Search results

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.

This study primarily aims to analyse stakeholder management challenges and how these emerge in the stakeholder landscape in a large hospital project. From this analysis, the authors aim to identify the implications that stakeholder management has on value creation in a hospital project.

The research method is qualitative. Empirical data were collected in three cycles: project internal documentation, thematic interviews and survey. The literature related to hospital projects, stakeholder analysis and management, stakeholder salience and landscape is summarised, informing the qualitative design of the study.

The authors noted the importance of project-specific stakeholder identification, salience analysis and landscape description. The regulatory, formal and contractual stakeholders give an over-simplistic picture on stakeholder map. The operative stakeholder map and landscape describe the complexity, uncertainty, dynamism and institutional context inducing the challenges for the stakeholder management. There is an evident potential of utilising the stakeholder landscape and its elements in the resulting collaborative value creation in hospital projects. Multiple and changing stakeholders with differing expectations are an important opportunity to improve the value creation process.

Stakeholder management has recently attracted much attention in the industrial project setting. This research attempts to identify the operative stakeholder landscape in a large hospital project, not to mention its impact on value creation. This study offers a framework that can help academics and project management practitioners tackle the challenges amongst project stakeholders.

Stakeholder theory understands business in terms of relationships among stakeholders whose interests are mainly joint but may be occasionally conflicting. In the latter case, managers may need to make trade-offs between these interests. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of managerial decision-making about these trade-offs.

This paper draws on the ordonomic approach which sees business life to be rife with social dilemmas and locates the role of stakeholders in harnessing or resolving these dilemmas through engagement in rule-finding and rule-setting processes.

The ordonomic approach suggests that stakeholder interests trade-offs ought to be neither ignored nor avoided, but rather embraced and welcomed as an opportunity for bringing to fruition the joint interest of stakeholders in playing a better game of business. Stakeholders are shown to bear responsibility for overcoming the perceived trade-offs through the institutional management of social dilemmas.

For many stakeholder theorists, the nature of managerial decision-making about trade-offs between conflicting stakeholder interests and the nature of trade-offs themselves have been a long-standing point of contention. The paper shows that trade-offs may be useful for the value creation process and explicitly discusses managerial strategies for dealing with them.

The purpose of this study is to address a significant gap in the understanding of entrepreneurship at the microfoundation level. It focuses on how individual entrepreneurs, specifically Hongbang entrepreneurs in China from 1896 to 1949, shape and transform their contexts. The aim is to provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that facilitate entrepreneurial success.

The study adopts a microhistorical approach, investigating the case of Hongbang entrepreneurs in China during 1896-1949. It involves an in-depth examination of historical records to explore the strategic interactions between these entrepreneurs and core stakeholders such as consumers, financial intermediaries, government regulators, and human resources. The research methodology emphasizes a process-oriented view, examining the evolution of personalized networks into extensive connections.

The research reveals that Hongbang entrepreneurs successfully reshaped their unfavorable embedded contexts by strategically collaborating with key stakeholders. They influenced consumer tastes, allied with financial intermediaries, negotiated with governments on regulation policies, and developed human resource stocks. The transformation was facilitated by the evolution of their networks from personalized to extensive connections. These findings highlight the localized strategies such as cronyism in resource acquisition within China’s private property development industry.

This study contributes to the field by offering insights into entrepreneurial contextualization and networking. It sheds light on the complex interplay between entrepreneurs and their contexts, providing a nuanced understanding of localized strategies in the Chinese context. The findings add value to the discourse on entrepreneurship by elucidating the strategic and processual acts through which entrepreneurs engage with stakeholders and reshape their environments.

This article investigates the quality of stakeholder engagement (SE) process disclosure in the context of non-financial reporting (NFR) introduced by Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD). SE implies the involvement of the subjects interested in the organization's activity, according to the principle of inclusiveness and the key concepts of the stakeholder theory (ST).

The authors conducted a content analysis on 75 non-financial statements (NFSs) published by companies listed on the Italian Stock Exchange in 2018 and 2021 to evaluate the evolutionary profiles of SE quality through the years.

The average level of SE is not significantly high. The research showed an overall poor quality of disclosure concerning stakeholders' key expectations and issues to be addressed and answered. Furthermore, a certain variability emerged in the quality of the disclosure between the various reports, and no significant improvements in SE quality were noted from 2018 to 2021.

The conclusions provide a replicable method for the analysis of SE quality in NFSs and the development of new standpoints in the ongoing debate on the implications of mandatory legislative frameworks for NFR. Content analyses intrinsically present margins of subjectivity. The sample was limited to a subset of NFS from Italy; hence, the results could be country specific.

This work suggests some possible ways of improvement of SE practices by companies.

Original assessment model based on eight variables identified from the academic literature and the most common international sustainability reporting standards. These variables were stakeholder identification, stakeholder selection process, degree of involvement, SE approach, dialogue channels, SE results, different points of view and integration of the SE process.

This study aims to investigate how stakeholders perceive the company's nonfinancial disclosure after a scandal has occurred. More specifically, the authors examine whether and how sustainability reporting practices in the aftermath of a scandal can influence the perceptions of stakeholders in terms of hypocrisy and legitimacy.

The present research represents a companion paper to another study in this issue that investigates the adaptation of companies' reporting behaviors after a scandal. The results of the initial qualitative study informed the subsequent quantitative study developed in this article. The authors build on the evidence of the main paper and perform a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment to examine how stakeholders perceive the actions of companies that aim to restore their eroded legitimacy through social, environmental and sustainability (SES) reporting.

The results suggest that when companies take responsibility and develop remedial, socially responsible corporate activities are perceived as less hypocritical and more legitimate. Moreover, we show an interaction effect between taking responsibility and developing remedial socially responsible actions on hypocrisy and legitimacy perception.

The present research takes advantage of an experimental design to investigate the effects of the adaptation of SES reporting from the perspective of stakeholders. The study provides insightful theoretical and practical implications for managers regarding how to handle a reputational loss and avoid perceptions of hypocrisy.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the concepts of sustainability, responsibility and ethics focussing on their links and differences, also to understand how companies move respectively in these field; to understand how companies sometimes move away from the basic and deep meaning of these concepts, landing in a merely utilitarian sphere of personal advantage where ethics, instead of being an irreplaceable and essential stronghold, is found to be a fiction or just an instrument.

The methodology used assumes a theoretical critical approach and, based on the vast literature on the items, is based on a conceptual analysis of the themes of sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethics and of the behaviour that companies can adopt in the three contexts. A critical approach to these issues and concepts can effectively help us to understand how companies are responding to external demands and to the challenges of responsibility and sustainability, which are becoming increasingly pressing.

Ethics, sustainability, CSR and social and environmental reporting are distinct constructs with different meanings but linked by important conceptual and operational relationships.

The results of the research are the consequence of the application of a critical approach based on a theoretical analysis of the concepts under study. It would be interesting to support the results achieved with empirical research studies.

This conceptual path helps scholars and companies themselves to understand the difference between the three key concepts analysed. Only by understanding the basic meaning will it be possible to really make one’s own and pursue it in the correct way.

Nowadays, the authors are overwhelmed by these three concepts which are used as synonyms and incorrectly. This leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Knowledge of the characteristics and differences between these concepts and their concrete applications is of great importance.

This study tries to provide a critical discussion of how the three concepts intersect and differentiate, leading to concrete results or results that have nothing to do with their meaning. There are no conceptual papers in the literature that deal with the three concepts and also analyse the implications on the real world.

For change initiatives to succeed, change managers are required to address recipients’ needs. Although strategies to deal with change recipients and their resistance are widely explored, there is a dearth of studies that consider the different salience of change recipients. This paper aims to propose a framework on the effects of participation and coercion as strategies to deal with change recipients and their impact on change derailment.

Conceptual based upon that change recipients are classified into three levels according to their salience in relation to change. Based upon the recipients’ power and legitimacy in relation to change, stakeholder salience theory constitutes a theoretical provision used in this research to categorize the salience of change recipients.

The framework integrates change recipients’ salience levels (i.e. definitive, expectant and latent) and the effects of participation and coercion strategies on change derailment in times of organizational re-creation. The paper develops six hypotheses, which yield insights that advance the understanding of dealing with change recipients in the context of organizational re-creation.

The paper is conceptual and not yet tested empirically. To empirically test the framework, research adopting survey methodology to gather data from organizations that experience a re-creation change as defined in this paper. The unit of analysis for future research is described in this paper and it is how organizational re-creation is defined in this paper.

Stakeholder salience theory is used to develop a framework that combines three classes of change recipients’ salience, as well as the effects of two strategies to deal with them and their resistance (i.e. lack of involvement and coercion) to examine their influence on change derailment. The potential contribution will expand the current literature discussed in this paper about dealing with change recipients’ resistance to change.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a greater understanding of non-profit organization (NPO) management control systems (MCS) and accountability in organizations providing support service for capacity constrained service users. Specifically, the paper examines the role of MCS and accountability in supporting mission realization in NPOs providing services to people with intellectual disabilities and reflects on this in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The research comprised a case study of four NPOs providing services to people with intellectual disabilities in Ireland conducted prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The study probed management's perceptions of stakeholders and examined the manner in which the design and use of MCS and accountability processes supported mission realization.

Service users were regarded as the least powerful stakeholder and consequently the least attended to in terms of MCS and accountability processes. The absence of relational and dialogical accountability with service users is not only central to maintaining this power asymmetry but also poses a threat to mission realization. These deficits can be addressed through the integration and monitoring of internal advocacy activities into MCS and accountability processes, which, on reflection, may also mitigate some of the negative consequences for service users of isolation from external support networks in times of crisis.

This research has opened up an area for enquiry – internal advocacy – heretofore not addressed in the management accounting literature, opening up a novel vein for future research. Such research could further examine the role of internal advocacy, drawing from and adding to the research in other support service domains. A number of objectives and questions might be considered: (1) probing the level of management recognition of the role of direct engagement in advocacy activities in supporting service user agency; (2) identifying with service users and management the nature and attributes of effective advocacy activities and practices; (3) questioning how such advocacy activities and practices might be reflected in MCS; (4) identifying what service user stakeholders regard as effective accountability to them in relation to their needs and objectives; and (5) assessing the impact on service user experience and on NPO mission realization of internal advocacy activities and the monitoring and review thereof through MCS. These suggestions for future research draw attention to aspects of support service delivery that have the potential to be profoundly influential on service outcomes.

A performance management model reflecting the identified need to incorporate internal advocacy mechanisms into organizational management control systems is proposed in an effort to increase accountability of NPOs to their core mission stakeholder – service users. This model may be of value to NPO management as they move from a medical-model of care to a rights-based model for service delivery in care settings.

The paper reflects the importance of listening to the voice of vulnerable service users in NPO care settings and proposes a mechanism for embedding internal advocacy in formal management control systems and accountability processes.

In proposing an “agency” supportive relational and dialogical accountability logic for such organizations, underpinned by “internal advocacy”, this research provides theoretical and practical insights for accountability processes and the design of MCS. The findings contribute empirically, not just to the NPO management and MCS literature but also to understanding the relational interaction of service users with service organizations, and what this means in supporting service user objectives and realization of organizational mission.

This paper aims to measure and rigorously compare the perceptions of South Korean university social engagement between faculty and students, two definitive stakeholders identified by stakeholder theory – but considerably heterogeneous, to understand how South Korean campus embraces social engagement in practice. To that end, this study delves into the conceptual framework of university social engagement and selects a highly internationalized, research-oriented, four-year comprehensive South Korean university campus that has long sought to become engaged in communities as the research site.

Methodologically, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to identify the factor model that successfully fit the data of the study. Factorial invariance tests and latent mean analysis were then conducted to measure and strictly compare the between-group mean differences.

According to the findings, neither faculty nor students had positive perceptions of their institution’s social engagement in terms of leadership, participatory decision-making, curriculum and instruction, institutional supports and systemic mechanism. That is, two definitive stakeholders on campus similarly perceived that social engagement has not yet been institutionalized as a core value and therefore embraced in practice. Based on these findings, this study discussed several implications for university decision makers. Specifically, the institutionalization of and the need for authentic leadership in university social engagement were emphasized as a means to encourage and facilitate the delivery of practical, beneficial services to the public.

As with all studies, there are certain limitations that must be noted. The sample for this study represents the experiences and expectations of faculty and students at only one institution. Therefore, the experiences of individuals at this single university are not necessarily representative of all South Korean universities. In addition, given that the public service missions of South Korean universities emanated from Western thoughts (Duke, 2008; Ward, 2003), social engagement in the present study has been discussed and conceptualized according to the dominant Western scholarship.

As both faculty and students similarly perceived, participatory decision-making and systemic mechanism do not work properly, and therefore, social engagement as an institutional value cannot strongly take root on campus. Based on the scale used, this study identified communication and organizational supports as the likely issues that obstruct the institutionalization of social engagement. In relation to communication, Boyte and Hollander (1999) emphasize that it is important that stakeholders are well aware of the engaged effort of the institution. Then, the voices of stakeholders need to be acknowledged as valuable feedback so that university decision makers and stakeholders can discuss mutually important issues and concerns (Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003). Furthermore, the relevant literature consistently contends that engaged effort can only be productive with continuous and systemic organizational supports (Boyte and Hollander, 1999; Holland, 1997; Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003; Weerts and Sandmann, 2008). That is, the engaged work of teaching, research and service should be thoroughly assessed and reported to stakeholders on a regular basis. The implication in this study is that university decision makers should make greater effort to design and implement policies and regulations that enable organizational supports to continue.

For social engagement to be valued in practice, the relevant literature (Kellogg Commission, 1999; Garlick and Langworthy, 2008; Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003; Peterson, 2009) advises that top institutional leaders need to encourage interdisciplinary scholarship that includes research, teaching and learning; develop incentives to encourage faculty involvement in engaged work; support engagement so that it is incorporated into the curriculum and instruction; and secure funding for engagement. The fundamental insight that these suggestions provide to university decision makers is crystal-clear: social engagement must be authentically prioritized in the decision-making process.

The quantitative and descriptive findings of the study seek to provide one further step toward the objective of establishing the groundwork for future research on university social engagement in Asian context. Further, replication studies with various Asian cases and research designs may results in tangible improvements to the theorization of Asian university social engagement.