Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making

  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the stakeholder theory was proposed to explain the interaction among its agents, extensive approaches have been developed. However, the literature continues to suggest the development of new methodologies that allow an analysis of the dynamics and uncertainty of the relationships between each agent. In this sense, this research proposes a novel methodology for the treatment of subjective stakeholder dynamics using fuzzy decision-making. The study proposes a mathematical methodological perspective for the treatment of subjective relationships among stakeholders, which allows a predictive simulation tool to be developed for attitude and personal preferences to analyze the links among all stakeholders. A mathematical application is developed to help the decision-making process in uncertainty concerning the ordering-according-to-their-importance and linking-of-relation algorithms, which are based on notions of relation, gathering and ordering. A numerical example is proposed to understand the method’s usefulness and feasibility. The results approximate how stakeholder ambiguity and fuzziness can be managed considering the decision-maker’s preference subjectivity. In addition, these results highlight the different relationships among each stakeholder, their intensity levels, the incidence linkage loops and the incidence relative on stakeholder behaviors. The main implication of this proposition is to deal with the subjective preferences provide by decision-maker to better interpret environmental and subjective factors. Furthermore, this study contributes to the strategic planning and decision-making processes for operative units within uncertain environment in the short term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Intense and linked relations are defined as characteristics and properties of each relationship type. Intensity considers that a connector agent is in the relationship, which allows an analysis of the convergence of the limit, periodicity and non-standardized situations that are reflected in aspects such as time, space and possible connections. Thus, relationships’ behavior can be observed as time passes or a sequence happens, which can strengthen or weaken existing relationships or create new relationships. Linked considers the graphical representations of the relationships in which the direct or indirect connections are shown, i.e., the linked relationships among the different objects belonging to the graph are established. Thus, variations can be analyzed in the relations’ intensities, levels or strengths to observe the behavior and the links’ strengthening or degradation establishing the relationships in a period of time or in a sequence of stages.

References

  • Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17:B-141–B-164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F (2015) Técnicas para la toma de decisiones en contextos inciertos: identificación de oportunidades socio- económicas en el ámbito deportivo. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Gil-Lafuente AM (2014) Characterization and grouping of the Colombia regions for development of clusters: An application of the Pichat algorithm. J Comput Optim Econ Financ 5:187–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Gil-Lafuente AM (2017) Towards a competitiveness in the economic activity in Colombia: using Moore’s families and Galois latticies in clustering. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 51:231–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Gil-Lafuente AM, Merigó JM (2015) New aggregation methods for decision-making in the selection of business opportunities. In: Gil-Aluja J, Terceño-Gomez A, Ferrer-Comalat JC et al (eds) Scientific methods for the treatment of uncertainty in social science. Springer International Publishing, Girona, pp 3–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Merigó JM, Gil-Lafuente AM (2017) Fuzzy decision making: a bibliometric-based review. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 32:2033–2050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Gil-Lafuente AM, Merigó JM (2018a) New aggregation operators for decision-making under uncertainty: an applications in selection of entrepreneurial opportunities. Technol Econ Dev Econ 24:335–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Mesa F, Gil-Lafuente AM, Merigó JM (2018b) Dynamics of stakeholder relations with multi-person aggregation. Kybernetes 47:1801–1820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourne L, Walker DHT (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manag Decis 43:649–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson C, Fullér R (1996) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: recent developments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20:65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias AA (2012) A system dynamics model for stakeholder analysis in environmental conflicts. J Environ Plan Manag 55:387–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin Y (2007) Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. J Bus Ethics 80:879–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin Y (2009) The stakeholder model refined. J Bus Ethics 84:113–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin Y (2010) A dynamic perspective in Freeman’s stakeholder model. J Bus Ethics 96:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn JA, Bartolini F, Bourke D et al (2009) Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts’ judgements and multicriteria analysis. J Environ Plan Manag 52:717–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (2004) The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik 5:228–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (2011) Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation. J Bus Ethics 96:7–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman AL, Miles S (2002) Developing stakeholder theory. J Manag Stud 39:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman J (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manag Rev 24:191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Aluja J (1996) Towards a new paradigm of investment selection in uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets Syst 84:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Aluja J (1999) Elements for a theory of decision in uncertainty. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Aluja J (2000) Lances y desventuras del nuevo paradigma de la teoría de la decisión. Proceedings del III Congreso SIGEF. SIGEF, Buenos Aires, pp 11–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente J (1997) Marketing para el nuevo milenio: Nuevas técnicas para la gestión comercial en la incertidumbre. Ediciones Pirámide, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente J (2002) Keys for success in sport management. Ed. Malladoiro, Vigo

  • Gil-Lafuente J (2008) Automatismos y racionalidad en la toma de decisiones para sustituir a un deportista en momentos decisivos. Cuad gestión 8:39–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente AM, Barcellos de Paula L (2010) Una aplicación de la metodología de los efectos olvidados: Los factores que contribuyen al crecimiento sostenible de la empresa. Cuad del CIMBAGE 12:23–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente AM, Barcellos de Paula L (2013) Algorithm applied in the identification of stakeholders. Kybernetes 42:674–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente AM, Luis Bassa C (2011) The forgotten effects model in a CRM strategy. Fuzzy Econ Rev 16:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Lafuente AM, Klimova A, Imanov K (2012a) Forgotten effects in the comparative economic analysis for Spain and Russia in conditions of globalization. In 2012 IV international conference “problems of cybernetics and informatics” (PCI). IEEE, Baku, pp 1–4

  • Gil-Lafuente AM, Blanco-Mesa F, Castillo C (2012b) The forgotten effects of sport. In: Gil-Lafuente AM, Gil-Lafuente J, Merigó-Lindahl JM (eds) Soft computing in management and business economics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 375–391

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • He X, Wu Y, Yu D, Merigó JM (2017) Exploring the ordered weighted averaging operator knowledge domain: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Intell Syst 32:1151–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjortsø CN, Christensen SM, Tarp P (2005) Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for natural resource management using cognitive mapping: the case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise, Vietnam. Agric Human Values 22:149–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holz L, Kuczera G, Kalma J (2006) Multiple criteria decision making: facilitating a learning environment. J Environ Plan Manag 49:455–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer B (2007) Turning stakeseekers into stakeholders: a political coalition perspective on the politics of stakeholder influence. Bus Soc 47:50–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J (1986) Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18:105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J (1988) Modelos para la investigación de los efectos olvidados. Milladoiro, Vigo

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J (1991) Nuevas técnicas para la dirección estratégica. Publicacions Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J (1992) Técnicas de gestión de empresa: previsiones, decisiones y estrategias. Ediciones Pirámide

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J (1993) Técnicas especiales para la gestión de expertos. Villadoiro, Vigo

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J (1995) Grafos Neuronales para la Economía y la Gestión de Empresas. Ediciones Pirámide, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gil-Aluja J, Gil-Lafuente AM (1994) La creatividad en la gestión de las empresas. Ediciones Pirámide, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochenderfer MJ (2015) Decision making under uncertainty: theory and application. MIT Lincoln Laboratory Series, Cambrige

    Google Scholar 

  • Laengle S, Loyola G, Merigo JM (2017) Mean-variance portfolio selection with the ordered weighted average. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25:350–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange E, Hehl-Lange S (2005) Combining a participatory planning approach with a virtual landscape model for the siting of wind turbines. J Environ Plan Manag 48:833–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León-Castro E, Avilés-Ochoa E, Merigó JM, Gil-Lafuente AM (2018) Heavy moving averages and their application in econometric forecasting. Cybern Syst 49:26–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Liao HC (2017) A bibliometric analysis of fuzzy decision research during 1970–2015. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19: 1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maqueda Lafuente JF, Gil-Lafuente AM, Guzman-Parra VF, Gil-Lafuente J (2013) Key factors for entrepreneurial success. Manag Decis 51:1932–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martorell-Cunill O, Gil-Lafuente AM, Socias Salvà A, Mulet Forteza C (2013) The growth strategies in the hospitality industry from the perspective of the forgotten effects. Comput Math Organ Theory 20:195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon PA, Wilson GA (2007) Contesting governance of indigenous forests in New Zealand: the case of the West Coast Forest Accord. J Environ Plan Manag 50:745–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merigó JM (2010) Fuzzy decision making using immediate probabilities. Comput Indus Engi 58:651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merigó JM, Gil-Lafuente AM (2009) The induced generalized OWA operator. Inf Sci (Ny) 179:729–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merigó JM, Casanovas M, Martínez L (2010) Linguistic aggregation operators for linguistic decision making based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. Inter J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst 18:287–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merigó JM, Gil-Lafuente AM, Yager RR (2015) An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Appl Soft Comput 27:420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholders identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolás C, Gil-Lafuente J (2012) Customer experience assessment: forgotten effects. J Comput Optim Econ Financ 4:77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Post JE, Preston LE, Sachs S (2002) Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. Calif Manage Rev 45:6–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez R (1999) Stakeholder analysis and conflict management. In: Buckles D (ed) Cultivating peace: conflict and collaboration in. World Bank Institute, Whasintong, pp 101–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22:887–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TI, Moldoveanu M (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest and identity: based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad Manag Rev 28:204–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) Analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar-Garza R (2012) The mexican peso: exchange risk coverage management through the forgotten effects theory. J Econ Financ Adm Sci 17:53–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarelli M, Tani M (2013) Network approach and stakeholder management. Bus Syst Rev 2:175–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Stave KA (2002) Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. Syst Dyn Rev 18:139–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12:117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng GH, Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan 15:338–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vizuete Luciano E, Gil-Lafuente AM, García González A, Boria-Reverte S (2013) Forgotten effects of corporate social and environmental responsibility. Kybernetes 42:736–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S (2011) We are all stakeholders of Gaia: a normative perspective on stakeholder thinking. Organ Environ 24:192–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner E, Alves H, Raposo M (2011) Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve. Manag Decis 49:226–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D (2011) The role of dynamics in stakeholder thinking. J Bus Ethics 96:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn MI (2001) Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Bus Soc 40:133–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink M, Breukers S (2010) Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. an international study of stakeholder perspectives. J Environ Plan Manag 53:535–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2015) Uncertain multi-attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision-making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1993) Families of OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 59:125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu D, Li DF, Merigó JM, Fang L (2016) Mapping development of linguistic decision making studies. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30:2727–2736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975a) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning I. Inf Sci (Ny) 8:199–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975b) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning II. Inf Sci (Ny) 8:301–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975c) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning III. Inf Sci (Ny) 9:43–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1999) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 100:9–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ (1978) Results of empirical studies in fuzzy set theory. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ (1986) Fuzzy sets, decision making and expert systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ, Zadeh L, Gaines B (1984) Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments that have improved the paper’s quality.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Av. Central del Norte 39-115, Tunja, 150001, Boyacá, Colombia

    Fabio Blanco-Mesa

  2. University of Barcelona, Av. Diagonal, 690, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Anna M. Gil-Lafuente

  3. Department of Management Control and Information Systems, School of Economics and Business, University of Chile, Av. Diagonal Paraguay 257, 8330015, Santiago, Chile

    José M. Merigó

  4. School of Information, Systems & Modelling, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    José M. Merigó

Authors
  1. Fabio Blanco-Mesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna M. Gil-Lafuente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José M. Merigó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Blanco-Mesa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blanco-Mesa, F., Gil-Lafuente, A.M. & Merigó, J.M. Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making. Comput Math Organ Theory 24, 441–472 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-018-09284-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-018-09284-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation