Abstract
The aim of this article is to develop a new classification of stakeholders based on the concept of corporate and social engagement. Engagement is analyzed as an organizational learning process between the managers of an organization and its stakeholders. It is a necessary condition to improve the organization’s impact on its economic, social, and natural environment. Applied to the membership of a French mutual bank in order to identify the members’ varying levels of engagement, this new mapping technique may help managers to adapt their practices to the degree of engagement of each identified group of members, and to modify their financial products and communications to foster engagement among as many of these groups as possible.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cf. Study “60 million members in co-operative banks: What does it mean?” carried out in 2006 by the European Association of Cooperative Banks.
Membership rates of different organisations (online). 2006. Available on the INSEE website: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATSOS05512%C2 (found November 10, 2009).
References
Berthoin Antal, A., & Sobczak, A. (2004). Beyond CSR: Organizational learning for global responsibility. Journal of General Management, 30(2), 77–98.
Bevan, D., & Werhane, P. H. (2011). Stakeholder theory. In M. Painter-Morland & R. Ten Bos (Eds.), Business ethics and continental philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhagat, S., Black, B., & Blair, M. (2004). Relational investing and firm performance. Journal of Financial Research, 27(1), 1–30.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31, 2–3.
Bozonnet, J.-P. (2008). Socialisation et engagement écologiste en Europe. L’école, la famille et l’environnementalisme en héritage. Congrès de l’AISLF, Istanbul, 11 juillet.
Caroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society. Cincinnati: South Western Publishing.
Chiffet, J.-P. (2006). Que signifie avoir 60 millions de sociétaires ?. Communication at the Convention of European Cooperative banks (Convention des banques coopératives européennes), 28 March.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 85–91.
Fasterling, B. (2008). A propos de l’actionnariat “détaché”. Ethique et Economique, 5(2), 1–10.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.
Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1987). Managing stakeholder relationships. In S. P. Sethi & C. M. Falbe (Eds.), Business and society: Dimensions of conflict and cooperation (pp. 397–423). Lexington: Heath.
Freeman, R. E., & Mc Vea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In M. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 189–207). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–60.
Hawley, J., & Williams, A. (2007). Universal owners: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 415–420.
Lemoine, J.-F., & Onnée, S. (2001). Vers une meilleure compréhension du statut d’actionnaire individuel-client. Gestion, 2000(4), 127–138.
Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2009). Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder activists and corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 353–365.
Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343.
MacLeod, M. R. (2009). Emerging investor networks and the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizen, 34, 69–96.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.
Richez-Battesti, N. (2006). Gouvernance coopérative et reconquête du sociétariat: une aventure inachevée ? Le cas des banques coopératives en France. In Communication at the XXIInd international conference on cooperative research.
Scholes, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (1998). Communication with stakeholders: An integrated approach. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 227–238.
Sibieude, T., & Vidal, R. (2008). Enjeux et perspectives du sociétariat des groupes mutualistes complexes face aux stratégies de développement à l’échelle du groupe: quelques enseignements du cas du Groupe MACIF. Working paper DR 08011, ESSEC Research Centre, Cergy.
Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement. From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizen, 36, 25–40.
Stieb, J. A. (2009). Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 401–414.
Thamotheram, R., & Wildsmith, H. (2007). Increasing long-term market returns: Realising the potential of collective pension fund action. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 438–454.
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups. Organization Science, 13(1), 64–80.
Wood, D. J. (1994). Business and society. New York: Harper Collins.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ariane Berthoin Antal and Julie Bayle-Cordier for their stimulating comments. Remaining errors are, of course, the authors’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Sections 1 and 2 of the Survey
Appendix 1: Sections 1 and 2 of the Survey
Section 1: ‘You as a Member of Society’
Please indicate, by circling a number from 1 to 5, how often you do the following things:
-
① Never ② Rarely ③ Sometimes ④ Often ⑤ Whenever possible
1. | I buy fair-trade products | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2. | I buy organically grown produce | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
3. | I choose seasonal fruit and vegetables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4. | I buy local produce | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
5. | I recycle my rubbish | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
6. | I choose public transport or car-pooling | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
7. | I give to humanitarian, charitable or environmental organizations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
8. | I am an active member of an organization or the public sphere | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
9. | I consider social and environmental factors in my savings and investment choices | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
10. | I keep up to date on sustainable development via the press, the internet and attending meetings | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Section 2: You as a Member of the Banque Populaire Atlantique
Please indicate, by circling a number from 1 to 5, to what extent you agree with the following statements:
-
① Strongly disagree ② Disagree ③ Indifferent ④ Agree ⑤ Stronglyagree
11. | I am very pleased to be a BPA member | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
12. | I enjoy talking about the BPA with my colleagues, friends and family | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
13. | I feel concerned by the BPA’s problems | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
14. | I could just as easily have become a member or shareholder of another bank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
15. | I do not feel like a member of the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
16. | I am not engaged to the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
17. | I am loyal to the BPA because we share the same values | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
18. | I am proud to tell others I am a BPA member | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
19. | I am worried about loss related to my investments with the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
20. | It would be difficult for me to leave the BPA today, even if I wanted to | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
21. | I plan on leaving the BPA as I am not too involved as a member | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
22. | It would be too costly for me to leave the BPA today | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
23. | I am loyal to the BPA because I have invested a lot in this bank (be it economically, emotionally or socially) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
24. | I have never thought of leaving the BPA because I have not had many opportunities | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
25. | I believe I am not under any obligation to remain a member of the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
26. | Even to my disadvantage, I would remain a member of the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
27. | I would feel guilty if I had to leave the BPA | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Girard, C., Sobczak, A. Towards a Model of Corporate and Social Stakeholder Engagement: Analyzing the Relations Between a French Mutual Bank and Its Members. J Bus Ethics 107, 215–225 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1034-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1034-3