Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pathways Between Dominance and Goodwill: Changing the Perspective for Successful Stakeholder Integration

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Eurasian Business and Economics Perspectives

Part of the book series: Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics ((EBES,volume 24))

Abstract

With a rising awareness for the stakeholder view, integrating stakeholder issues has become a major challenge for organizations. With our study, we aim to contribute to a line of research on the role of democratic thinking for stakeholder integration. Additionally, our study sheds light on the role of intermediaries and the capabilities needed to shape the relationships with indirect stakeholders. Data from a qualitative study with 24 semi-structured expert interviews from four intermediary groups were analyzed in MAXQDA following the principles for a qualitative content analysis. Six higher-order categories emerge, which serve as a basis for a process model for the management of stakeholder relations. We find that the actors managing stakeholder relations understand the strategic dimension of their roles as intermediaries and appreciate the support through organizational capabilities such as guidelines and structural tools. We identify that besides their personal and professional competences, intermediaries use their procedural competences, such as the suitable application of communication instruments and their access to contacts, to manage stakeholder relationships. Finally, our process model classifies different measures for stakeholder integration and discusses implications for stakeholder theory and practitioners.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abratt, R., & Kelly, P. M. (2002). Customer–supplier partnerships: Perceptions of a successful key account management program. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 467–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balka, K., Raasch, C., & Herstatt, C. (2014). The effect of selective openness on value creation in user innovation communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 392–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, R. (2021). Deliberation without democracy in multi-stakeholder initiatives: A pragmatic way forward. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(3), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2013). One voice, but whose voice? Exploring what drives trade association activity. Business and Society, 52(2), 213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelló, I., & Lopez-Berzosa, D. (2021). Affects in online stakeholder engagement: A dissensus perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(4), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M. L., & Etchanchu, H. (2017). Contextualizing corporate political responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in historical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 641–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driessen, P. H., Kok, R. A., & Hillebrand, B. (2013). Mechanisms for stakeholder integration: Bringing virtual stakeholder dialogue into organizations. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1465–1472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edinger-Schons, L. M., Lengler-Graiff, L., Scheidler, S., Mende, G., & Wieseke, J. (2020). Listen to the voice of the customer—First steps towards stakeholder democracy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(3), 510–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georges, L., & Eggert, A. (2003). Key account managers’ role within the value creation process of collaborative relationships. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 10(4), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, G., Schwill, J., & Sassenberg, A. M. (2022). Managing value co-creation in partnerships for sustainability: Toward a process model for stakeholder integration. In V. Ratten, P. Jones, V. Braga, & E. Parra-Lopez (Eds.), Artisan entrepreneurship (pp. 99–126). Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hamidu, A. A., & Daneji, M. I. (2014). Exploring the roles of stakeholder engagement and stakeholder management in CSR practice. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 4(5), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (2004). Is organizational democracy worth the effort? The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P. H., & Koll, O. (2015). Stakeholder marketing: Theoretical foundations and required capabilities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, B. (2008). Turning stakeseekers into stakeholders: A political coalition perspective on the politics of stakeholder influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, K. A. (2010). Community engagement: Exploring a relational approach to consultation and collaborative practice in Australia. Journal of Promotion Management, 16(1-2), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joos, K. (2016). Convincing political stakeholders: Successful lobbying through process competence in the complex decision-making system of the European Union. John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., Lukas, B. A., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Service-dominant orientation: Measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazadi, K., Lievens, A., & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. L. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirf, B., Eicke, K. N., & Schömburg, S. (2020). Unternehmenskommunikation im Zeitalter der digitalen Transformation. Springer Gabler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business and Society, 61(1), 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A. B., & Devin, B. (2018). Operationalizing stakeholder engagement in CSR: A process approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 236–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2016). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview (Vol. 13). Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M., Millman, T., & Rogers, B. (1997). Key account management: Theory, practice and challenges. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(8), 737–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mena, J. A., & Chabowski, B. R. (2015). The role of organizational learning in stakeholder marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A., Wagner, M., Jakic, A., & Neumann, C. (2016). Stakeholder orientation: Perspectives of corporate management beyond the classic shareholder value approach in the face of more complex framework conditions. In K. Joos (Ed.), Convincing political stakeholders: Successful lobbying through process competence in the complex decision-making system of the European Union (pp. 10–44). John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nili, Y., & Shaner, M. W. (2022). Virtual annual meetings: A path toward shareholder democracy and stakeholder engagement. Boston College Law Review, 63(1), 123–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. (2021). Intermediary. Oxford University Press. [online] Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/intermediary

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, B. L. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations (pp. 1–14). Institute for Public Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, F. (1999). Concepts and design of information intermediaries. In The economics, concept, and design of information intermediaries (pp. 163-207). Physica-Verlag HD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A. M., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, T., & Sachs, S. (2017). The impact of stakeholder identities on value creation in issue-based stakeholder networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2019). What kind of capitalism do we want? Times. [online] Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://time.com/5742066/klaus-schwab-stakeholder-capitalism-davos/

  • Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement: From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerset Webb, M. (2020). Covid has put ‘stakeholder capitalism’ on steroids. Financial Times. [online] Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.ft.com/content/fcb05366-a3fb-4946-a026-5188d841b4a5

  • Strand, R., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian cooperative advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. (2016). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman, J. P., Jr., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants of key account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani, N. (2010). Organizational democracy and organization structure link: Role of strategic leadership and environmental uncertainty. Business Review: Research Journal of The Institute of Business Administration Karachi, 5(2), 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Munich School of Management, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Maximilian Von Geyr

  2. TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Klemens Joos

Authors
  1. Maximilian Von Geyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klemens Joos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximilian Von Geyr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Istanbul Medeniyet University, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin

  2. MUFG Union Bank, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Hakan Danis

  3. Reykjavik University, Reykjavík, Iceland

    Ender Demir

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Von Geyr, M., Joos, K. (2022). Pathways Between Dominance and Goodwill: Changing the Perspective for Successful Stakeholder Integration. In: Bilgin, M.H., Danis, H., Demir, E. (eds) Eurasian Business and Economics Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15531-4_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation