Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers

Article

Abstract

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 Review22, 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.

Keywords

case study interview data relationship stakeholder stakeholder management stakeholder theory 

List of Abbreviations

AIF

Agence Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie [Intergovernmental Francophonie Agency]

CIJF

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

COJF

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

CONFEJES

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]

COO

Chief Operating Officer

PAGS

Pan American Host Society

PASO

Pan American Sports Organization

President-CEO

President and Chief Executive Officer

Vteam

Venue Team

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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: 507–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken L., West S. G. 1991 Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. 2000 Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, J. R.: 2003, ‹Turin Sees its Olympic Moment As Investment in Future’, The Salt Lake City Tribune (Retrieved December 11, 2003, http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03102003/utah/36867.asp)Google Scholar
  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, 207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‹The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34(4), 30–48Google Scholar
  7. Carroll A. B. 1996 Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd Edition. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995 A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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)Google Scholar
  10. Coombs W. T. 1998 The Internet as Potential Equalizer: New Leverage for Confronting Social Irresponsibility. Public Relations Review 24, 289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson T., Preston L. 1995 The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driscoll C., Crombie A. 2001 Stakeholder Legitimacy Management and the Qualified Good Neighbor: The case of Nova Nada and JDI. Business & Society 40, 442–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt K. M. 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elias A. A., Cavana R. Y., Jackson L.S. 2002 Stakeholder Analysis for R&D Project Management. R&D Management 32, 301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzioni A. 1964 Modern Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  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, 236–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 848–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 243–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hosseini J., Brenner S. N. 1992 The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology to Generate Value Matrix Weights. Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeurissen R. 2004 Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 53, 87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang R. H. J., Bansal P. 2003 Seeing the Need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies 40, 1047–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDaniel J. E., Miskel C. G. 2002 Stakeholder Salience: Business and Educational Policy. Teachers College Record 104, 325–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  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, 189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, 853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan L. V., Schneider M. 2003 Institutional Investor Power and Heterogeneity: Implications for Agency and Stakeholder Theories. Business & Society 42, 398–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott W. R. 1995 Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Suchman M. C. 1995 Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Torino 2006: 2006, February 27, Results, Numbers and Oddities (Retrieved August 1, 2007). (http://www. torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/news/news_ 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, 43–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winn M. I., Keller L. R. 2001 A Modeling Methodology for Multiobjective Multistakeholder Decisions – Implications for Research. Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xerox: 1999, Xerox Documents Pan Am Games Results Faster Than Ever Before (Retrieved April 8, 2003, http://media.xerox.ca /news/default.asp?aID=142)Google Scholar
  37. Yin R. K. 2003 Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations