Search results

1 – 10 of over 2000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 23 May 2017

Ronald K. Mitchell, Jae Hwan Lee and Bradley R. Agle

In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of…

Abstract

In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of, identifying, understanding, prioritizing, and engaging stakeholders. Specifically, we focus on stakeholder prioritization work — primarily as represented by the stakeholder salience model — and discuss contributions, shortcomings, and possibilities for this literature. We suggest that future research focus on stakeholder inclusivity, the complexity of prioritization work within intra-corporate markets, the integration of stakeholder prioritization with other forms of stakeholder work, and the development of managerial tools for multiobjective decision making within the strategic management context.

Details

Stakeholder Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-407-1

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 15 June 2015

Oday Kamal, David Brown, Prabhu Sivabalan and Heidi Sundin

– The purpose of this research is to understand how accounting information mobilises stakeholder salience at an industry level.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to understand how accounting information mobilises stakeholder salience at an industry level.

Design/methodology/approach

A case study method using an explanation building approach was applied to gather information surrounding dairy industry stakeholder uses of accounting information to communicate their salience, in the historical context, leading to, and the events surrounding the milk price “war” in Australia. The Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder salience framework was used to advance our understanding of the different ways accounting can be mobilized by stakeholders with different types of salience attributes, at an industry level.

Findings

This empirical analysis produces two insights into the relation between accounting and stakeholder salience. First, there is evidence as to how accounting information impacted on stakeholder salience at an industry level by demonstrating how accounting information (in)directly communicated and justified the increase of a stakeholder’s level of salience. Second, the Mitchell et al. (1997) model is extended by attributing levels of importance to each stakeholder attribute. It was found that, in this setting, power was the most salient attribute of the three, usurping legitimacy and urgency, leading to the outcomes observed.

Research limitations/implications

This paper acknowledged the usual method limitations related to this style of qualitative research, including investigator bias and lack of statistical generalization. In addition, a second set of limitations critiques the paper’s operating framework. While the Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder salience model proved to be a suitable choice for this research, it is limited in the way in which stakeholder attributes are presented and used to identify stakeholders. In addition, further light may be provided on the distinctions between the different magnitudes of power, legitimacy and urgency between stakeholders after suggesting that they are not equally weighted.

Practical implications

The milk price “war” remains a high-profile discussion amongst the general public. This research contributes to a better understanding of how different players (stakeholders) have their salience claims mobilized through accounting information. Practitioners in the dairy industry might reflect on the findings to enhance their legitimacy pursuits in future negotiations with their counter-parties, and better deploy accounting to achieve the same.

Social implications

The findings speak more broadly to notions of social equity in stakeholder relations, for the production and distribution of a product that is ubiquitously used in society (dairy – milk). The findings from this study therefore have potential to assist policymakers better understand the strategies adopted by stakeholders to impose their influence and defend their claims in a public forum, using accounting information.

Originality/value

The authors contend that the article provides evidence at an industry level, that is lacking in extant management accounting research (Collier, 2000). To this extent, an original contribution is claimed. The paper is also valuable to management accounting and management researchers studying stakeholder salience, and is one of the first to investigate this issue at an industry level, as well as express how accounting mobilises this salience.

Details

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, vol. 12 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1176-6093

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 17 February 2020

Bruce H. Bader, M. Affan Badar, Suhansa Rodchua and Alister McLeod

This research brings together two streams of thought applied to decision-making: lean thinking and stakeholder theory. Both have been identified as ways to improve…

Abstract

Purpose

This research brings together two streams of thought applied to decision-making: lean thinking and stakeholder theory. Both have been identified as ways to improve organizational value. Previous studies disagree regarding whether they can work together. This study investigates if managers balance stakeholders and lean thinking in decision-making.

Design/methodology/approach

This research investigates if both lean thinking and stakeholder salience share common literature by using data mining. It surveys organizations that perceive themselves as lean and have multiple diverse stakeholders to determine whether waste and salience are considered when making decisions. An ANOVA is done to see if organization type, management level, organization size, geographic location, or lean maturity has an effect on the priority of stakeholder salience or lean thinking's waste variants when making decisions.

Findings

Findings of this research are: 1) stakeholders salience criteria are considered more often than lean thinking's waste variants in decision-making by managers as a whole and in particular by middle-level managers and senior managers. However, lean thinking's waste variants are considered as often as stakeholder salience criteria by first-line managers. 2) The ranking of stakeholder salience in making decisions is not affected by organization type, respondent position, organization size, perceived lean experience, or geographic location. The organization type, organization size, lean experience, and location do not affect the ranking of lean thinking variants either. But the ranking of lean thinking's waste variants is significantly different for first-line, middle-level, and senior managers. Middle-level managers rank lean thinking higher than that of either first-line or senior-level. Because of this, middle managers have a more balanced approach in using lean thinking and stakeholder salience than other managers. 3) Stakeholder salience criteria have a significantly higher ranking than lean thinking variants in making decisions for all organization types: manufacturing and nonmanufacturing.

Originality/Value

This research demonstrates a significant disconnect exists between lean thinking and demands of stakeholders that impacts the value of an organization, and only middle-level managers bring balance and awareness of both streams of thought. An empirical instrument has been developed to balance the stakeholder salience criteria with the lean thinking variants.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 10 July 2017

Shahzad Khurram and Florent Pestre

Although Mitchell et al. (1997) recognize salience attributes as variables, the salience framework based on a dichotomous representation of salience attributes does not…

Abstract

Purpose

Although Mitchell et al. (1997) recognize salience attributes as variables, the salience framework based on a dichotomous representation of salience attributes does not explain why, in some instances, a latent stakeholder is assigned more salience than a definitive stakeholder. This paper explains this riddle by bringing the debate to the organizational population level and suggests a new perspective for understanding the process of stakeholder identification and prioritization.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors compare two organizational populations, i.e. “for-profit and not-for-profit” which are distinguishable from one another based on the dominant institutional logic that each endorses. The authors, therefore, mobilize the institutional theory and bring the debate of the stakeholder salience to the organizational population level.

Findings

The authors propose that members of an organizational population endorsing similar institutional logic develop salience attributes of similar potential values, which are radically different from those of the members of other organizational populations; these potential values act as precursors that determine the perceived values of salience attributes for a manager; and dominant and recessive salience attributes work, at the organizational population level, to determine stakeholder prioritization.

Originality/value

The original model of Mitchell et al. (1997) has been cited more than 9,000 times, but the process of stakeholder evaluation remains a black box (Bundy et al., 2013; Tashman and Raelin, 2013). This paper contributes to the debate and suggests a change in the level of analysis (to the organizational population) and a focus on the institutional logic perspective.

Details

Society and Business Review, vol. 12 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-5680

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 18 May 2020

Desmond Ng, Harvey S. James Jr and Peter G. Klein

As the prioritization of family goals depends on the resolution of family conflict, this study's purpose is to explain how a dominant coalition (DC) of parental family…

Abstract

Purpose

As the prioritization of family goals depends on the resolution of family conflict, this study's purpose is to explain how a dominant coalition (DC) of parental family members prioritizes their family economic and non-economic goals when faced with different types of family conflict.

Design/methodology/approach

A conceptual framework is developed drawing on a socio-cognitive approach to explain a family's goal formation process. This socio-cognitive approach extends the stakeholder salience underpinnings of family influence/essence theory. It shows that family conflict arises from the complex and novel social settings of a family business and that a DC prioritizes their family's goals by drawing on heuristic biases to resolve such family conflict.

Findings

A key finding of this study is the introduction of a distinct type of agency to family influence/essence research. Unlike the salient explanations, a family's goal formulation process is attributed to a DC's heuristic response in resolving their family business conflict.

Originality/value

Scholars have called for a greater need to investigate the social and cognitive underpinnings of a family's goal formation process. While the social settings of a family business are often explained in terms of family conflict, an understanding of the sources of such conflict and their resolution have received limited attention. This study opens new avenues to understanding the sources of such family conflict and the cognitive mechanisms needed to overcome them. This understanding is critical not only to the prioritization of a family's goals but also to the idea that “influence” defines the essence of a family business.

Details

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, vol. 27 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1462-6004

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 18 May 2020

Ashish Goel, L.S. Ganesh and Arshinder Kaur

Past research recommends integration of social sustainability (SS) considerations in construction project feasibility study for benefitting a larger group of project…

Abstract

Purpose

Past research recommends integration of social sustainability (SS) considerations in construction project feasibility study for benefitting a larger group of project stakeholders. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to this effect, especially from the developing economies. The purpose of this study is to address this knowledge gap through a SS-centric analysis of feasibility study reports using a stakeholder salience perspective.

Design/methodology/approach

Feasibility study reports for 61 projects were obtained from various government organizations in India. The SS considerations were identified in the reports using a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments. The former was based on content analysis and the latter was conducted using “VOSviewer” text analysis software.

Findings

SS considerations related to occupational health and safety, workers' employment practices and proactive involvement of communities and end-users were found to be inadequately addressed in the reports. Based on occurrences of the SS considerations, project-affected community was found to be the most salient stakeholder, followed by the end-users and the construction workers. Statistical analysis revealed significant relationship between the SS considerations and the type of project as well as the type of project delivery system.

Originality/value

This study contributes to better understanding of integrating SS considerations in feasibility study of construction projects. Its results provide useful inputs to decision-makers for orienting construction projects, right from the early phases, towards benefitting the disadvantaged and weaker stakeholders irrespective of their salience attributes. In developing economies, such interventions may improve quality of lives of a large number of project stakeholders and also cultivate a positive societal image of the construction industry as a respectful, ethical and employee friendly industry.

Details

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 27 no. 7
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0969-9988

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 23 May 2017

Abstract

Details

Stakeholder Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-407-1

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 18 May 2021

Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez, Miguel Cordova, Michel Hermans, Karla Maria Nava-Aguirre, Fabiola Monje-Cueto, Santiago Mingo, Santiago Tobon, Carlos Adrian Rodriguez, Erica Helena Salvaj and Dinorá Eliete Floriani

This study aims to build on embedded approaches to stakeholder management and examines how organizational decision-makers consider social responsibility toward proximal…

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to build on embedded approaches to stakeholder management and examines how organizational decision-makers consider social responsibility toward proximal stakeholders in crises that encompass an entire system of stakeholder relationships.

Design/methodology/approach

Within a criterion-based sample of eight Latin American private universities, this paper develops in-depth exploratory case studies to examine the prioritization of stakeholders in higher education institutions’ decision-making during the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis.

Findings

Contrary to the notion that during crises organizations prioritize stakeholders that provide resources that are critical to survival, this study finds that in contextual crises stakeholder management is informed by social responsibility. In addition, the findings suggest that crises may be tipping points for changes toward mission-driven approaches to governance.

Practical implications

Acknowledging the roles of social responsibility and proximity in stakeholder management during contextual crises allows for more informed governance of organizations that face disruptions in their system of stakeholder relations.

Originality/value

This study contributes unique insights into the decision-maker’s prioritization of stakeholders during the COVID-19 crisis. The uncertainty associated with the emerging “new normal” allowed for an extreme test of socially embedded versus resource-oriented approaches to stakeholder management.

Details

Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1472-0701

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 9 December 2020

Mohamed Adib, Xianzhi Zhang, Mohammad A.A.Zaid and Ahmad Sahyouni

The purpose of this paper is to build a framework that intends to help organizations define, implement and control their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to build a framework that intends to help organizations define, implement and control their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. Based on the stakeholder perspective, this paper proposes a sustainability management control system (SMCS) specifically made for the definition and implementation of CSR strategy, by linking the firm’s material topics to its key stakeholders, thus, allowing our model to be dynamic to different business environments.

Design/methodology/approach

In this paper, the authors constructed their model based on a review of selective relevant studies about CSR and SMCSs. This paper also went through different practical concepts from leading sustainability guidelines and stakeholder’s engagement manuals, discussing the stakeholder identification and prioritization, to re-center the debate to the strategic importance of the stakeholder perspective in defining and implementing CSR strategy, as well as its importance in how organizations can define proxies to assess the performance of their CSR initiatives.

Findings

Adopting the stakeholder theory as a key lens to re-frame, organize and guide the debate over the performance consequences of CSR has the potential to overcome the simplistic and (eventual) misleading conceptions of CSR strategy implementation, thus fostering the move toward more effective and efficient CSR strategies, by developing management control system (MCS) typical for CSR issues.

Social implications

The full process of the model outlined in this paper aims to provide a comprehensive and forward-looking tool for CSR and sustainability strategy implementation and assessment. Our model could help companies to gain an overview and an understanding of the relative importance of the material topics of their business activities that should be addressed and how they are related to the key stakeholders, thus, eventually leading to more equitable and sustainable social development by giving those who have a right to be heard the opportunity to be considered in the sustainability decision-making and strategy processes, in the aim of making valuable contributions to social, economic and environmental spheres.

Originality/value

The paper answers the call for research for developing novel theoretical foundations to design MCSs for CSR implementation. Therefore, the paper suggests an innovative model of SMCS for CSR strategy definition, development and implementation and helping organizations to define and develop key sustainability indicators specific to their business environment. The model also presents an opportunity to rethink and advance the understanding of how managers can prioritize competing stakeholders’ claims, which are constrained by the company’s business activities impacts.

Details

Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, vol. 21 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1472-0701

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 23 May 2017

Abstract

Details

Stakeholder Management
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78714-407-1

1 – 10 of over 2000