Humanistic Orientation in Firm–Stakeholder Technology-based Interaction and Its Impact on Stakeholder Satisfaction

Abstract

The advent of Web 2.0-based Internet technologies coupled with mobile digital telecommunication devices have altered the landscape of interaction between a firm and its stakeholders. Increasingly firms are interacting with their stakeholders through electronic means such as group e-mails, batch Short Messaging Services (SMSs), short text posts, social networking sites, and others. This is ushering a rich era in firm–stakeholder communication occurring on real-time basis (24×7) and from anywhere. Technology-based interactions are viewed as lacking the humanistic perspective. This is especially true for such stakeholders who are differently abled, illiterate, elderly, and others who are not able to adapt to the new realities in technology-based firm–stakeholder communication. In this research, the author explored the effect of inclusion of humanistic orientation in technology-based interaction between a firm and its stakeholders. One hundred and fifty two CSR managers’ responses were considered for scale development to measure the variables, firm management engagement (FME), firm technology medium deployed (FTMD), stakeholder interaction (SI), humanistic orientation in interaction (HOI), and interactional stakeholder satisfaction (ISS) with the help of a structured questionnaire survey instrument. Furthermore, a model on ISS was developed. In the model, FME and FTMD were the antecedent variables; SI was the mediating variable; and HOI was the moderating variable with ISS as the dependent variable.

Keywords

Technology-based firm–stakeholder interaction humanistic orientation stakeholder satisfaction scale development moderated mediation

Introduction

Stakeholder perspective has become a dominant theme in management perspective (Bracken et al., 2015). Firms in present-day conditions are expected to engage with stakeholders with both utility and mindfulness (Tantalo & Priem, 2016). One important component of firm–stakeholder engagement has been firm–stakeholder interaction (Greenwood, 2007). Firm–stakeholder interaction involved communication between stakeholders and a firm and vice versa (Kuhn, 2008). The communication interaction could be regarding advocacy, grievance, suggestion, information sharing, redressal, and others (Crane & Livesey, 2017; O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008). In the past, firm–stakeholder communication was done primarily by interaction between two or more human beings, which was typically between firm employees and individuals from stakeholder groups (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). With the advent of Web 2.0 and mobile handheld devices, the interaction between individuals has been increasingly undertaken via Internet-based technology medium (De Bussy et al., 2001). Social networking sites and other media have provided individuals 24×7 access to interact with firms from anywhere (Lin & Lu, 2011). Given this context, individuals in the present-day context expected quick and elaborated response from firms (Heller Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Firms have also been deploying interactive audio–video technologies to interact with stakeholders (groups and individuals alike) (Ruehl & Ingenhoff, 2015; Trusov et al., 2009). Firm also witnessed that through technology-enabled interactions, firms could reduce interactional costs (Bryer & Zavattaro, 2011; Gouillart, 2014). Thus, from a firm centric point of view technology was being pushed to be deployed for interacting with stakeholders (Bharadwaj, 2000; Ravichandran et al., 2005). However, often for stakeholders especially one with physical/mental challenges, the illiterate, and the elderly, communication with firm managers based on a technology platform was becoming challenging (Martyn & Gallant, 2012; Thayer & Ray, 2006). Thus, firms were expected in this context to take care of the needs and requirements of individuals who were unable to properly interact with firms. This would be an important conversation because going into the future, technology-based firm–stakeholder interaction would be the norm (Unerman & Bennett, 2004; Zambrano, 2008).

It would be important to comprehend that firms needed to treat stakeholder with humane considerations (Frederick, 1994). Firms’ coexisted in society and in the natural environment and this coexistence needed to be harmonious (Etzion, 2007). Humanistic orientation and practices followed by any firm would help to achieve harmony (Goldstein, 1986). Thus, the technologies deployed in firm–stakeholder interactions would help achieve better satisfaction level for stakeholders if it incorporated elements of humanistic considerations (Kanuka, 2008; Winter et al., 1997). In this research, the author attempted to develop a scale on the concept of humanistic orientation and its incorporation in firm–stakeholder interaction. Furthermore, the author also explicated measures for constructs that explicated the phenomenon consisting of firm engagement with stakeholders through technology. Finally, the author explored firm–stakeholder interaction, explicating the phenomenon. Thus, the author in this research work builds on the work of humanism and management undertaken by scholars such as Spitzeck (2011), Melé (2012, 2016), Pirson and Lawrence (2010), and Arnaud and Wasieleski (2014).

Human beings were constituents in both firms and society (Frey & Stutzer, 2010). It was expected that humanity would coexist with other inanimate entities such as flora, fauna, and the natural elements (O’neill, 2002; Sartre & Mairet, 1963). Both Judo-Christen (Dobel, 1977; Hitzhusen, 2007) and Hindu–Buddhist–Jain (Heim, 2004) religious complexes preached that there should exist a synchronization in the nature for being in a healthy coexistence. In this coexistence, though human beings resided at high ground as per the tenets of anthropocentric view (Renehan, 1981). Modern-day business firms with the advent of new technologies such as Internet of Things (IOT), Big Data Analytics (BDA), Additive Manufacturing Technologies (AMT), Block Chain, Drones, Robotics, Nano technology, and others have increased the dominance of technology in society (Druckman & Bolsen, 2011; Harwood & Garry, 2017; Moorhouse, tom Dieck, & Jung, 2018). Business firms have been deploying higher level of technology progressively over time as they favorably effect the cost dynamics (Simpson, 2006). Thus, the context of human–human interaction is increasingly getting mediated by technology (Dix, 2010; Parasuraman et al., 2000). This is possible because of different forms of technology implemented. However, one must remember that human beings should be considered as a fractal for a firm (in other words, organization—a collection of human beings) wherein society is the higher fractal (collection of human beings again) (Frey & Stutzer, 2010). Human beings thus formed the basic unit of any analysis for firms and society (Blunter, 1994; Bronfenbrenner, 2005).

The dawn of Web 2.0-based Internet technologies coupled with the ubiquitous possession of mobile digital telecommunication devices has been altering the landscape of interaction between a firm and its stakeholders (Crane & Livesey, 2017; O’Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008). Progressively firms were interacting with its stakeholders via electronic avenues such as group e-mails, batch Short Messaging Services (SMSs), short text posts, social networking sites, and others (De Bussy et al., 2001). This has been ushering a rich era in firm–stakeholder communication occurring on a real-time basis (24×7) and from anywhere (Bhattacharyya, 2011; Ruehl & Ingenhoff, 2015; Trusov et al., 2009). However, there has been a school of thought which indicated that technology-based interactions were lacking in humanistic perspective until special efforts with mindfulness were incorporated (Bartlett II, 2007; Toms & O’Brien, 2008; Wiberley & Jones, 2000). This has been especially true for such stakeholders who were differently abled, illiterate, elderly, and others who were not able to adapt to the new realities in technology-based firm–stakeholder communication (Martyn & Gallant, 2012; Thayer & Ray, 2006). In this research, the author explored the effect of inclusion of humanistic orientation in technology-based interaction between a firm and its stakeholders by comprehending what are the constituents of humanistic orientation. The author explains systematic literature review in the following section.

Literature Review

Koontz (1961, 1980) had argued that there existed a forest of theories in management literature. The literature on orientation generally focused on organization as a unit of analysis and there has been a range of explicated “orientation” literature in various dimensions. Some of the various orientations were namely market orientation (MO) (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990), customer orientation (CO) (Brown et al., 2002; Saxe & Weitz, 1982), entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), strategic orientation (SO) (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Venkatraman, 1989), innovation orientation (IO) (Siguaw, Simpson, & Enz, 2006), and competitive orientation (CO) (Armstrong & Collopy, 1996), and others. The authors intended to embark on a journey in “orientation” literature to explore whether it was a jungle, zoo, or a fossil bed (Redding, 1994). One must also note that there has also been substantial literature exploring the theory of firm from an economic perspective (Teece, 1982). However, there has also been a sociological perspective, that is a sociological theory of the firm (Baker et al., 2002; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). However, there has been one perspective missing, that is of the humanistic perspective (Melé, 2012), especially in the context of technology-based firm–stakeholder interactions.

In this article, the author developed through literature review a conceptual understanding on humanistic perspective in the context of technology-based interaction hereby referred to as humanistic orientation in technology-based interaction (HOTBI) context. The author did not propose a new construct given the opinion of Koontz (1961, 1980) but rather integrated elements of MO, CO, EO, IO, and other orientation concepts. This was achieved by synthesis (consisting of both reduction and expansion of the ideas) to arrive at a unique perspective. The author proposed a humanistic perspective that has been positioned at a finer granularity level than at a social (macro), firm (meso) toward an individual (micro) level perspective. The center piece of HOTBI would be a human being (Melé, 2012; Van Aken, 2007). Human beings are characterized essentially by humanity and previous researchers had depicted humanity symbolizing the following elements, namely concerning other human entities, concerning and caring for flora, fauna, and inanimate elements, not charging customers differentially, taking care of needy customers, taking care of socially and educationally less privileged individuals, protecting employees as an employer, protecting concerns of marginal investors, informing investors business truth, interacting compassionately with customers and community members, interacting with empathy with customers and community members, and finally interacting with the considerations of the individual centric contextual needs (Bhattacharyya et al., 2009; Melé, 2012; Smith, 2011; Van Aken, 2007).

The author thus attempted in this paper to develop the concept of HOTBI binding together interwoven strands of orientation literature from MO, CO, EO, SO, IO, and others. He applied argumentative logic (Stein & Miller, 1991) to systematically build the concept. The notion of ethics for firms have been preached (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999) and even operationalized as Hunt et al. (1989) had developed a corporate ethics scale. This scale dealt with how employees of a firm perceived that their ethical behaviors were being rewarded or punished by firm management, the nature of firm management concerned regarding the practice of ethical behavior in their firms, and finally how ethically managers were operating in the firm. It had five items and coefficient alpha value of 0.78. Vitell et al. (1993) had developed Marketing Norms Ethics Scale (MNES). This scale was a multidimensional norm (predetermined guidelines representing behavioral rules and values of individual) scale with 25 items. There were five dimensions on pricing and distribution norms, information and contact norms, product and promotion norms, obligation and disclosure norms, and general honesty and integrity norms. The coefficient alpha values ranged across the five subfactors from 0.67 to 0.87. MNES indicated that pricing ought to be ethical and fair; client information should not be misused; products risks should be properly and sufficiently communicated; misleading or false advertising should not be practiced; firms should discharge their duties properly to customs plus suppliers; in general, all laws/regulations should be adhered and honest behavior must be practiced.

Sturdivant et al. (1985) had deliberated on management conservatism (MC). MC had two dimensions namely human rights and responsibilities and then government/business and the general welfare. There are 65 items in the scale and the linear composite estimate of reliability value of the total 65-item scale was 0.85. This scale deliberated on aspects like maintaining corporate responsibility toward government, providing medical care to all (regardless the ability to pay), providing education to all children, paying taxes on time, maintaining good quality of life, and setting good environmental regulation for business. Williams (1992) had developed a scale on “Attitudes towards the social role of corporations.” The 23-item scale deliberated on the role of business leaders of large corporations like that of a public servant, serving public interest as a central organizational purpose, concern for other social entities, managerial actions guided by conscience, demonstration of empathy, and respecting the freedom of individuals.

Researchers also worked on consumer behavior in environmentally responsible manner (Stone et al., 1995) and socially responsible consumption behavior (SRCB) (Antil, 1984; Antil & Bennett, 1979). Environmentally responsible consumers concept (Stones et al., 1995) had seven dimensions, namely opinions and beliefs, awareness, willing to act, attitude, action taken, ability to act, and knowledge regarding environment. There were 31 items and the coefficient alpha value was 0.929. Opinions and belief reflected the perspectives of individuals on environmental concerns relating to earth. This also consisted of individuals’ awareness, knowledge, attitude, willingness to act, ability to act, and action taken dimensions. Antil (1984) and Anil and Bennett (1979) had deliberated on SRCB. The 40-item scale had a Cronbach alpha value of 0.92. This scale measured the attitude of customers toward rewarding and punishing firms that indulged in resource-intensive consumption, resource reduction steps, usage of renewable resources, practice of recycling materials, pollution prevention, and others. From a stakeholder perspective, firms interacted with various stakeholders for serving factor inputs such as raw material, capital, and labor (Freeman et al., 2004). Firms by creating value provided benefits to customers for consumption (Atkinson et al., 1997). While operating, any firm also directly or indirectly involved interaction with the local communities (Calvano, 2008; Reed et al., 2006). Thus, at the factor input stage of any firm there were engagements with suppliers, investors, and employees (Clarkson, 1995). Firm interacted with certain stakeholders across all organizational process such as local communities, media, and government bodies (Bhattacharyya, 2012). This occurred because firms resided in the nest of society composed of communities, media, and governmental institutions (Freeman et al., 2004; Hillman & Keim, 2001). Bhattacharyya (2010) had deliberated regarding a scale on CSR and it had nine variables with Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.617 to 0.883. The scale among other aspects covered firm behavior toward its community stakeholders.

Post value creation, any firm engaged toward interacting with the customers for securing revenue and ultimately eking out profit (Hillman & Keim, 2001). In the past, firm management engagement (FME) would deploy limited technologies (like telephones or e-mails) to interact with stakeholder (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Increasingly firm–stakeholder interaction was happening over technology media like Internet technologies on Web 2.0 (or higher versions), mobile applications, and social networking sites. These were mediating firm–stakeholder interactions (Marinova et al., 2017). Such technology inventions often alienated stakeholders or could ease out stakeholder concerns. If the technology interaction mechanisms were so designed by a firm that it provided humanistic support to stakeholders, then the satisfaction level of stakeholders while interacting with the firm improved. The study variables have been tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study Variables Conceptual and Operational Definitions

S. No.	Concept	Conceptual Definition	Operational Definition
1	Firm management engagement	The hard and soft infrastructure of the management committed toward interacting with stakeholders.	Demonstration of organizational commitment for firm–stakeholder interaction with deployment of • experienced employees • very senior management team for leading • adequate managerial bandwidth • adequate organizational resources and capabilities • advanced technologies • an empowered team • continuous training and development mechanism for employees regarding better application of technology
2	Firm technology medium deployed	The nature and intensity of technology deployed by a firm to interact with stakeholders.	Deployment of organizational technological resources and capabilities for firm–stakeholder interaction should facilitate • design of a two-way communication channel • engagement on a continuous basis • employment of a mechanism to understand the requirements of stakeholders • serving the unexpressed requirements of stakeholders • stakeholders in helping solving their pain points
3	Stakeholder interaction	The spectrum of interaction and engagements that occur between a firm and its stakeholders.	Organization should • treat employees with care and promote employee diversity • take care of local communities • pay taxes in time • engage in corporate social responsibility initiatives • engage in advocacy with the government that benefits the society in general not just our organization • provide stakeholders correct and timely information • serve customers to satisfy them • serve investors with openness keeping their best interest in mind • follow what is ethically correct and morally right • adhere to laws and regulations of the land
4	Humanistic orientation in technology-based interaction	The humane element of firm–stakeholder interaction activities.	By deploying technology for firm–stakeholder interaction, a firm should • focus on primarily helping customers rather than only reducing costs • serve the needs of even the technologically weak (like very elderly people, differently abled, illiterate, and others) • focus on reducing stakeholders’ difficulties • specifically attend to dissatisfied stakeholders • not confuse any stakeholder with linguistic alienation • not delay service to a stakeholder • not be intimidating to stakeholders • maintain adequate technology scope for proper interaction • switch to human interaction if any stakeholder was unable to interact through technology
5	Interactional stakeholder satisfaction	The satisfaction that stakeholders derive on interacting with a firm.	Stakeholders when satisfied with organizational interaction feel contended with • content of interaction • interaction promptness • understanding regarding stakeholder needs • initiatives to address stakeholder needs • special assistance for weak stakeholders

Source: The author.

The final goal was to improve the satisfaction of stakeholders. This has been depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Figure 2 depicts the new paradigm of firm–stakeholder interaction which has often been real time and interactive. This was a big shift from the old paradigm.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Thus, the proposed hypothesis are

H1—FME positively relates to FTMD

H2—FTMD positively relates to SI

H3—HOTBI moderates the relationship between FTMD and SI

H4—SI positively relates to ISS

H5—FME positively relates to ISS

H6—FTMD positively relates to ISS

H7—FME positively relates to SI

In the new paradigm, technology could help address stakeholder concerns as firms could deploy technology to help stakeholders interact with firms meaningfully and easily (McCabe et al., 2012). Firms could not only deploy technology to communicate with stakeholders but also explore the manifest and latent needs of stakeholders (Ayuso et al., 2011; Marinova et al., 2017; Wayne Gould, 2012). Firms could deploy technology to provide stakeholders a more humanistic experience even in the absence of human beings. Thus, the researchable gaps existing in literature were of three types. The first gap was regarding the operationalization (scale development) of the study constructs. Secondly, there was gap regarding the effect of technology deployed by firms for interacting with stakeholders and the satisfaction derived by the stakeholders. More specifically, literature was lacking regarding the mediation effects of technology in firm–stakeholder interaction and the moderating effect of humanistic orientation integrated to interactional technology. Thus, the research objectives were to

Operationalize the study variables

Ascertain the mediating role of firm–stakeholder technology-based interaction in generating stakeholder satisfaction

Ascertain the moderating role of humanistic orientation in firm–stakeholder technology-based interaction in generating stakeholder satisfaction

Research Methodology

The author collected the data from firm, CSR, sustainability, or any other manager responsible for firm–stakeholder interaction. These managers had a minimum experience of 10 years in interaction with stakeholders. The data were collected from both manufacturing and services sectors. The respondents also belonged to both enterprises from public and private sectors. The respondent managers belonged to industries such as information technology, banking, mining, food and beverages, automobiles, heavy engineering manufacturing, healthcare, technology, and others during the data collection. The author sent 342 questionnaires to 342 organizations but only 188 responses were received by the author from 152 firms. Thus, the response rate was 54.97 percent. Out of the 188 filled responses, only 152 filled responses were received. Thus, the final response rate was 44.5 percent. The minimum work experience of the respondent was 11 years while the maximum work experience in the domain of firm–stakeholder interaction was 19 years. The average work experience of the respondents was 14 years. Seventy-six percent of the respondents were from the services sector, while the rest were from manufacturing sector. The author considered these managers from CSR, sustainability, and others because such managers interacted with stakeholder communities on a day-to-day basis. The data were collected based on a 5-point Likert scale (Albaum, 1997) with 1 as strongly disagree, 2 as disagree, 3 as neither agree nor disagree, 4 as agree, and 5 as strongly agree. Thus, for all the scale constructs the five-point scale was used. The sample details of the study have been tabulated in Table 2.

The variables, number of items, Cronbach alpha value, and variance explained have been tabulated in Table 3.

Table 2.

Sample Details of the Study

Total number of respondents	152
Average years of experience	14 years
Number of responses from services sector	116
Number of responses from manufacturing sector	36

Source: The author.

Table 3.

Reliability Indices of Factors of FME, FTMD, HOTBI, SI, and ISS

Variable	Number of Items	Cronbach Alpha	Variance Explained (%)
FME	7	0.579	45.80
FTMD	5	0.511	34.50
HOTBI	9	0.525	53.40
SI	15	0.899	58.50
ISS	6	0.863	59.40

Source: The author.

Table 4.

Relationship and Path Values between Variables FME, FTMD, HOTBI, SI, and ISS

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable	B	Sig
H1: FME	FTMD	0.430	0.01
H2: FTMD	SI	0.018	0.80
H3: FTMD × HOTBI	SI	0.448	0.01
H4: SI	ISS	0.601	0.01
H5: FME	ISS	0.006	0.95
H6: FTMD	ISS	0.001	0.99
H7: FME	SI	0.020	0.99

Source: The author.

Note: ‘Sig’ denotes significance values of p.

The relationship and path values between the variables have been tabulated in Table 4.

From Table 4, it can be noted that hypothesis H1, H3, and H4 were accepted whereas hypothesis H2, H5, H6, and H7 were rejected. Thus, regarding the measures, the scales developed in the research were all having 5-point Likert scale. This scale had strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The scales on FME, FTMD, HOTBI, SI, and ISS have been developed by the authors. However, the scales contained elements from extant literature. FME had seven items. The Cronbach alpha value was 0.58 and cumulative variance explained was 45.8 percent. The items represented how firm deployed various management capability to engage with stakeholders. This consisted of experienced employees, adequate management bandwidth, advanced technology, senior-level managers, empowered team, and adequate organizational resources and capabilities. Firm technology medium deployed (FTMD) consisted of six items. FTMD Cronbach alpha value was 0.51 and the variance explained was 34.50 percent. FTMD highlighted the design of firm–stakeholder communication scope, nature, mechanism, duration, and channel features. Humanistic orientation technology-based interaction (HOTBI) had nine items with Cronbach alpha value of 0.53 and percentage variance explained by 53.40 percent. HOTBI incorporated the elements of building humane aspects in firm–stakeholder interaction through technology. HOTBI item entailed service to customers through technology not just cost cutting, attending to the weak/marginalized stakeholders, providing service to stakeholders in a friendly manner, and providing adequate scope for human interaction if technology is unable to cater to stakeholders during interaction. Stakeholder interaction (SI) had 15 items with Cronbach alpha value of 0.899 and percentage variance explained by 58.50 percent. It consisted of items that entailed how firms took care of its employees, local communities, customers, regulatory aspects, payment of taxes, engagement in CSR activities, and others. The final factor of the study is interactional stakeholder satisfaction (ISS). ISS consists of items that deliberate on the content, promptness, comprehension focus, special assistance, and commitment during firm–stakeholder interaction. It has six items. The Cronbach alpha value is 0.86 and the percentage variance explained is 59.4 percent. The descriptive analytics consisting of reliability values and correlation among variables were tabulated. All correlations were positive and significant among the variables. The results of correlation helped in hypothesis testing. There was positive relationship between FME and FTMD (beta = 0.43, p = 0.01). There is a positive relationship between SI and ISS (beta = 0.61, p = 0.01). HOTBI moderated the relationship between FTMD and SI. Baron and Kenny (1986) had suggested conditions for mediation effect. FTMD mediated the relationship between FME and SI. SI mediated the relationship between FTMD and ISS. Sobel’s test results indicated that mediation existed between FTMD and ISS was through factor SI (beta = 0.448, p < 0.01) (Cheung & Lau, 2008; Frazier et al., 2004). Moderated mediation existed in the presence of HOTBI. Higher HOTBI resulted in higher FTMD and SI impacts. The moderation was tested with Ng et al. (2008). The differential conditional indirect effect of independent variables on the dependent variable through the moderating variable was established (Hayes, 2018; Ng et al., 2008). Hayes (2013, 2015) process macro for SPSS was applied to ascertain and compute conditional indirect effects. Moderated mediation was tested for HOTBI with other variables. Only FTMD × HOTBI was significant (beta = 0.448, p < 0.01). It is important to note that Sobel test had four conditions (Cheung & Lau, 2008; Frazier et al., 2004). Out of them, the mentioned differential condition was tested. The magnitude of conditional indirect effect between FTMD and SI was different based on the difference in the level of HOTBI. This high–low moderation was tested for one standard deviation above and below the mean score.

Findings and Discussion

The study findings indicated that FME was an important antecedent factor in firm–stakeholder interactions. FME indicated the organizational resource deployed for undertaking interaction with stakeholder. The factor consisted of the deployed bandwidth of managers as well as the deployment of experienced managers for firm–stakeholder interaction. Furthermore, the team responsible for engagement with the stakeholder must be empowered to undertake a decision and implement it. This is in line with the work of Greenwood (2007) and Noland and Phillips (2010). FME also encompassed the deployment of advanced web technologies and its presence on social networking platforms.

Another factor that mattered in this conversation on firm–stakeholder interaction was the nature and level of the FTMD. This factor consisted of aspects like the presence of a two-way interactive communication medium, wherein stakeholders could interact with the firm or vice versa on a continuous basis. The technology medium should be able to serve the unexpressed requirements of the stakeholder by capturing data available on various social networking sites emancipating from the stakeholders. Furthermore, the technology deployed for interaction should be able to address the pain point of stakeholders and solve it by informing the requisite stakeholders. To solve stakeholder’s issue as well as to provide stakeholders with the required information was pivotal. This was mentioned in the work of Morsing and Schultz (2006).

When experienced employees engaged with stakeholders through technology medium the employees were better positioned to capture stakeholder needs. This was not just for the expressed ones but even for the unexpressed ones also. This occurred because as data was collected from different sources through IT enabled digital devices, the employees could better analyse the data and undertake sensemaking. Thus, firms with adequate management bandwidth were better positioned to take care of the pain points of stakeholders. But providing empowerment to firm stakeholder engagement team was required. This was also outlined by the works of Rasche and Esser (2006) and Preble (2005). Another important factor was incorporating humanistic considerations while interacting with stakeholders. This was pointed out by Melé (2012). It is important that the entire gamut of firm–stakeholder interaction should be provided by the technology. A fragmented approach was not advisable. It was also important to provide stakeholders adequate and correct information in real time. Sensitivity to humane aspects was also reflected by any firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative. Furthermore, engagements with the government (advisory roles for the greater good of the society), practice of employee engagement in CSR, and in-depth engagement with local communities for CSR actions were appreciated. This was also deliberated on by McWilliams and Siegel (2001).

Being humanistic meant that when deployed interactional technologies were unable to handle the firm–stakeholder interaction in a healthy manner, there should be a scope to switch to human-based interaction. Humanistic approach, as Melé (2016) had discussed, also meant that the technology deployed must not be confusing or intimidating to stakeholders. In other words, the technology deployed should be friendly and should specially address the concern of dissatisfied stakeholders. Firm–stakeholder interaction should expand beyond helping customers and investors. A firm should also treat its stakeholder in an ethical manner adhering to the laws and regulations prevalent in the land. It would be tautological to argue that any firm must always function accommodating the best interest of the customers, investors, employees, and communities in its organizational initiatives. ISS transpired because of an interactional effort undertaken by any firm while interacting with stakeholders. Stakeholders felt satisfied not only based on the content of the interaction but also regarding the promptness of interactions. Stakeholder also appreciated firm interactions which could comprehend stakeholders’ needs, especially when the concerns of weak stakeholders were addressed. Stakeholders become satisfied when they witnessed zeal and commitment of firm managers engaged in addressing stakeholders needs. This was also discussed by Strong et al. (2001) and Berrone et al. (2007).

The results indicated that HOTBI moderated the relationship between FTMD and SI based on the advanced level of technology deployed. A bidirectional communication channel working on a continuous basis would help stakeholders get correct and timely information. This would only be valuable when the firm was considerate regarding the best interest of stakeholders especially that of the weak stakeholders. Thus, providing information which was required, relevant, and appreciated by the stakeholders was the key. Communities and other stakeholders needed to be treated with respect and this could be done by technology-driven communication which was friendly (not intimidating) or confusing for the stakeholders. Advanced technology also helped stakeholders to express their concerns especially the dissatisfied communities only when the firm managers acted with mindfulness. This helped to address the root cause of the dissatisfaction. Advanced technology made more sensemaking for stakeholders when the deployed technology encompassed the entire spectrum of firm stakeholders’ interaction. Furthermore, the technology medium had scope to switch to human interaction forms when required. Additionally firm–stakeholders interaction was required to focus on solving the problems of dissatisfied stakeholders. Stakeholders appreciated firm interactional initiatives that enriched their experience rather than one which provided a value for money proposition.

Thus, any firm which interacted with stakeholders based on humanistic-driven technology platform would accumulate better information from firms (having veracity) as well as in real time. Technology also enabled firms to provide information to stakeholders on CSR, tax compliance, ethical practices, diversity promotion, employee care, and other programs. This helped stakeholders gain more content information and insights regarding firm practices promptly and thus improved stakeholders’ satisfaction. Furthermore with technology, customized information and communication (textual, audio, video) were provided by firms to different stakeholders such as communities and others. This helped stakeholders to appreciate management commitment toward stakeholders. This again transpired into increased SI satisfaction. This was also deliberated on by Barrett et al. (2016). Any firm which applied technologies for communication could apply analytics to analyze stakeholder communications across various platforms (mostly digitally). This would help firms comprehend the requirements of stakeholders in advance and thus proactively provide tailor-made solutions. This would also enhance the interactional satisfaction of the stakeholders.

Conclusion

In this study, the nature and intensity of firm interactional commitment toward stakeholders (communities, government bodies, civic society, and others) were gauged based on the application of various technologies. This was mostly regarding any firm’s business or social initiatives. This has been in line with the works of researchers such as Vazquez-Brust et al. (2010) and Lankoski et al. (2016). In this study, the author found that during firm–stakeholder interaction, the commitment of the firm mattered to stakeholders. Commitment to provide stakeholders a healthy interaction emancipated from deployment of technology (in terms of advancement), leadership level (in terms of seniority), team empowerment (in terms of decision making), management bandwidth (in terms of quantity), experience base (in terms of scope and depth), and other organizational resources and capabilities. These aspects found from this study were also reported in extant literature (Litz, 1996).

The study findings corroborated to similar findings advocating increased commitment toward management, technology, organizational resources, manpower quantity, and quality in extant literature (Kontoghiorghes, 2016; Lee & Jamil, 2016). Thus, the study findings on commitment and elements of commitment on firm–stakeholder interaction are well within the preview of the work of earlier researchers (Berman et al., 1999). In the present-day context, increasingly firms were deploying technology to interact with stakeholder which was a departure from the classical method of interaction. This has been highlighted by the work of earlier researchers. Technology-based interaction with stakeholder has been based on ubiquitous (possibly through mobile, personal, and digital) devices used by stakeholders. The interactional component was achieved based on Web 2.0 or higher forms of web-based technology that enabled a two-way communication. This was also possible with an interactive manner wherein continuous engagement by the firm with stakeholder was possible. This kind of technology had been advocated by past researchers as potent to be engaged by stakeholders. Advanced web-based technologies deployed in conjunction with analytics such as big data technologies could help managers decipher the unexpressed needs of stakeholders. Thus, with the help of such technologies, firms could solve the pain point of stakeholders easily. The power of such technologies was increasingly felt in business and societal context (Verma & Bhattacharyya, 2016). The study results also indicated that higher the firm commitment level, the better was the deployment of the firm’s SI technology. This was because technologies were applied by managers for running their firm. This was also in line with the tenets of human resource as a strategic resource perspective in literature. This study indicated contours of firm–stakeholder interaction in terms of footprints among various constituents such as communities, civil society, and others. These findings stressed the importance of Carroll’s basis of responsibilities such as the hygiene aspects of paying taxes, treating stakeholders with respect, follow-up regulatory mandates of the land, value-based management practices engagement toward CSR initiatives, and others as very relevant (Carroll, 1999).

The deployment of technology helped in the betterment of SI efforts and initiatives. However, this study indicated that firm–stakeholder interaction quality was better when the firm management was acting with humane orientation. This transpired when the firm management was focusing on solving the pain points of stakeholders or addressing the needs (both felt and unfelt) of the stakeholders. It also entailed interacting with the stakeholders in a friendly and helpful manner throughout the interaction possibility scope. Extant literature on humanistic orientation also pointed to this aspect (Pirson & Lawrence, 2010). Furthermore, when technology singularly was unable to cater to help fully solve SI then there should be provision for human interaction. Thus, insights gathered from this study were coherent with the extant literature. A humanistic-orientated (Arnaud & Wasieleski, 2014) firm–stakeholder interaction based on technology medium would help stakeholders feel more satisfied and contented. This was in line with the stakeholder satisfaction literature during firm–stakeholder management (Spitzeck, 2011).

When firm–stakeholder interaction content was comprehensive and the timing of information flow from firm to stakeholder was prompt, stakeholders felt gratified. The work of Crilly et al. (2016) had stressed the importance of timely and truthful communication between a firm and its stakeholders. This study also pointed in this direction. Furthermore, stakeholders were satisfied when a firm undertook interaction initiatives that were generally required by stakeholder as advocated by the work of Bhattacharyya (2012). It was also found from this study that stakeholders appreciated efforts of firms which attempted to understand stakeholders’ needs both felt and unexpressed. This study developed a scale to measure FME, FTMD, SI, HOTBI, and ISS. Furthermore, this study found a model on a SI satisfaction in the context of technology-based firm–stakeholder interaction with a humanistic orientation element. FME was the antecedent variable with FTMD as the first mediating variable. Given the present-day importance of technology deployed, FTMD impacted SI only when it was moderated by humanistic orientation. In the absence of the element of humanistic orientation, a healthy SI would not transpire. The presence of humanistic concern in technology during firm–stakeholder interaction improved the firm–stakeholder interaction. This finally would lead to improved stakeholders’ satisfaction. Both the mediating and moderating effects of the variables have been presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Source: The author.

This article highlighted the importance of including the element of the humanistic orientation in firm–stakeholder interaction. The differently abled, elderly, or the illiterate might find technology as an impediment for healthy interaction with firms. This point would be an aspect of reflection for firm deploying technology. In future, researchers could explore into context-dependent studies regarding how the differently abled, illiterate, and elderly view the role of technology. It is important to note that in future researchers need to comprehend those data from such stakeholders which need to be captured through different forms such as synaptic assessment, eyeball tracking, voice tone moderation, and others. This is because such stakeholders’ perception-based data might indicate limited explication. Furthermore, in-depth case studies cutting across each of the mentioned stakeholder groups would also be a good step for comprehending how technology-based firm–stakeholder interaction manifested. In future, researchers could also undertake in-depth studies through in-depth personal interviews or focus group discussion to assert the various facets of technology design for the needy stakeholders.

This research contributed to both stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2004) and resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 2001; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). It contributed to stakeholder theory by integrating technology (firm resource) into firm–stakeholder interaction. This interactional role of technology was devoid in literature. The absence of the role of technology could be stressed to the fact that interactional technologies (like Web 2.0) carried out on handheld mobile devices were absent in society in the past. Web 2.0 technologies available on handheld devices meant that customers could interact with any firm anytime. This altered the urgency-seeking behavior of salient stakeholders. Firm stakeholders now expected much faster response to their concerns. The literature on firm stakeholders’ communication also got altered with the advent of new technologies. This required new strand of literature on what information and how quickly it could be communicated to stakeholders in real time. In the present-day context, technology could help a firm to provide information to stakeholders in video format, also enhancing the scope of communication and interaction. Given these contexts, triangulation regarding veracity of firm action was easier to be demonstrated among stakeholders. This was not just for the ones located in nearby facilities but also for those located distantly. Technology would thus have both mediating and moderating effect on firm–stakeholder interaction. Furthermore, accommodating human orientation into technology (deployed for firm–stakeholder interaction) would be a new strand of theoretical conversation. This is because technology deployed for firm–stakeholder interaction is a new set of resources and capabilities in the firm kitty. Thus, a new resource and capability class could be valuable, rare, imitable, and non-substitutable. This is because firms require robust technology to enhance the experience of firm–stakeholder interaction (laden with humanistic orientation) to generate competitive edge. Thus, this research contributed to both stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2004) and RBV (Barney, 2001; Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010).

Firm managers responsible for interaction with stakeholders could heed to findings of this study first by incorporating technology at firm–stakeholder interaction and then further by adding the dimension of humanistic orientation into this interactional technology. Managers are required to provide adequate managerial bandwidth toward accommodating the concerns of the differently abled, elderly, or illiterate stakeholder. It is important that firms depute experienced, talented managers to deploy technology to reduce the concern and pain points of stakeholders. In such case, managers are required to build a two-way communication medium (platform) with stakeholders. This platform developed for interaction should focus on specially capturing the difficulties faced by marginalized stakeholders. It is also important that the technology deployed must be able to switch to human interaction when any stakeholder was unable to continue to interact based only on technology-enabled medium. This ought to be a very important feature. Furthermore, managers must ensure that the technology interaction interventions must genuinely be humane in nature to consider the requirements of stakeholders. This could be achieved by customizing technology interaction solutions for the weak stakeholders’ specific requirements. In this study, the author began a conversation interwoven with domains of stakeholder theory, stakeholder management, firm technology resources, and capabilities with humanistic considerations. This body of work contributed to the various aspects of literature on humanism and management undertaken by scholars such as Spitzeck (2011), Melé (2012, 2016), Pirson and Lawrence (2010), and Arnaud and Wasieleski (2014). The author believes that a tapestry of new theoretical fabric around humanistic orientation could be built incorporating these diverse fields.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albaum

(1997). The Likert scale revisited. Market Research Society Journal , 39(2), 1–21.

Antil

J. H.

(1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macro Marketing , 4(2), 18–39.

Antil

J. H.

Bennett

P. D.

(1979). Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior. The Conserver Society , 51, 51–68.

Armstrong

J. S.

Collopy

(1996). Competitor orientation: Effects of objectives and information on managerial decisions and profitability. Journal of Marketing Research , 33(2), 188–199.

Arnaud

Wasieleski

D. M.

(2014). Corporate humanistic responsibility: Social performance through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal of Business Ethics , 120(3), 313–334.

Atkinson

A. A.

Waterhouse

J. H.

Wells

R. B.

(1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. MIT Sloan Management Review , 38(3), 25.

Ayuso

Ángel Rodríguez

García-Castro

Ángel Ariño

(2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management & Data Systems , 111(9), 1399–1417.

Baker

Gibbons

Murphy

K. J.

(2002). Relational contracts and the theory of the firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 117(1), 39–84.

Barney

J. B.

(2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management , 27(6), 643–650.

10.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(6), 1173.

11.

Barrett

Oborn

Orlikowski

(2016). Creating value in online communities: The sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement. Information Systems Research , 27(4), 704–723.

12.

Bartlett

J. E.

(2007). Advances in coaching practices: A humanistic approach to coach and client roles. Journal of Business Research , 60(1), 91–93.

13.

Berman

S. L.

Wicks

A. C.

Kotha

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.

14.

Berrone

Surroca

Tribó

J. A.

(2007). Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firm performance: A test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics , 76(1), 35–53.

15.

Bharadwaj

A. S.

(2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly , 24(1), 169–196.

16.

Bhattacharyya

S. S.

(2010). Development of a scale on strategic corporate social responsibility constructs. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management , 3(2), 181–207.

17.

Bhattacharyya

S. S.

(2012). Observations on the realities regarding corporate social responsibility from the emerging economy of India. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management , 5(2), 162–183.

18.

Bhattacharyya

S. S.

(2011). Web 2.0 and its effect on the strategic directions of business firms and the boundary of the firm. International Journal of Business Competition and Growth , 1(4), 346–358.

19.

Bhattacharyya

S. S.

Chaturvedi

(2009). A journey through the labyrinth of the business and society concepts. International Journal of Business Environment , 2(3), 281–306.

20.

Blunter

(1994). Society as symbolic interaction. In Herman

N. J.

Reynolds

L. T.

(Eds.), Symbolic interaction: An introduction to social psychology (pp. 263–266). New York, NY: General Hall Inc.

21.

Bracken

L. J.

Bulkeley

H. A.

Whitman

(2015). Transdisciplinary research: Understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 58(7), 1291–1308.

22.

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development . Sage.

23.

Brown

T. J.

Mowen

J. C.

Donavan

D. T.

Licata

J. W.

(2002). The customer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on self-and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research , 39(1), 110–119.

24.

Bryer

T. A.

Zavattaro

S. M.

(2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical dimensions and introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis , 33(3), 325–340.

25.

Calvano

(2008). Multinational corporations and local communities: A critical analysis of conflict. Journal of Business Ethics , 82(4), 793–805.

26.

Carroll

A. B.

(1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society , 38(3), 268–295.

27.

Cheung

G. W.

Lau

R. S.

(2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods , 11(2), 296–325.

28.

Clarkson

M. E.

(1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review , 20(1), 92–117.

29.

Crane

Livesey

(2017). Are you talking to me?: Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In Andriof

Waddock

Husted

Rahman

S. S.

(Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 39–52). New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Crilly

Hansen

Zollo

(2016). The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal , 59(2), 705–729.

31.

De Bussy

N. M.

Watson

R. T.

Pitt

L. F.

Ewing

M. T.

(2001). Stakeholder communication management on the internet: An integrated matrix for the identification of opportunities. Journal of Communication Management , 5(2), 138–146.

32.

Dix

(2010). Human–computer interaction: A stable discipline, a nascent science, and the growth of the long tail. Interacting with Computers , 22(1), 13–27.

33.

Dobel

(1977). The Judeo-Christian stewardship attitude to nature. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application , 5, 28–33.

34.

Donaldson

Dunfee

T. W.

(1999). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review , 41(4), 45–63.

35.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication , 61(4), 659–688.

36.

Etzion

(2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992–present: A review. Journal of Management , 33(4), 637–664.

37.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barron

K. E.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 51(1), 115.

38.

Frederick

W. C.

(1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society , 33(2), 150–164.

39.

Freeman

R. E.

Wicks

A. C.

Parmar

(2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science , 15(3), 364–369.

40.

Frey

B. S.

Stutzer

(2010). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect human well-being . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

41.

Gatignon

Xuereb

J. M.

(1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research , 34(1), 77–90.

42.

Goldstein

(1986). Toward the integration of theory and practice: A humanistic approach. Social Work , 31(5), 352–357.

43.

Gouillart

J. F.

(2014). The race to implement co-creation of value with stakeholders: Five approaches to competitive advantage. Strategy & Leadership , 42(1), 2–8.

44.

Greenwood

(2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics , 74(4), 315–327.

45.

Harwood

Garry

(2017). Internet of things: Understanding trust in techno-service systems. Journal of Service Management , 28(3), 442–475.

46.

Hayes

A. F.

(2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 50(1), 1–22.

47.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs , 85(1), 4–40.

48.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS (version 2.13) [Software].

49.

Heim

(2004). Theories of the gift in South Asia: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain reflections on Dana . (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Heller Baird

Parasnis

(2011). From social media to social customer relationship management. Strategy & Leadership , 39(5), 30–37.

51.

Hillman

A. J.

Keim

G. D.

(2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?. Strategic Management Journal , 22(2), 125–139.

52.

Hitzhusen

G. E.

(2007). Judeo-Christian theology and the environment: Moving beyond scepticism to new sources for environmental education in the United States. Environmental Education Research , 13(1), 55–74.

53.

Hunt

S. D.

Wood

V. R.

Chonko

L. B.

(1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing , 53(3), 79–90.

54.

Jaworski

B. J.

Kohli

A. K.

(1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing , 57(3), 53–70.

55.

Kanuka

(2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning , 91. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.7029&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=103 (accessed 09 March 2020).

56.

Kohli

A. K.

Jaworski

B. J.

(1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing , 54(2), 1–18.

57.

Kontoghiorghes

(2016). Linking high performance organizational culture and talent management: Satisfaction/motivation and organizational commitment as mediators. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 27(16), 1833–1853.

58.

Koontz

(1961). The management theory jungle. Academy of Management Journal , 4(3), 174–188.

59.

Koontz

(1980). The management theory jungle revisited. Academy of Management Review , 5(2), 175–188.

60.

Kraaijenbrink

Spender

J. C.

Groen

A. J.

(2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management , 36(1), 349–372.

61.

Kuhn

(2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies , 29(8–9), 1227–1254.

62.

Lankoski

Smith

N. C.

Van Wassenhove

(2016). Stakeholder judgments of value. Business Ethics Quarterly , 26(2), 227–256.

63.

Lee

B. H.

Jamil

(2016). An empirical study of organizational commitment: A multi-level approach. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management , 4(3), 1074.

64.

Lin

K. Y.

H. P.

(2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior , 27(3), 1152–1161.

65.

Litz

R. A.

(1996). A resource-based-view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of Business Ethics , 15(12), 1355–1363.

66.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Dess

G. G.

(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review , 21(1), 135–172.

67.

Marinova

de Ruyter

Huang

M. H.

Meuter

M. L.

Challagalla

(2017). Getting smart: Learning from technology-empowered frontline interactions. Journal of Service Research , 20(1), 29–42.

68.

Martyn

Gallant

L. M.

(2012). Over 50 and wired: Web-based stakeholder communication. First Monday , 17(6). Retrieved from https://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3449/3262

69.

McCabe

Sharples

Foster

(2012). Stakeholder engagement in the design of scenarios of technology-enhanced tourism services. Tourism Management Perspectives , 4, 36–44.

70.

McWilliams

Siegel

(2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review , 26(1), 117–127.

71.

Melé

(2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics , 106(1), 89–101.

72.

Melé

(2016). Understanding humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal , 1(1), 33–55.

73.

Moorhouse

tom Dieck

M. C.

Jung

(2018). Technological innovations transforming the consumer retail experience: A review of literature. In Jung

Dieck

M.C.

(Eds.), Augmented reality and virtual reality (pp. 133–143). Cham: Springer.

74.

Morsing

Schultz

(2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review , 15(4), 323–338.

75.

Narver

J. C.

Slater

S. F.

(1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing , 20–35.

76.

K. Y.

Ang

Chan

K. Y.

(2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93(4), 733.

77.

Noland

Phillips

(2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews , 12(1), 39–49.

78.

O’neill

(2002). Ecology, policy and politics: Human well-being and the natural world . London: Routledge.

79.

O’Riordan

Fairbrass

(2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics , 83(4), 745–758.

80.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans , 30(3), 286–297.

81.

Pirson

M. A.

Lawrence

P. R.

(2010). Humanism in business—Towards a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics , 93(4), 553–565.

82.

Preble

J. F.

(2005). Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Business and Society Review , 110(4), 407–431.

83.

Rasche

Esser

D. E.

(2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics , 65(3), 251–267.

84.

Ravichandran

Lertwongsatien

(2005). Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems , 21(4), 237–276.

85.

Redding

S. G.

(1994). Comparative management theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organization Studies , 15(3), 323–359.

86.

Reed

M. S.

Fraser

E. D.

Dougill

A. J.

(2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics , 59(4), 406–418.

87.

Renehan

(1981). The Greek anthropocentric view of man. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology , 85, 239–259.

88.

Ruehl

C. H.

Ingenhoff

(2015). Communication management on social networking sites: Stakeholder motives and usage types of corporate Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages. Journal of Communication Management , 19(3), 288–302.

89.

Sambamurthy

Bharadwaj

Grover

(2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly , 237–263.

90.

Sartre

J. P.

Mairet

(1963). Existentialism and humanism (pp. 7–34). London: Methuen.

91.

Saxe

Weitz

B. A.

(1982). The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research , 19(3), 343–351.

92.

Schultz

Wehmeier

(2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 15(1), 9–29.

93.

Siguaw

J. A.

Simpson

P. M.

Enz

C. A.

(2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 23(6), 556–574.

94.

Simpson

(2006). Cost–benefit analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology . Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

95.

Smith

(2011). What is a person?: Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

96.

Spitzeck

(2011). An integrated model of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics , 99(1), 51–62.

97.

Stone

Barnes

J. H.

Montgomery

(1995). Ecoscale: A scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers. Psychology & Marketing , 12(7), 595–612.

98.

Stein

N. L.

Miller

C. A.

(1991). I win–you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In Voss

J. F.

Perkins

D. N.

Segal

J. W.

(Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 265–290). New York, NY: Routledge.

99.

Strong

K. C.

Ringer

R. C.

Taylor

S. A.

(2001). THE* rules of stakeholder satisfaction (*Timeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics , 32(3), 219–230.

100.

Sturdivant

F. D.

Ginter

J. L.

Sawyer

A. G.

(1985). Managers’ conservatism and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal , 6(1), 17–38.

101.

Tantalo

Priem

R. L.

(2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal , 37(2), 314–329.

102.

Teece

D. J.

(1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 3(1), 39–63.

103.

Thayer

S. E.

Ray

(2006). Online communication preferences across age, gender, and duration of Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 9(4), 432–440.

104.

Toms

E. G.

O’Brien

H. L.

(2008). Understanding the information and communication technology needs of the e-humanist. Journal of Documentation , 64(1), 102–130.

105.

Trusov

Bucklin

R. E.

Pauwels

(2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing , 73(5), 90–102.

106.

Unerman

Bennett

(2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society , 29(7), 685–707.

107.

Van Aken

J. E.

(2007). Design science and organization development interventions: Aligning business and humanistic values. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 43(1), 67–88.

108.

Vazquez-Brust

D. A.

Liston-Heyes

Plaza-Úbeda

J. A.

Burgos-Jiménez

(2010). Stakeholders pressures and strategic prioritisation: An empirical analysis of environmental responses in Argentinean firms. Journal of Business Ethics , 91(2), 171–192.

109.

Venkatraman

(1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science , 35(8), 942–962.

110.

Verma

Bhattacharyya

S. S.

(2016). Micro-foundation strategies of IOT, BDA, Cloud Computing: Do they really matter in bottom of pyramid? Strategic Direction , 32(8), 36–38.

111.

Vitell

S. J.

Rallapalli

K. C.

Singhapakdi

(1993). Marketing norms: The influence of personal moral philosophies and organizational ethical culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 21(4), 331.

112.

Wayne Gould

(2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation , 7(3), 1–11.

113.

Wiberley

S. E.

Jones

W. G.

Jr (September, 2000). Time and technology: A decade-long look at humanists’ use of electronic information technology, college & research libraries (pp. 421–431).

114.

Williams

(1982). Attitudes towards the social role of corporations’. In Bearden

W. O.

Netemeyer

R. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research (p. 342). California: Sage publications.

115.

Winter

R. P.

Sarros

J. C.

Tanewski

G. A.

(1997). Reframing managers’ control orientations and practices: A proposed organizational learning framework. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 5(1), 9–24.

116.

Zambrano

(2008). E-governance and development: Service delivery to empower the poor. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR) , 4(2), 1–11.