Search results

Stakeholder assessment is based on attributes possessed by stakeholders, making the process heavily reliant on evaluating attribute weights. The present assessment methods are based on Analytical Hierarchy Process, Analytical Network Process, and pairwise comparisons that heavily rely on decision-makers’ skills and knowledge. An objective evaluation of attribute weight needs to be done to overcome this challenge.

A Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) based approach, through the combined use of Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods has been incorporated to objectively evaluate the weights of the stakeholder attributes and their ranking with a specific focus on construction megaprojects. Five stakeholder attributes and twelve commonly associated stakeholders with megaprojects were considered to achieve this.

The new model presented power, durability and legitimacy as three important stakeholder attributes, further used to determine stakeholder importance. The client, contractor and project manager were identified as the top three internal stakeholders, and customers, local community and utility service providers as three crucial external stakeholders.

The findings from the proposed method provide the practitioners with updated information about the attributes they need to look into when planning stakeholder involvement and management. Further, it also leads them to the established framework for the provided stakeholder ranking when planning their management strategies.

The use of CRITIC method allowed to address the possibility of any correlation between the attributes in their weight determination. This was one of the advantages as co-relation between the attributes during their weight determination has not been addressed in previous methods.

This study investigates the relationship between managers' risk perception and the adoption of sustainable water consumption strategies and analyzes the moderating effect of stakeholders' salience attributes on this relationship.

A conceptual framework that builds on the stakeholder theory was developed to illustrate the direct and moderating role of the study variables. The derived hypotheses were tested quantitatively using multiple regression analysis.

Results indicate that managers' risk perception and the three stakeholder salience attributes were significantly associated with sustainable water consumption strategies, and that the legitimacy attribute was a successful moderator between the study variables.

The limited ability to generalize results as the study is centered on the hospitality sector. Although the results were comparable to other studies, it is not possible to claim that the findings represent the views of the majority of managers in different industry sectors.

The research highlights to managers in the hospitality sector, the significant influence of risk perception and stakeholder salience attributes on the adoption of sustainable water consumption strategies.

The research revealed that media, consumers and competitors are powerful, legitimate and urgent stakeholders, respectively. Therefore, the research findings will guide policymakers and nonprofit organizations to support those stakeholders in order to strengthen their power, legitimacy and urgency attributes.

Although it has been claimed that risk perception has the potential to influence sustainable consumption of natural resources, few studies empirically investigated the association of risk perception of a specific environmental threat with responsible consumption. Moreover, even though there is general agreement in the literature that the adoption of sustainable water consumption strategies is shaped by the degree to which stakeholders exercise their salience attributes, studies that empirically examine the influence of these attributes within the hospitality sector are lacking. Therefore, this study fills a gap in the current literature by empirically examining the influence of managers' risk perception and stakeholder's salience attributes on firms' adoption of sustainable consumption strategies.

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.

Stakeholders affect, and are affected by, the decisions taken by companies. They have varied and often conflicting interests, so it is essential for managers to know both who they are, and what are their attributes. This work has the aim of determining the main attributes of stakeholders with regards environmental issues, and how these attributes influence stakeholders’ environmental salience (i.e. the attention and priority accorded to them by managers). In order to do this we surveyed environmental managers from 277 Spanish manufacturing firms for their perceptions of stakeholders’ power, legitimacy, urgency and salience, with regards environmental issues.

The purpose of the study is to investigate differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of local government authorities (LGAs) with regards to the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency of different identified stakeholder groups regarding their claims and needs concerning infrastructure assets. Stakeholder groups are categorised into those at the public level and those at higher-tier government level.

A survey of 420 LGAs throughout Australia was undertaken using an instrument developed from the constructs in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theory of stakeholder identification and salience.

The results first reveal that there are more similarities than differences between the perceptions of the Mayors and CEOs with regard to stakeholder attributes of different stakeholder groups. Second, both Mayors and CEOs view stakeholders in infrastructure decision-making as largely “expectant dependant”. However, there is evidence that some biased priority may be accorded to the “public stakeholder” category over “higher-tier government” category because the CEO’s perception of the power of “public” stakeholders, together with the Mayor’s managerial values, is significantly positively related to their perceptions of the salience of these “public” stakeholders, but not “higher-tier government” stakeholders. However the results of the analysis change in the combined sample of the Mayor and CEO, making both categories of stakeholders as “definitive” in infrastructure decision-making.

The results of this study are subject to the usual limitation of mail surveys, including biases that can arise in respondents’ rating based on their perceptions. The findings have implications for the process of infrastructure decision-making in local governments.

This paper contributes to the literature, providing evidence on how Mayors and CEOs of local governments prioritise the needs, interests and claims of different stakeholders with respect to infrastructure assets.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding of stakeholder attributes and attitudes towards privatisation. It examines the stakeholder attributes through the framework provided by Mitchell et al. (1997). By combining it with the concept of issue salience proposed by Bundy et al. (2013), it addresses the current gap in research on how stakeholders influence the process of privatisation.

This research uses a process research approach to examine the privatisation process in New Zealand’s electricity industry in order to explore contexts, content and process of change. By collecting real-time data during the period of privatisation, utilising a process approach provided the authors a view of the historical path and associated events which lead to identification of stakeholder attributes and attitudes towards privatisation.

The research offers a unique insight into stakeholder attributes exhibited by different groups during privatisation. The authors identified that during privatisation the government is the ultimate stakeholder who sets the rules of the game of privatisation by exhibiting the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency. The attributes exhibited by other stakeholders were transitory and were impacted by issue salience. The authors also identified that stakeholders exhibiting all three attributes (the government) chose a non-response approach to deal with any conflicting issues raised by other stakeholders.

The research examined the new public management emphasis on the privatisation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) vis-à-vis stakeholder groups, utilising the complementary concepts of stakeholder salience and issue salience. This research makes a contribution to stakeholder management theory in the public sector by identifying how various stakeholders influence the process of privatisation of SOEs.

Public sector entities face conflicting demands from stakeholders. The literature suggests identifying and prioritizing stakeholders can improve accountability. Thailand, an emerging economy, and currently under military rule, provides an interesting context to investigate stakeholder tensions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why the Thai Government bureaucrats prioritize their stakeholders.

The study draws on the managerial branch of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory to examine the importance of various stakeholders and of the stakeholders’ salient attributes perceived by the Thai Government bureaucrats in discharging its accountability. The study uses a survey questionnaire mailed out to the central government departments in Thailand.

The study finds that single most important stakeholder is the Office of the Auditor-General. The public is perceived as the second. This is dissimilar to the western-centric accountability focus on the public, and challenges claims by the Thai military coup that it will bring democratic rule. “Legal power” supporting the stakeholders’ claims for government accountability is the most influential attribute in determining stakeholder importance and prioritizing attention for government bureaucrat’s discharge of its accountability.

Such findings increase understanding of the applicability of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory in the context of military rule in emerging economy countries such as Thailand. This paper also provides suggestions of how stakeholders may shape their salience in order to gain priority. This also provides an immediate suggestion for reforms of the Thai regulatory frameworks in prioritizing stakeholders and promoting the government’s greater accountability.

This chapter presents the results of the study, both in graphical and tabular format, based on the AHP for determining stakeholder prominence, along with ANOVA and multiple comparison tests that were outlined in Sections 3.8–3.10. Section 5.2 examines the response rate for the study across each of the three countries. Section 5.3 outlines details of how the data were scored and analysed for the stakeholder prominence questions. It describes how stakeholders were classified into classes based on the results of the data analysis. Section 5.4 provides descriptive sample statistics of the study based on sex, age, birth, culture, education, occupation, and multi-national status. Not all of these demographic variables were used for analysis in the study, only country (source of the data, not birth) and occupation. Section 5.5 analyses results of stakeholder prominence over all three stakeholder attributes (legitimacy, power, and urgency) by the country of origin. These include multivariate tests to indicate the significance of differences between the results for countries overall, and Bonferroni tests for significant differences between individual countries, which were undertaken through the SPSS software package. This was also undertaken for occupation in Section 5.6.

This paper aims to introduce a new integrated strategic framework entitled, “The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum” and elucidates the central and strategic importance of corporate identity apropos corporate communications, corporate image, attributed stakeholder identifications and resultant behaviours. The strategic importance of corporate identity is noted. The continuum incorporates a variety of disciplinary/theoretical perspectives.

The paper/framework is informed by corporate marketing and strategic perspectives; legal theory of the firm; social identity branch theories; and stakeholder theory. The effects and management of corporate identity are seen as a continuum. The framework accommodates Tagiuri’s (1982) scholarship on corporate identity.

This paper formally introduces and explicates “The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum”. Corporate identity management is an on-going strategic senior management/strategic requisite. Notably, the legal theory of company law – routinely overlooked – and its impact on corporate identity management is accepted, acknowledged and accommodated. The importance of stakeholders and stakeholder identification (a derivative of social identity theory) is underscored.

Via the explication of the continuum, managers can comprehend the nature and importance of corporate identity; appreciate that corporate identity adaptation/change is on-going; comprehend its interface/s with corporate communications, stakeholder attributed identities, identifications and the business environment; understand the need for on-going fidelity to an institution’s legally based core purposes and corporate identity traits (juridical identity); cognise the efficacy of constant stakeholder and environmental analysis. Corporate identity sustainability requires corporate identity to be advantageous, beneficial, critical, differentiating and effectual. Stakeholder prioritisation is not solely dependent on power, legitimacy and urgency but on legality, efficacy, ethicality and temporality.

The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on the territory and, moreover, seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate marketing, strategy and company law. Arguably, therefore, the framework is more ambitious than extant framework on the domain. The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on the territory and seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate identity, communications, images, identification, stakeholder theory, company law and, importantly, corporate strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the practice of stakeholder engagement as a social network dynamics for stakeholder satisfaction and project success in the lifecycle of mega transport infrastructure projects (MTIPs).

Hypotheses indicating the positive relationships between stakeholders’ effective attributes, stakeholder engagement as social network dynamics and project success through stakeholders’ satisfaction have been developed. Based on a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews, responses have been gathered from the representative groups and organizations on their social network dynamics for their satisfaction and project success. A hypothesized structural equation model has been tested using AMOS statistical software package.

The analysis highlighted the engagement of the stakeholders within the strategic intents of the project with the public needs and expectations. The model depicts the processes of building social network models based on the capturing of the project’s data in relation to the stakeholders’ communication and satisfaction across the key issues for success in the lifecycle of MTIP.

The model is applicable on most MTIP with a diverse stakeholder base and the underlying complexity associated with the community participation and consultation processes. The model will also support wider stakeholder engagement in the planning of MTIP with optimal operationalization and service delivery from a community perspective.

The research involves an approach for rationalizing the stakeholder engagement policies of the MTIPs by providing an empirically grounded model simultaneously linking various aspects of stakeholder effective attributes, stakeholder engagement and their relationships to stakeholder satisfaction and project success in MTIPs.