A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers

  • 3535 Accesses

  • 158 Citations


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.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.



Agence Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie [Intergovernmental Francophonie Agency]


Comité International des Jeux de la Francophonie [Games of the Francophonie International Committee]


Comité Organisateur des Jeux de la Francophonie [Games of the Francophonie Organizing Committee]


Conférence des Ministres de la Jeunesse et des Sports des pays ayant le français en partage [Conference of Youth and Sport Ministers of Countries Having French as a Common Language]


Chief Operating Officer


Pan American Host Society


Pan American Sports Organization


President and Chief Executive Officer


Venue Team


  1. Agle B. R., Mitchell R. K., Sonnenfeld J. A. 1999 Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal 42: 507–525

  2. Aiken L., West S. G. 1991 Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA

  3. Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. 2000 Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications, London

  4. Brooks, J. R.: 2003, ‹Turin Sees its Olympic Moment As Investment in Future’, The Salt Lake City Tribune (Retrieved December 11, 2003,

  5. Buanes A., Jentoft S., Karlsen G. R., Maurstad A., Soreng S. 2004 In Whose Interest? An Exploratory Analysis of Stakeholders in Norwegian Coastal Zone Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 47, 207–223

  6. Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‹The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34(4), 30–48

  7. Carroll A. B. 1996 Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd Edition. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH

  8. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995 A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 92–117

  9. COJF.: 2001, Manuel D’ÉvÉnement RÉdigÉ Á L’Intention Des DÉlÉgations. [Event Manual Written for the Delegations] (IV Games of La Francophonie Organizing Committee, Ottawa-Hull, Ontario-Quebec)

  10. Coombs W. T. 1998 The Internet as Potential Equalizer: New Leverage for Confronting Social Irresponsibility. Public Relations Review 24, 289–303

  11. Donaldson T., Preston L. 1995 The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91

  12. Driscoll C., Crombie A. 2001 Stakeholder Legitimacy Management and the Qualified Good Neighbor: The case of Nova Nada and JDI. Business & Society 40, 442–471

  13. Driscoll C., Starik M. 2004 The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 49, 55–73

  14. Eisenhardt K. M. 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550

  15. Elias A. A., Cavana R. Y., Jackson L.S. 2002 Stakeholder Analysis for R&D Project Management. R&D Management 32, 301–310

  16. Etzioni A. 1964 Modern Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

  17. Freeman R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA

  18. Friedman M. T., Mason D. S. 2004 A Stakeholder Approach to Understanding Economic Development Decision Making: Public Subsidies for Professional Sport Facilities. Economic Development Quarterly 18, 236–254

  19. Golden B. R. 1992 The Past Is the Past – or Is It? The Use of Retrospective Accounts As Indicators of Past Strategy. Academy of Management Journal 35, 848–860

  20. Harvey B., Schaefer A. 2001 Managing Relationships with Environmental Stakeholders: A Study of U.K. Water and Electricity Utilities. Journal of Business Ethics 30, 243–260

  21. Hosseini J., Brenner S. N. 1992 The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology to Generate Value Matrix Weights. Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 99–119

  22. Howard M., Vidgen R., Powell P. 2003 Overcoming Stakeholder Barriers in the Automotive Industry: Building to Order with Extra-Organizational Systems. Journal of Information Technology 18, 27–43

  23. IJzerman M. J., Reuzel R. P. B., Severens H. L. 2003 Pre-Assessment to Assess the Match Between Cost-Effectiveness Results and Decision Makers’ Information Needs – An Illustration Using Two Cases in Rehabilitation Medicine in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19, 17–27

  24. Jeurissen R. 2004 Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 53, 87–96

  25. Jiang R. H. J., Bansal P. 2003 Seeing the Need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies 40, 1047–106

  26. McDaniel J. E., Miskel C. G. 2002 Stakeholder Salience: Business and Educational Policy. Teachers College Record 104, 325–356

  27. Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

  28. Miller C. C., Cardinal L. B., Glick W. H. 1997 Retrospective Reports in Organizational Research: A Reexamination of Recent Evidence. Academy of Management Journal 40, 189–204

  29. 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, 853–886

  30. Ryan L. V., Schneider M. 2003 Institutional Investor Power and Heterogeneity: Implications for Agency and Stakeholder Theories. Business & Society 42, 398–429

  31. Scott W. R. 1995 Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA

  32. Suchman M. C. 1995 Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610

  33. Torino 2006: 2006, February 27, Results, Numbers and Oddities (Retrieved August 1, 2007). (http://www. ita161367.html)

  34. Welcomer S. A., Cochran P. L., Rands G., Haggerty M. 2003 Constructing a Web: Effects of Power and Social Responsiveness on Firm-Stakeholder Relationships. Business & Society 42, 43–82

  35. Winn M. I., Keller L. R. 2001 A Modeling Methodology for Multiobjective Multistakeholder Decisions – Implications for Research. Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 166–181

  36. Xerox: 1999, Xerox Documents Pan Am Games Results Faster Than Ever Before (Retrieved April 8, 2003, /news/default.asp?aID=142)

  37. Yin R. K. 2003 Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Milena M. Parent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parent, M.M., Deephouse, D.L. A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. J Bus Ethics 75, 1–23 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y

Download citation


  • case study
  • interview data
  • relationship
  • stakeholder
  • stakeholder management
  • stakeholder theory