Vol. 14 No. 2 (2026)
June 2026

Articles

Stakeholder perspectives for business through future scenarios: The case of sustainable recovery in Peru

Published 2026-06-01

  • Miguel Cordova
    • ,
  • Fátima Huamán

Miguel Cordova
Tecnologico de Monterrey

Fátima Huamán
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru

Abstract

Objective: This article aims to provide an overview of the stakeholders’ perspectives towards the climate change-oriented recovery of businesses in Peru, contributing to moving forward the literature related to the Stakeholder Theory and Sustainable Development.

Research Design & Methods: We used a qualitative approach and conducted four focus group sessions to collect data. Moreover, we used a future studies methodology to obtain structured feedback from the stakeholders regarding four plausible future scenarios for businesses in Peru.

Findings: The government appears as the key actor regulating the business environment, facilitating, among others, essential policies and resources such as decentralisation, education, biodiversity, technology, alliances, and energy transition that stakeholders could build upon as well.

Implications & Recommendations: Our theoretical contribution emphasises the uncertainty around the stakeholders’ purposes, according to the different perspectives that we found toward a common concern. Moreover, this contribution supports stakeholder salience under crisis periods, drawing attention to redefining stakeholder priorities. Moreover, we built upon sustainable development literature, analysing how Peruvian companies can adapt and achieve resilience toward future scenarios.

Contribution & Value Added: Future Studies methodology allowed us to assess how stakeholders are salient in crises towards business recovery. Peru constitutes a relevant case due to its institutional context, climate vulnerability, and socio-economic crises.

Keywords

Stakeholder salience, Stakeholder theory, Sustainability, Climate change, Future studies

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Miguel Cordova

Associate Professor at Tecnologico de Monterrey, Business School, Mexico. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management and Sustainability. His research interests include Power and Influence, Sustainable Development, Strategy, Global Supply Chains, Blue Economy, and Economic Democracy. He serves as Chair at the Teaching & Education SIG of the Academy of International Business (AIB), as Associate Editor at the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, and as Member of the Expert Council for Economic Democracy of the European Union.

Fátima Huamán

Doctoral Student at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Chile (Chile), and a researcher affiliated with the GIGI Research Group at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru. Her research interests include female entrepreneurship, innovation and technology transfer, sustainability, and the role of the state in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

References

  1. Ahmed, H.N., Ahmed, S., Khan, M.A., & Ali, S.M. (2024). Sustainable supply chain in emerging economies during and post COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(9), 2472-2498. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-01-2022-0092
  2. Ambler, T., & Wilson A. (1995). Problems of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 4(1), 30-35. https://doi-org.up.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.1995.tb00107.x
  3. Briolo, C., & Cordova, M. (2022). A Cracked Public Administration in Peru: How “Vacunagate” Has Shaken the Foundations of an Already Damaged Society. AD-minister, 41, 91-114. https://doi.org/10.17230/Ad-minister.41.4
  4. Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M.D., Short, C.E., & Coombs, W.T. (2021). How crisis management strategies address stakeholders’ concerns: A typology and direction for future research. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 466-488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0371
  5. Chernyi, A., & Uotila, J. (2024). Prioritization of organizational stakeholders: A managerial decision-making perspective. Journal of Business Research, 185, 114882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114882
  6. Dadkhah, S., Bayat, R., Fazli, S., Tork, E.K., & Ebrahimi, A. (2018). Corporate foresight: developing a process model. Europan Journal of Futures Research, 6(18). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0147-7
  7. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
  8. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
  9. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100. https://doi-org.up.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/41165746
  10. Fleener, M.J., Vojnovich, V., & Berardinelli, P. (2025). The metalogic futures model: a framework for transformational organizational and social change. European Journal of Futures Research, 13, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-025-00249-5
  11. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
  12. Freeman, R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340
  13. Freeman, R., & Mcvea, John. (2001). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
  14. Gonzalez-Perez, M.A., Cordova, M., Hermans, M., Nava-Aguirre, K.M., Monje-Cueto, F., Mingo, S., Tobon, S., Rodriguez, C.A., Salvaj, E.H., & Floriani, D.E. (2021). Crises conducting stakeholder salience: shifts in the evolution of private universities’ governance in Latin America. Corporate Governance, 21(6), 1194-1214. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2020-0397
  15. Huamán, F., Guede, B., Cancino, C.A., & Cordova, M. (2022). Female entrepreneurship: Evidence-based high-impact perspective from Chile and Peru. Estudios Gerenciales, 38(162), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2022.162.4586
  16. Jones, T.M., & Wicks, A.C. (1999). Convergent Stakeholder Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.2307/259075
  17. MINAM (2018). Contribuciones Nacionalmente Determinadas del Perú (NDC). Environment Ministry official report. Retrieved from https://www.gob.pe/institucion/minam/informes-publicaciones/355764-contribuciones-nacionalmente-determinadas-del-peru-ndc on June 10, 2025.
  18. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
  19. Monje-Cueto, F., Gonzalez-Perez, M.A., Barbery-Merida, O.N., Cordova, M., & Nava-Aguirre, K.M. (2024). Shaping sustainable futures: Multi-stakeholder perspectives on government-business partnerships for achieving the 2030 Agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 12(4), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2024.120401
  20. Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
  21. Saleem, F., Zhang-Zhang, Y., Malik, M.I., & Allui, A. (2020). Revisiting Stakeholder Theory and Environmentalism: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Sustainability, 12(20), 8751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208751
  22. Shahwan, T.M., & Habib, A.M. (2023). Do corporate social responsibility practices affect the relative efficiency of Egyptian conventional and Islamic banks?. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(2), 439-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0518
  23. Souza, A.A.A., & Alves, M.F.R. (2017). Resilience for sustainability as an eco-capability. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 9(5), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-09-2016-0144
  24. Sternberg, E. (1997). The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(1), 3-10. https://doi-org.up.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00034
  25. United Nations (2021). World Economic Situation and Prospects. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2021_CH3_LAC.pdf on April 25, 2025.
  26. Vassolo, R.S., De Castro, J.O., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (2012). Managing in Latin America: Common Issues and a Research Agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0129
  27. Weber, M.M. (2023). The Relationship between Resilience and Sustainability in the Organizational Context—A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(22), 15970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215970
  28. Wilkinson, A. (2017). Strategic Foresight Primer. European Political Strategy Centre. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/288e8bbc-deef-11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1/language-en on July 22, 2024.
  29. Winnicka-Wejs, A., Burgiel-Szewc, A., & Mercik, A. (2026). Company’s inclusive approach to internal and external stakeholders: In search for theories and concepts. International Entrepreneurship Review, 12(1), 115-139. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2026.1201.07
  30. World Bank (2024). Competition: The missing ingredient for growth?. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/184bce21-8fec-4b14-acad-9ee256e7db93/content on July 1, 2025.
  31. Young, M.N., & Ahlstrom, D. (2014). Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 331-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9373-0
  32. Zhou, S., Tiruneh, W.A., & Legese, M.A. (2023). The effect of corporate social responsibility on environmental performance: the mediating role of green innovation and green human resource management. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(11), 3848-3868. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-02-2022-0211

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)