A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers

The purpose of this article is to examine stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers using the power, legitimacy, and urgency framework of Mitchell et al. (Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886; 1997). We use a multi-method, comparative case study of two large-scale sporting event organizing committees, with a particular focus on interviews with managers at three hierarchical levels. We support the positive relationship between number of stakeholder attributes and perceived stakeholder salience. Managers’ hierarchical level and role have direct and moderating effects on stakeholder identification and perceived salience. We also found that most stakeholders were definitive, dominant, or dormant types – the other five types were rare. Power has the most important effect on salience, followed by urgency and legitimacy. Based on our case study, we offer several ways to advance the theory of stakeholder identification and salience.     

Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders

While stakeholder theory has traditionally considered organization’s interactions with stakeholders in terms of independent, dyadic relationships, recent scholarship has pointed to the fact that organizations exist within a complex network of intertwining relationships [e.g., Rowley, T. J.: 1997, The Academy of Management Review 22(4), 887–910]. However, further theoretical and empirical development of the interactions between stakeholders has been lacking. In this paper, we develop a framework for understanding and measuring the effects upon the organization of competing, complementary and cooperative stakeholder interactions, which we refer to as stakeholder multiplicity. We draw upon three forms of fit (i.e. fit as matching, fit as moderation, and fit as gestalts; Venkatraman, N.: 1989) to develop a framework for understanding stakeholder multiplicity based upon the direction, strength, and synergies of the interacting claims. Additionally, we draw upon the theory of stakeholder identification and salience of Mitchell et al. (1997), which we argue provides a more relevant and significantly more illustrative explanation of the nature and effects of stakeholder interactions upon the organization than the network approach of Rowley (1997). Furthermore, we ground our framework through reference to three stakeholder groups (i.e. governments, customers, and employees) and the stakeholder issue of concern for the natural environment. We propose a hierarchy of the multiplicity strength of influence of these three stakeholder groups. Potential measurement and implications are discussed.     

Enabling Guanxi Management in China: A Hierarchical Stakeholder Model of Effective Guanxi

Guanxi (literally interpersonal connections) is in essence a network of resource coalition-based stakeholders sharing resources for survival, and it plays a key role in achieving business success in China. However, the salience of guanxi stakeholders varies: not all guanxi relationships are necessary, and among the necessary guanxi participants, not all are equally important. A hierarchical stakeholder model of guanxi is developed drawing upon Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder salience theory and Anderson’s (1982) constituency theory. As an application of instrumental stakeholder theory, the model dimensionalizes the notion of stakeholder salience, and distinguishes between and among internal and external guanxi, core, major, and peripheral guanxi, and primary and secondary guanxi stakeholders. Guanxi management principles are developed based on a hierarchy of guanxi priorities and management specializations. The goal of this application of instrumental stakeholder theory is to construct, for Western business firms in China, a means to reliably identify guanxi partners by employing the principles of effective guanxi. These principles are described in the form of testable propositions that advance social scientific research in this area of international business ethics. Chenting Su is Associate Professor of Marketing at City University of Hong Kong. He is also Adjunct Professor at Wuhan University, P.R. China. He previously taught at the University of Victoria, Canada, He writes for Journal of Marketing Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Psychology & Marketing, International Journal of Market Research, Service Marketing Quarterly, Research in Marketing, and others. He presently serves as Executive Director of China Marketing Association, P.R. China. Ronald K. Mitchell is Professor of Entrepreneurship and J. A. Bagley Regents Chair in Management in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University. He publishes in the areas of new value creation and stakeholder theory. From 1999–2002 he held a joint appointment in strategy and public policy in the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, Beijing, PRC. He has won numerous awards for research and program building; presently serves in the leadership of the AOM Entrepreneurship Division; and is Co-Editor for the Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice three-volume Special Issue on Entrepreneurial Cognition. Joe Sirgy is Professor of Marketing and Virginia Real Estate Research Fellow at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). He has published extensively in the area of business ethics and quality-of-life (QOL) research in relation to theory, philosophy, measurement, business, and public policy. He co-founded the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) in 1995 and is currently serving as its Executive Director. He received the Distinguished Fellow Award from both the Academy of Marketing Science and ISQOLS. In 2003, ISQOLS recognized him as the Distinguished QOL Researcher for research excellence and a record of lifetime achievement in QOL research. He also is the current JMM section editor on QOL issues and a co-editor of Applied Research in Quality of Life.     

The Link Between Responsibility and Legitimacy: The Case of De Beers in Namibia

This article investigates the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and the reasons for which legitimacy is ascribed or denied. It fills a gap in the literature on CSR and legitimacy that lacks empirical studies regarding the question whether CSR contributes to organisational legitimacy. The problem is discussed by referring to the case of De Beers’s diamond mining partnership with the Government of Namibia. A total of 42 interviews were conducted—41 with stakeholders and one with the focal organisation Namdeb. The 41 stakeholder interviews are analysed with regard to cognitive, pragmatic and moral legitimacy as defined by Suchman (Acad Manage Rev 20(3):571–610, 1995). The main finding is that the majority of statements on organisational legitimacy refer to moral legitimacy and most issues raised in this context challenge the company’s legitimacy despite its comprehensive CSR engagement. The study demonstrates that legitimacy gaps can be a result of communication practices that raise unrealistic stakeholder expectations and that the legitimacy gained by CSR engagement in one area cannot substitute legitimacy losses caused by failures in another.     

Who are the Stakeholders Now? An Empirical Examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood Theory of Stakeholder Salience

Two environmental accidents in the mining industry provide the context for this study of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997, The Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886) analysis of stakeholder salience. I examine the reactions of two stakeholder groups: shareholder response is examined in terms of changing share returns and risk; management response through change in disclosure. I find the two decision-makers reacted at different times. Management responded to the first accident, though not the second. Shareholders responded to the second accident alone. My findings support the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (MAW) assertion that stakeholder status is impermanent, and determined through the eyes of the decision-maker.     

Sources of Stakeholder Salience in the Responsible Investment Movement: Why Do Investors Sign the Principles for Responsible Investment?

Since its inception in 2006, the United Nations-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) have grown to over 1300 signatories representing over $45 trillion. This growth is not slowing down. In this paper, we argue that there is a set of attributes which make the PRI salient as a stakeholder and its claim to sign the six PRI important to institutional investors. We use Mitchell et al.’s (Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886, 1997) theoretical framework of stakeholder salience, as extended by Gifford (J Bus Eth 92:79–97, 2010). We use as evidence confidential data from the annual survey of signatories carried out by the PRI in a 5-year period between 2007 and 2011. The findings highlight pragmatic and organizational legitimacy, normative and utilitarian power, and management values as the attributes that contribute most to the salience of the PRI as a stakeholder.     

Trust and Stakeholder Theory: Trustworthiness in the Organisation–Stakeholder Relationship

Trust is a fundamental aspect of the moral treatment of stakeholders within the organization–stakeholder relationship. Stakeholders trust the organization to return benefit or protections from harm commensurate with their contributions or stakes. However, in many situations, the firm holds greater power than the stakeholder and therefore cannot necessarily be trusted to return the aforementioned duty to the stakeholder. Stakeholders must therefore rely on the trustworthiness of the organization to fulfill obligations in accordance to Phillips’ principle of fairness (Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 1997, 51–66), particularly where low-power stakeholders may not be fully consenting (Van Buren III, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(3), 2001, 481–499). The construct of organizational trustworthiness developed herewith is presented as a possible solution to the problem of unfairness in organization–stakeholder relations. While organizational trustworthiness does not create an ethical obligation where none existed before, stakeholders who lack power will likely be treated fairly when organizational trustworthiness is present.     

It may be urgent,but is it important? A look at how employees evaluate their emails

This paper presents the results of a study designed to identify the cues employees use to identify an email as important and/or urgent. Taking an emic perspective, a qualitative research methodology is used to analyze interview responses from knowledge workers. Our findings support the notion that employees use strategies similar to those encapsulated in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) operationalization of stakeholder salience when evaluating an email's importance and/or urgency. Results from this study can be used to design email policies to support knowledge worker performance.     

Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy

This paper focuses attention on the stakeholder attribute of legitimacy. Drawing upon institutional and stakeholder theories, I develop a framework of stakeholder legitimacy based on its three aspects—legitimacy of the stakeholder as an entity, legitimacy of the stakeholder’s claim, and legitimacy of the stakeholder’s behavior. I assume that stakeholder legitimacy is socially constructed by management and that each of its three aspects exists in degree in the manager’s perception. I discuss how these aspects interact and change over time, and propose an agenda for future research on stakeholder legitimacy.     

The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment

This article furthers the argument for a stakeholder theory that integrates into managerial decision-making the relationship between business organizations and the natural environment. The authors review the literature on stakeholder theory and the debate over whom or what should count as a stakeholder. The authors also critique and expand the stakeholder identification and salience model developed by Mitchell and Wood (1997) by reconceptualizing the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency, as well as by developing a fourth stakeholder attribute: proximity. In this way, the authors provide a stronger basis for arguing for the salience of the natural environment as the primary and primordial stakeholder of the firm.     

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Deliberative Reasoning of Canadian and Chinese Accounting Students

Absract  Using Hofstede’s culture theory (1980, 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nation. Sage, NewYork), the current study incorporates the moral development (e.g. Thorne, 2000; Thorne and Magnan, 2000; Thorne et al., 2003) and multidimensional ethics scale (e.g. Cohen et al., 1993; Cohen et al., 1996b; Cohen et al., 2001; Flory et al., 1992) approaches to compare the ethical reasoning and decisions of Canadian and Mainland Chinese final year undergraduate accounting students. The results indicate that Canadian accounting students’ formulation of an intention to act on a particular ethical dilemma (deliberative reasoning) as measured by the moral development approach (Thorne, 2000) was higher than Mainland Chinese accounting students. The current study proposes that the five factors identified by the multidimensional ethics scale (MES), as being relevant to ethical decision making can be placed into␣the three levels of ethical reasoning identified by Kohlberg’s (1958, The Development of Modes of Moral Thinking and Choice in the Years Ten to Sixteen. University of Chicago, Doctoral dissertation) theory of cognitive moral development. Canadian accounting students used post-conventional MES factors (moral equity, contractualism, and utilitarianism) more frequently and made more ethical audit decisions than Chinese accounting students. Lin Ge is an accountant at Guest-tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. Her research interest includes ethics and judgment of accountants and auditors, cross-cultural studies and international business. Stuart Thomas, Ph.D., is associate professor of accounting in the Faculty of Management at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. He has published in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business and Society, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Advances in Management Accounting and the Journal of Accounting Case Research. His research interests focus on ethical decision making and the effects of pay schemes on performance and standard setting.     

Ethical Mindsets: An Australian Study

This article investigates the development of research in the field of CSR in China. The justification for this is that (i) there is evidence that CSR is emerging as a management practice and management field internationally; (ii) there is a general interest in the distinctiveness or comparability of management and management research in Asia and China; (iii) there is evidence that CSR is growing as a management issue in China; and (iv) yet, the mainsprings of this are very different from those in Western business systems. This article adopts a methodology used in wider analysis of CSR in management research (Lockett et al., Journal of Management Studies 43, 2006, 115) to bring forth comparisons over the salience, focus and nature of CSR in China research. It finds a rapidly growing salience of CSR in China research, albeit from a low base. It parallels Lockett et al.’s (2006) finding of a ‘thickening’ of CSR research focus from early concerns with Ethical issues only to greater attention to Social, Environmental and Stakeholder concerns. It also generally parallels Lockett et al.’s (2006) findings on the balance of research methodologies deployed. The significance of the findings for future CSR research in China is considered both for the notion of a CSR field of research and for our understanding of the development of CSR in China.     

Impact of founder experience on exit intentions

Entrepreneurial exit—the process by which the founders of privately held firms leave the firm they helped to create (DeTienne, J Bus Venturing, 2010)—is an important component of the entrepreneurial process, yet researchers know very little about it. We examine entrepreneurs’ intentions to exit by a range of possible exit paths [acquisition, initial public offering (IPO), family succession, employee buyout, independent sale, liquidation], building on Gimeno et al.’s (Adm Sci Q 42:750–783, 1997) notion of thresholds as they apply to a simple survival/exit dichotomy, and expanding this to include different intended paths of exit. Our results indicate that entrepreneurs intend to pursue different exit paths based on previous entrepreneurial experience, industry experience, age, and education level. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that differences between intended exit and failure are underspecified in the literature, since exit consists of many unique paths. Also, in support of threshold theory, we find that the intended exit path is driven by factors other than firm performance.     

Configuration of External Influences: The Combined Effects of Institutions and Stakeholders on Corporate Social Responsibility Strategies

This article introduces a theoretical framework that combines institutional and stakeholder theories to explain how firms choose their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy. Organizational researchers have identified several distinct CSR strategies (e.g., obstructionist, defensive, accommodative, and proactive), but did not explain the sources of divergence. This article argues that the divergence comes from the variability in the configuration of external influences that consists of institutional and stakeholder pressures. While institutions affect firms’ social behavior by shaping the macro-level incentive structure and sources of legitimacy (distal mechanisms), firms’ stakeholders can amplify or buffer the institutional forces by acting as mediators (proximate mechanisms). The two dimensions are interdependent in that stakeholders draw legitimacy and power from institutions, and institutions are often actualized through stakeholder mechanisms. Together, they form a particular configuration of external influences that shapes how focal firms construct their CSR strategy.     

The Ethical Environment of Tax Professionals: Partner and Non-Partner Perceptions and Experiences

This article examines perceptions of tax partners and non-partner tax practitioners regarding their CPA firms’ ethical environment, as well as experiences with ethical dilemmas. Prior research emphasizes the importance of executive leadership in creating an ethical climate (e.g., Weaver et al., Acad Manage Rev 42(1):41–57, 1999; Trevino et al., Hum Relat 56(1):5–37, 2003; Schminke et al., Organ Dyn 36(2):171–186, 2007). Thus, it is important to consider whether firm partners and other employees have congruent perceptions and experiences. Based on the responses of 144 tax practitioners employed at CPA firms, the results show that tax partners rate the ethical environment of their firms as stronger than non-partner tax practitioners, particularly among those who describe a self-identified ethical dilemma. Tax partners also report having encountered more of the common examples of researcher-provided ethical dilemmas than non-partner tax practitioners, although non-partners perceive that certain ethical dilemmas occur at a higher rate than partners do. Overall, this study provides evidence of a disconnect between tax partners and non-partner tax practitioners with respect to perceptions of organizational ethics. Suggestions for potential remedies are offered.     

Social Contracting in a Pluralist Process of Moral Sense Making: A Dialogic Twist on the ISCT

This paper applies Wempe’s (2005, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1), 113–135) boundary conditions that define the external and internal logics for contractarian business ethics theory, as a system of argumentation for evaluating current or prospective institutional arrangements for arriving at the “good life,” based on the principles and practices of social justice. It does so by showing that a more dynamic, process-oriented, and pluralist ‘dialogic twist’ to Donaldson and Dunfee’s (2003, ‘Social Contracts: sic et non’, in P. Heugens, H. van Oosterhout and J. Vromen (eds.), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.) pp. 109–126; 1999, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press); 1995, Economics and Philosophy 11(1), 85–112; 1994, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 252–284.) integrated social contracting theory (ISCT) of economic ethics will further develop this promising and influential approach to moral reasoning, ethical decision-making, and stakeholder governance. This evolutionary, interactive learning-based model of ethical norm generation via dialogic stakeholder engagement is particularly appropriate within economic communities that are experiencing value conflict and pressures for institutional change.Jerry M. Calton is Professor of Management at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. His research interests encompass multi-stakeholder learning dialogue, trust-based network governance, and the social contracting approach to ethical decision-making. His publications have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Society, Business Ethics Quarterly, the Journal of Corporate Citizenship, and elsewhere.     

Moving Forward with the Concept of Responsible Leadership: Three Caveats to Guide Theory and Research

Integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in business is one of the great challenges facing firms today. Societal stakeholders require much more from the firm than pursuing profitability and growth. But these societal stakeholders often simply assume that increased societal expectations can easily be accommodated within efficiently run business operations, without much attention devoted to process issues. We build upon the core–periphery thesis to explore potential avenues for firms to add recurring CSR initiatives to their existing business practices. Based on Siggelkow’s (Admin Sci Quart 47:125–159, 2002) analysis of organizational change, we conceptualize seven major patterns of CSR initiative adoption. We develop a new organizing framework showing how a firm can integrate CSR initiatives in business. Within the new framework, each of the seven patterns represents an idiosyncratic path through which recurring CSR initiatives can be included as practices into conventional operations. We also explore the nature of the resulting internal fit between recurring CSR initiatives and business practices.     

Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Moral and financial scandals emerging in recent years around the world have created the momentum for reconsidering the role of virtuousness in organizational settings. This empirical study seeks to contribute toward maintaining this momentum. We answer to researchers’ suggestions that the exploratory study carried out by Cameron et al. (Am Behav Sci 47(6):766–790, 2004), which related organizational virtuousness (OV) and performance, must be pursued employing their measure of OV in other contexts and in relation to other outcomes (Wright and Goodstein, J Manage 33(6):928–958, 2007). Two hundred and sixteen employees reported their perceptions of OV and their affective well-being (AWB) at work (one of the main indicators of employees’ happiness), their supervisors reporting their organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The main finding is that the perceptions of OV predict some OCB both directly and through the mediating role of AWB. The evidence suggests that OV is worthy of a higher status in the business and organizational psychology literatures.     

Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory,and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures

Although agreement on the positive sign of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance is observed in the literature, the mechanisms that constitute this relationship are not yet well-known. We address this issue by extending management’s stakeholder theory by adding insights from psychology’s prospect decision theory and sociology’s resource dependence theory. Empirically, we analyze an extensive panel dataset, including information on disaggregated measures of social performance for the S&P 500 in the 1997–2002 period. In so doing, we enrich the extant literature by focusing on stakeholder heterogeneity, perceptional framing, and disaggregated measures of corporate social performance.