Search results

Over the last decade, several innovative business‐community partnerships have emerged to address simultaneously two pressing development issues: poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. The purpose of this paper is to identify relevant models and to propose a first evaluation of these models in relation to development.

The models were identified following a literature review and were evaluated using Amartya Sen's definition of poverty.

The paper identifies two models: the local enterprise model and the global investment model. While the local model relies mainly on local resources, the global investment model includes local and global organizations and institutions. The paper has analyzed the respective impacts of these new business‐community partnerships, including their governance schemes, on communities and ecosystems through the lens of Amartya Sen's definition of poverty and development. The key finding is double. First, both these models are still in their very early stages. Second, the paper has identified the strengths and weaknesses of each of these models: while the global investment model provides access to solid and important financial resources and markets, the local enterprise model emphasizes local empowerment.

This paper reports innovative initiatives and models of governance that could inspire future private sector based approaches to biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction and help build the theoretical bases for such approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how legitimacy is gained, maintained or repaired through direct action with salient stakeholders and/or through external reporting, by using a number of empirical case vignettes within a single case study organisation.

The study investigates a foreign affiliate of a large multinational organisation involved in an environmentally sensitive industry. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with 26 participants, organisational reports and participation in the organisation’s annual environmental management seminar and a stakeholder engagement meeting.

Four vignettes featuring environmental issues illustrate the complexity of organisational responses. Issue visibility, stakeholder salience and stakeholder interconnectedness influence a company’s action to manage legitimacy. In the short-term, environmental issues which affected salient stakeholders resulted in swift and direct action to protect pragmatic legitimacy, but external reporting did not feature in legitimacy management efforts. Highly visible issues to the public, regulators and the media, however, resulted in direct action together with external reporting to manage wider stakeholder perceptions. External reporting was used superficially, along with a broad suite of communication strategies, to gain legitimacy in the long-term decision about the company’s future in New Zealand.

This paper outlines how episodic encounters to manage strategic legitimacy with salient stakeholders in the short-term are theoretically distinct, but nonetheless linked to continual efforts to maintain institutional legitimacy. Case vignettes highlight how pragmatic legitimacy via dispositional legitimacy can be managed with direct action in the short-term to influence a limited range of salient stakeholders. The way external reporting features in legitimacy management is limited, although this has predominantly been the focus of prior research. Only where an environmental incident damages legitimacy to a larger number of stakeholders is external reporting also used to buttress community support.

The concept of legitimacy is comprehensively applied, linking the strategic and institutional arms of legitimacy and illustrating how episodic actions are taken to manage legitimacy in the short-term with continual efforts to manage legitimacy in the long-term. Stakeholder salience and networks are brought in as novel theoretical extensions to provide a deeper understanding of the interrelationships between these key concepts with a unique case study.