Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Dynamism of Stakeholder Engagement

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 1647 Accesses

Abstract

The previous chapters on stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement and communicative planning have shown that stakeholders are important to any decision-making and planning process. This is particularly true for contentious projects where significant problems demand solutions, yet where stakeholders are not satisfied with their options by working alone, and where acceptable solutions are not emerging from traditional decision-making processes (Booher and Innes 2002). These problems often coincide with a complex social, economic and environmental setting. Such contentious projects attract large numbers of stakeholders, each with different backgrounds, perspectives, and objectives (Crocker 2007). This leads to a complex set of stakeholders holding many different positions with respect to the problem itself, and with respect to other stakeholders. A simple polarized dichotomy of for and against does not, as a consequence, exist in these contexts. This complicates the analysis and, subsequently, the classification and categorization of the stakeholders (Ashworth and Skelcher 2005; Achterkamp and Vos 2007; Greenwood 2007). The question thus becomes: how can these stakeholders be differentiated from each other and different attention be given to different stakeholders? In other words, how can the stakeholders be analysed to understand the uniqueness of each stakeholder. By examining the available literature on the topic, three main components that define a stakeholder will be identified: stakeholder salience, stakeholder interests, and stakeholder relations with each other.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The actual techniques used to engage in meaningful dialogue are outside the scope of this book, as the primary focus is on the stakeholder analysis framework

References

  • Abers RN, Keck ME (2006) Muddy waters: the political construction of deliberative River basin governance in Brazil. Int J Urban Reg Res 30(3):601–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agle BR, Mitchell RK, Sonnenfeld JA (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Acad Manag J 42(5):507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agle BR, Donaldson T, Freeman RE, Jensen MC, Mitchell RK, Wood DJ (2008) Dialogue: toward superior stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 18(2):153–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi KM, Crane A (2006) Stakeholder engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13(5):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth R, Skelcher C (2005) Meta-evaluation of the local government modernisation agenda: progress report on stakeholder engagement with local government. ODPM Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry J, Proops J (1999) Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol Econ 28(3):337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs S, Matsaert H (1999) An actor-oriented approach for strengthening research and development capabilities in natural resource systems. Public Adm Dev 19(3):231–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booher DE, Innes JE (2002) Network power in collaborative planning. J Plan Educ Res 21(3):221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x0202100301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET 6 version 6.232: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Natick

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Patton MQ, Bowman R (2011) Working with evaluation stakeholders: a rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Eval Program Plann 34:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron BG, Crawley EF, Loureiro G, Rebentisch ES (2008) Value flow mapping: using networks to inform stakeholder analysis. Acta Astronaut 62(4–5):324–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker JT (2007) Organizational arrangements for the provision of cross-boundary transport infrastructure and services. (Doctor of philosophy). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale AP, Lane MB (1994) Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and political social impact assessment. Soc Nat Resour 7:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruijn H, ten Heuvelhof E (2000) Networks and decision making, 1st edn. Utrecht, Lemma

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruijn H, ten Heuvelhof E (2004) Process arrangements for variety, retention, and selection. Knowl Technol Policy 16(4):91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Haan ARC (2007) Aircraft Technology’s contribution to sustainable development. (Doctor of philosophy). Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lopez TT (2001) Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of ream National Park, Cambodia. Environ Manag 28:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS, Berejikian J (1993) Reconstructive democratic theory. Am Polit Sci Rev 87(1):48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A (1964) Modern organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasper D, Apthorpe R (1996) Introduction: discourse analysis and policy discourse. Eur J Dev Res 8(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia DA (1999) Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):228–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes RC, Gomes L (2008) Who is supposed to be regarded as a stakeholder for public organizations in developing countries? Public Manag Rev 10(2):263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham S, Healey P (1999) Relational concepts of space and place: issues for planning theory and practice. Eur Plan Stud 7(5):623–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood M (2007) Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. J Bus Ethics 74(4):315–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hames RD (1999) Governance and the global knowledge economy: some issues for Australia. In: Peters BG, Savioe DJ (eds) Reforming the public sector. Alan & Unwin, Crows Nest, pp 285–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare M, Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Stakeholder categorization in participatory integrated assessment processes. Integr Assess 3(1):50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TM (1993) Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Acad Manag Rev 16:366–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker J, Foster D (2002) Stakeholder excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a stakeholder perspective of the firm. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 9:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast RL, Hampson K (2007) Building constructive innovation networks: role of relationship management. J Constr Eng Manag 133(5):364–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast RL, Mandell MP, Brown KA, Woolcock G (2004) Network structures: working differently and changing expectations. Public Adm Rev 64(3):363–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Key S (1999) Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ‘theory’. Manag Decis 37(3/4):317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivits RA (2011) Three component stakeholder analysis. Int J Mult Res Approaches 5(3):67–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn E-H, Koppenjan JMF (2000) Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Manag Rev 2(2):135–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn E-H, Koppenjan JFM, Termeer K (1995) Managing networks in the public sector: a theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Adm 73(3):437–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroesen M, Broer C (2009) Policy discourse, people’s internal frames, and declared aircraft noise annoyance: an application of Q-methodology. J Acoust Soc Am 126(1):195–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume AO, Sonpar K, Litz RA (2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J Manag 34(6):1152–1189

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn L (1996) Public management as art, science and profession. Chatham House, Chatham, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes EW, Alves H, Raposo M (2011) Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve. Manag Decis 49(2):226–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin B, Mayntz R (1991) Policy networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden PV (1990) Network data and measurement. In: Scott WR, Blake J (eds) Annual review of sociology, vol 16. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, pp 435–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly JE, Greening DW (2002) Public-interest groups as stakeholders: a ‘stakeholder salience’ explanation of activism. In: Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Rahman SS (eds) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: theory, responsibility and engagement. Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp 266–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer I, Edelenbos J, Monnikhof R (2005) Interactive policy development: undermining or sustaining democracy? Public Adm 83(1):179–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin MW (2005) Listening and learning from the field: tales of policy implementation and situated practice. In: Lieberman A (ed) The roots of educational change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 58–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelow A (1991) Proposed model on stakeholder ranking. Paper presented at the second international conference on information systems, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag J 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir J, Rhodes ML (2008) Vision and reality: community involvement in Irish urban regeneration. Policy Polit 36(4):497–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olander S, Landin A (2008) A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Constr Manag Econ 26(6):553–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):145–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent M, Deephouse D (2007) A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. J Bus Ethics 75(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (1981) Power in organisation. Pitman, Marshfield, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2007) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Sustain Res Ins 22:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):887–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ (2000) Does relational context matter? An empirical test of a network theory of stakeholder influences. In: Logsdon J, Wood D, Benson L (eds) Research in stakeholder theory, 1997–1998: the Sloan Foundation Minigrant project. The Sloan Foundation Minigrant Project, Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan NF, Head B, Keast RL, Brown KA (2006) Engaging indigenous communities: towards a policy framework for indigenous community justice programs. Soc Policy Adm 40(3):304–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage GT, Nix TH, Whitehead CJ, Blair JD (1991) Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Acad Manag Exec 5:61–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1994) Games real actors could play: positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. J Theor Polit 6(1):27–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (1991) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shandas V, Messer WB (2008) Fostering green communities through civic engagement: community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. J Am Plan Assoc 74(4):408–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher C, Mathur N, Smith M (2005) The public governance of collaborative spaces: discourse, design and democracy. Public Adm 83(3):573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift T (2001) Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 10(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing J (2005) Governance network theory: towards a second generation. Eur Polit Sci 4(3):305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Q Leadership Complex 18(4):298–318

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Riet OAWT (2003) Policy analysis in multi-actor policy settings: navigating between negotiated nonsense and superfluous knowledge, 1st edn. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG (2001) Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. J Policy Anal Manage 20(3):391–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG, Loucks D, Roe E (2002) Bringing actors together around large-scale water systems: participatory modeling and other innovations. Know Technol Policy 14(4):94–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbong GPJ, Geels FW, Raven RPJM (2008) Multi-niche analysis of dynamics and policies in Dutch renewable energy innovation journeys (1970-2006): hype-cycles, closed networks and technology-focused learning. Tech Anal Strat Manag 20(5):555–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ (2003) Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Achterkamp M, Vos J (2007) Critically identifying stakeholders. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby BC, Bryson JM (2005) A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public Manag Rev 7(2):177–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes S (1974) Power: a radical view, 1st edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes S (2004) Power: a radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes S (2007) Power. Contexts 6(3):59–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young RA (1978) Steven Lukes’s radical view of power. Société Québécoise de Science Politique / Can J Polit Sci 11(3):639–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie WB (1978) Contested concepts. Can J Polit Sci 11(3):635–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts CT (2008) A relational event framework for social action. Sociol Methodol 38(1):155–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh D (1998) The utility and future of policy network analysis. In: Marsh D (ed) Comparing policy networks. Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 185–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Chrisman JJ, Spence LJ (2011) Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Bus Ethics Q 21(2):235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoney C, Winstanley D (2001) Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. J Manag Stud 38(5):603–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92(5):1170–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn E-H, Skelcher C (2007) Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not? Public Adm 85(3):587–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waxenberger B, Spence LJ (2003) Reinterpretation of a metaphor: from stakes to claims. Strateg Chang 12:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin Y (2009) The stakeholder model refined. J Bus Ethics 84(1):113–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips RA (1997) Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Bus Ethics Q 7(1):51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino LK, Weaver GR (1999) The stakeholder research tradition: converging theorists – not convergent theory. Acad Manag Rev 24(2):222–227

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Strategy and Leadership, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Robbert Kivits

  2. Faculty of Business and Law, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Sukanlaya Sawang

Authors
  1. Robbert Kivits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sukanlaya Sawang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kivits, R., Sawang, S. (2021). Stakeholder Analysis. In: The Dynamism of Stakeholder Engagement. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70428-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation