits of the “inclusiveness” paradigm. In PonteS.VestergaardJ.GibbonP. (Eds.), Governing through standards: Origins, drivers and limits (pp. 318-354). London, England: Palgrave.
15.
CookK. S. (Ed.). (1987). Social exchange theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
CooperK. R.ShumateM. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through the bona fide network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623-654.
17.
DoerfelM. L.TaylorM. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71, 373-394.
18.
FlyverbomM.ChristensenL. T.HansenH. K. (2015). The transparency–power nexus: Observational and regularizing control. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 385-410.
19.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
20.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
21.
González-BailónS.WangN. (2016). Networked discontent: The anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Social Networks, 44, 95-104.
22.
GouldR. V.FernandezR. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89-126.
23.
GulatiR.SytchM. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 32-69.
24.
HabischA.JonkerJ.WegnerM.SchmidpeterR. (Eds.). (2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
25.
HajkowiczS. A. (2008). Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 607-614.
26.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside.
27.
Le BerM. J.BranzeiO. (2010). Towards a critical theory of value creation in cross-sector partnerships. Organization, 17, 599-629.
28.
LeeS.MongeP. (2011). The coevolution of multiplex communication networks in organizational communities. Journal of Communication, 61, 758-779.
29.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
30.
MongeP. R.ContractorN. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
MoogS.SpicerA.BöhmS. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 469-493.
32.
MumbyD. K. (2013). Organizational communication: A critical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
MumbyD. K. (2014). Critical theory and postmodernism. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 101-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
MumbyD. K. (2015). Organizing power. Review of Communication, 15, 19-38.
35.
OlsenP. I.PrenkertF.HoholmT.HarrisonD. (2014). The dynamics of networked power in a concentrated business network. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2579-2589.
36.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
37.
RascheA. (2012). Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 679-708.
38.
RoloffJ. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233-250.
39.
RowleyT. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887-910.
40.
SelskyJ. W.ParkerB. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.
41.
ShumateM.LippJ. (2008). Connective collective action online: An examination of the hyperlink network structure of an NGO issue network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 178-201.
42.
ShumateM.PalazzoloE. T. (2010). Exponential random graph (p*) models as a method for social network analysis in communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 341-371.
43.
SmithJ. M.HalginD. S.Kidwell-LopezV.LabiancaG.BrassD. J.BorgattiS. P. (2014). Power in politically charged networks. Social Networks, 36, 162-176.
44.
SteetsJ. (2004). Developing a framework: Concepts and research priorities for partnership accountability (Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI) Research Paper Series 1). Available from http://www.globalpublicpolicy.net
45.
TaylorM. (2010). Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In HeathR. L. (Ed.), Handbook of public relations II (pp. 5-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
TurkerD. (2014). Analyzing relational sources of power at the interorganizational communication system. European Management Journal, 32, 509-517.
47.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
YangA. (2012). When transnational civil network meets local context: An exploratory hyperlink network analysis of Northern/Southern NGOs’ virtual network in China. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 5(3), 40-60.
49.
YangA.TaylorM. (2015). Looking over, looking out, and moving forward: A network ecology framework to position public relations in communication theory. Communication Theory, 25, 91-115.
