Search results

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Following the traditions of stakeholder salience theory, this paper aims to contend that some institutional investor activists and tactics have more power, legitimacy and urgency than others.

The author undertakes an empirical test of a saliency table looking at the effects of institutional investor heterogeneity on portfolio firm responses using ordinal logistic regression.

This study found heterogeneity for institutional investor type to drive firm responses but not tactic type raising the importance of the attributes of each type of investor activist. The author found a rank ordering of public pension plans, hedge funds and then private multiemployer funds in saliency to portfolio firms. In addition, the use of proxy-based tactics did not help or hurt each investor type. Both findings challenge prior empirical work.

The rank ordering based upon the heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their tactical interactions are tested providing empirical evidence of the most influential activist investors and tactics in one study, which is rare in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to develop a framework for categorizing and evaluating stakeholders that addresses the key five constraints of The Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience (TSIS), including (1) binary attributes, (2) heterogeneous stakeholders in each category, (3) ignoring stakeholder-organization relationship, (4) ignoring stakeholders' communication frequency and (5) ignoring fringe stakeholders.

In the first step, a set of solutions for the limitations and constraints of TSIS was extracted by holding three rounds of the Delphi method with the participation of 42 senior and middle Iranian managers in various organizations and based on it, “Basic Analysis for Stakeholder Evaluation and Classification” (BASEClass) was developed as an enhanced theoretical and empirical framework for stakeholder analysis. In the second Step BASEClass is validated by conducting an empirical study in an organization with the participation of 46 managers, experts and specialists.

BASEClass is an enhanced theoretical and methodological framework for classifying stakeholders based on the three primary attributes of legitimacy, power and urgency, and also the communication quantity as a complementary attribute in a 3D cubical schema, prioritizing stakeholders in several cubes based on one of the multi-criteria group decision-making methods.

BASEClass effectively reduces the mentioned limitations and constraints of TSIS and as a result can improve the effectiveness of strategies for dealing with different stakeholders.

This study aims to investigate the influence of collaborative stakeholder relationships (buyers, media, government and top management) on apparel suppliers’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Bangladesh.

“Face to face” and “drop off and collect” survey administration techniques were used to collect a total of 371 questionnaires from middle-level managerial executives of apparel suppliers in Bangladesh. The data were analysed using partial least square structural equation modelling combined with resampling and bootstrapping techniques.

The findings suggest that buyers, the media and top management have a direct and significant influence on the stakeholder network and, in turn, positively impact the CSR of apparel suppliers in Bangladesh. The media and buyer firms work together to provide a combined and salient influence on the top management of supplier firms in Bangladesh to shape CSR practices.

The extent of stakeholder influence varies according to the strength of the network and the mediation within interconnected relationships. Suppliers’ top management could use the study’s findings to improve CSR by focussing on the strongest path of interconnected stakeholders. The Bangladesh Government could take policy initiatives to address CSR-related concerns raised by interconnected stakeholders.

This study contributes to stakeholder and CSR literature by providing valuable insights into the empirical justification of interactive stakeholder influences on suppliers’ CSR.