Abstract
Today, the convergent network company characterizes the media industry. At the heart of the TIM (telecommunication, IT, media) industry are fast changing business networks that multiply the number and complexity of stakeholders. Relating and meeting their stakes is the basis for a professional approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Introducing basic assumptions about convergence, stakeholder management, and CSR, this chapter points to the need for a networking concept for stakeholder management by referring to a network theory of stakeholder influences and the conception of Communication Power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“In a world where innovation is global, multidisciplinary, and open, you need to bring different minds and different perspectives together to discover new solutions to long-standing problems. Therein lies the essence of collaborative innovation. IBM’s Jams and other Web 2.0 collaborative mediums are opening up tremendous possibilities for collaborative innovation—ways of working across industries, disciplines, and national borders.” (IBM 2012) [www]
- 2.
For the purpose of this chapter I am focusing on this second era, because it challenged and is still challenging media organizations and their business models (Küng et al. 2008a, p. 125).
- 3.
Besides this rather practical classification of convergence, Küng et al. 2008 offer a very good overview of economic theories exploring and explaining how convergence works (e.g., neoclassical theory, business economics, non-neoclassical approaches, etc., p. 17).
- 4.
Castells identifies the most powerful and relevant interrelationships in an oligopolistic market between Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, NBC, Universal, Viacom CBS and News Corporation, adding that Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google (Castells 2009, p. 74) also play major roles in the game of pursuing partnerships, joint ventures, and alliances.
- 5.
Lowering transaction costs can’t just be pinned down to one single mechanism, since sometimes transactions are focused around highly specific products, so there needs to be a greater amount and specificity of information to lower uncertainty (hierarchy). When centering transactions around products of low degree of specificity, the market and prices are the right choices (Williamson 1996).The three mechanisms of governance (market, hierarchy, and networks) are never found as a unique mechanisms, but more likely as mixed with each other. (see also Jürgens 2006).
- 6.
Even though Bar and Simard (2006) point out that usage of new media could also result in more hierarchies or more markets and not necessarily in more networks, it becomes obvious when looking at the media industry today, that the network is rather dominant.
- 7.
Freeman questioned the sole value creation for shareholders and outlined that stakeholder theory develops out of four ideas, or rather deficits that need to be considered when trying to define what a firm or company is. First, every business decision always has an ethical implication (separation fallacy) which means that no business decision can be made without considering ethical questions (integration thesis). Further there are central questions for a company that need to be answered, in regard to who is affected or harmed (open question argument) by its products and services. Finally, there is the responsibility principle, saying that “most people, most of the time, want to, and do, accept responsibility for the effects of their actions to other” (Freeman et al. 2010, p. 6).
- 8.
On the basis of this perception Mitchell et al. (1997) build a classification of latent (dominant, discretionary, demanding), expectant (dominant, dependent, dangerous), definitive, and non-stakeholders (pp. 874–879).
- 9.
This can be seen in congruence with Freeman’s separation fallacy, that any economic behavior or decision can’t be evaluated without its ethical implications.
- 10.
Granovetter (1985) is especially criticizing the new intuitional economy, founded on the irrational idea of an atomized and rational individual in an utilitarian sense (p. 484). This can also be seen in congruence with Freeman, stating that stakeholder management is mostly about human beings rather than about just self-interested and opportunistic actors.
- 11.
Rowley 1997
- 12.
Rowley (1997) points out that “The purpose of network analysis is to examine relational systems in which actors dwell and to determine how the nature of relationship structures impacts behaviors.” (p. 893). This is why it is helpful to develop a network theory in stakeholder management.
- 13.
Castells differentiates four distinct forms of power: networking power, that is characterized by the mechanism of inclusion. Such power is exercised via exclusion from the network; network power, which operates on agreed rules and norms in a network. Power is exercised by the power of the standards of the network over its components (2009, p. 43). The networked power relates to the fact that each network has its own rules and standards, but that this power is not absolute, meaning it depends on the connection to other networks influencing and such exercising power over other networks (e.g., the network society is highly dependable on the dynamics in the network of the global (financial) markets (ibid., p. 44). Finally, network making-power, which will be elaborated in more detail.
- 14.
“A central characteristic of the network society is that both the dynamics of domination and the resistance to domination rely on network formation and network strategies of offense and defense.” (Castells 2009, p. 49).
References
Bar, F., & Simard, C. (2006). From hierarchies to network firms. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. M. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media. Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs, Updated student ed., repr (pp. 350–363). London: Sage.
Boltanski, L., Chiapello, È., & Tillmann, M. (2006). Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus, Brosch Ausg. Edition discours (Vol. 38). Konstanz: UVK Verl.-Ges.
Buchholtz, A. K., & Carroll, A. B. (2012). Business and society Ethics & stakeholder management (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/Accessed 25 March 2012
Carroll, A.B.. (1991, July–August). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility. Toward a Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons. 39–48
Carroll, A.B.. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review (100–101): 1–4
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society, The information Age, 2nd edn (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2002). The Internet galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, business, and society (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2011). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics. Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (3rd ed.). Press, Oxford: Oxford University.
Flew, T. (2008). New media. An introduction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach, [Nachdr.]. Pitman series in business and public policy. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (2008). Ending the so called Friedman-Freeman debate. Business ethics quarterly, 18(2), 162–166.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A. C., et al. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure. The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). Competing for the future, Paperback [ed.]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
IBM Business Consulting Services (2004). Media and Entertainment 2010. Open on the inside, open on the outside: The open media company of the future
IBM (2012) Collaborative innovation. https://www.collaborationjam.com/
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Jürgens, U. (2006). Corporate Governance. Anwendungsfelder und Entwicklungen. In G. F. Schuppert (Ed.), Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien (2nd ed., pp. 47–71). Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl.-Ges.
Karmasin, M., Winter, C. (2002). Kontexte und Aufgabenfelder von Medienmanagement. In: M., Karmasin, C., Winter (Hg.) Grundlagen des Medienmanagements (pp 15–39).
Kluth, A., (2008) Nomads at last. A special report on mobile telecoms 2008, April 12th–18th. Vol. 387, Nr. 8575
Küng, L., Leandros, M., Picard, R. G., et al. (2008a). The impact of the internet on media organisation strategies and structures. In L. Küng, R. G. Picard, & R. Towse (Eds.), The internet and the mass media (pp. 125–148). Los Angeles: Sage.
Küng, L., Picard, R. G., & Towse, R. (2008b). Theoretical perspectives on the impact of the Internet on the mass media industries. In L. Küng, R. G. Picard, & R. Towse (Eds.), The internet and the mass media (pp. 17–44). Los Angeles: Sage.
Latour, B. (2007). Eine neue Soziologie für eine neue Gesellschaft. Einführung in die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie (1st ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Meikle, G., & Young, S. (2012). Media convergence. Networked digital media in everyday life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation. Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford business books. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. In L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Leadership, participation, and group behavior (pp. 295–336). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties a network theory of stakeholder influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
Trommershausen, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility in Medienunternehmen. Köln: Halem.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation. A blueprint for maximizing stakeholder value. London: Pitman.
Williams, R. (2011). “Culture is ordinary” (1958). In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory. An anthology (pp. 53–59). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York, NY, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winter, C. (2006). Medienentwicklung und der Aufstieg einer neuen Beziehungskunst. In M. Karmasin & C. Winter (Eds.), Konvergenzmanagement und Medienwirtschaft (pp. 183–216). München: Fink.
Wirtz, B. W. (2009). Medien- und Internetmanagement (6th ed.). Gabler, Wiesbaden: Gabler-Lehrbuch.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Exercise Questions
-
1.
What is the 3C-Model of convergence?
-
2.
Why does the number and complexity of stakeholders increase in the convergent environment of the media?
-
3.
What are the main assumptions in the concepts of identification and classification of stakeholders in regard to the firm and its management?
-
4.
Why is the synthesis approach to stakeholder management best suited for media companies?
-
5.
Why needs the corporate social responsibility of convergent media companies to be understood as corporate responsibility for communication and culture?
-
6.
What’s the definition of the CSR-pyramid?
-
7.
What does density and centrality mean in stakeholder networks?
-
8.
Which two major abilities are crucial for the network-making power in Castells’ concept of communication power?
-
9.
Why is it important for managers to understand the criteria of density, centrality and the abilities of programming and switching?
-
10.
What does social theory implicate for the competencies needed in stakeholder management and for an approach to CSR in convergent media companies?
Reflexive Questions
-
1.
Many traditional mass media companies (print, online, radio, TV) have been organized in hierarchical structures, due to a high specifity of products. Many times they were also vertically integrated. What examples of such media companies do you know, that struggle with the process of convergence and need to (re-)structure into a network with other companies to regain competitiveness in the convergent environment?
-
2.
In regard to the abilities of programming and switching of networks as well as their relevance in regard to density and centrality, what other competencies might managers need in the future?
-
3.
What examples can you think of when picturing ‘communication power’ in the context of ‘mass self-communication’? Think of the possibility of counter-power and try to give examples from the arena of global politics.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Trommershausen, A. (2013). Convergence and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Need for Using a Networking Concept for Stakeholder Management. In: Diehl, S., Karmasin, M. (eds) Media and Convergence Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36163-0_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36163-0_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36162-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36163-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)