A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status

Perrault, Elise

doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2929-1

Cited by 21 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the focus on social identities and social interaction in stakeholder theory, concentrating on economic exchange, has been claimed to overlook the role of nature as the "natural environment supplies 'critical resources' to the firm but usually not through economic exchange relationships" (Driscoll & Starik, 2004, p. 58). However, the recent elaborations (Crane & Ruebottom, 2011;Lehtimäki & Kujala, 2017;Perrault, 2017;Miles, 2017) of the stakeholder theory highlight the multiplicity of stakeholder identities and emphasise that such categories are naïve and meaningless and fail to account for the multifaceted stakeholder interaction. Miles (2017) emphasises that the solution for the multiple understandings of stakeholder identities is not in setting up a universal definition but in constantly debating the boundaries.…”

Section: Arguments For Stakeholder Status Of Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, much of the existing research on stakeholders takes the definition of 'a stakeholder' as given and oversimplifies the richness of social interaction (Brown & Dillard, 2015;Crane & Ruebottom, 2011). Stakeholders are frequently defined solely and one-sidedly by their main function (often economic one) as employees, consumers, and so forth (Crane & Ruebottom, 2011;Perrault, 2017). However, while most research on stakeholder engagement includes only human entities, there is an increasing number of studies that argue that also the non-human natural environment -like trees, flowers, stones and air -can be included in organisational stakeholders (Driscoll & Starik, 2004;Laine, 2010;Kujala et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Engaging with the Natural Environment

Kujala

Heikkinen

Nieminen³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the debate on how nature can be understood as a stakeholder and to develop the idea of nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement. While acknowledging the arguments against the stakeholder status of nature, we build on a growing stream of literature that argues that nature should and can have stakeholder status. To move beyond the arguments for and against the stakeholder status of nature, we suggest the idea of nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement that builds on the ideas of strong sustainability and ecocentrism. We suggest, first, that urban nature as an ideal context for the empirical examination of the nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement. Second, we claim that multidisciplinary research is needed to understand the nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement. Third, we highlight that specification of the particularities of nature is needed when speaking about the nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement.

show abstract

Section: Arguments For Stakeholder Status Of Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging with the Natural Environment

Kujala

Heikkinen

Nieminen³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These categorizations created "blind spots" for organizations, which could misinterpret stakeholders by lumping them into homogenous groups without recognizing their distinct interests and motivations (Wolfe and Putler, 2002). Moreover, the traditional criteria for stakeholder managementpower, legitimacy and urgencyhave been difficult for researchers to operationalize and for managers to use (Huml et al, 2018) and have made it difficult for managers to account for stakeholders' uniqueness (Perrault, 2017). For example, power is often equated with economic influence, even though stakeholder theory was designed to account for social factors as well.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, the lack of steady conditions within stakeholder theory can make urgency an especially fleeting characteristic for stakeholders (Mitchell et al, 1997). Perrault (2017) recommended using status, an emerging element within the business literature, to enhance stakeholder theory (McVea and Freeman, 2005). Status has been defined as "the socially constructed intersubjectively agree-upon and accepted ordering or ranking of individuals, groups, organizations, or activities in a social system" (Washington and Zajac, 2005, p. 284).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder status in the identification, prioritization and management of college athletic donors

Huml

Cintron

2021

SBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine how athletic fundraising managers perceive status and seek to use status to identify, prioritize and manage stakeholders within college athletics.Design/methodology/approachTo test this purpose, the researchers use the Gioia methodology to interview 19 college athletic department fundraising officers within National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) institutions. Following interviews, the data were analyzed by the researchers and structured within a first-order and second-order concept designation.FindingsInterviews show that status is an effective concept for explaining how athletic fundraisers identify and prioritize donors. Officers relied on economic (capacity) and social (passion and interest) factors to rank order donors. The results also show that athletic departments use status to manage stakeholders by rewarding their giving and escalating their commitment. Status is used in four strategies to manage the donor hierarchy: benefits, recognition, membership and access. Each strategy highlighted exclusivity and rank order.Originality/valueThere is a need to empirically test the application of status within the stakeholder theory context. These findings also contribute to the evolution of stakeholder management beyond the use of social identity theory or stakeholder salience. It helps our understanding of the evolving relationship between fundraiser and donor by recognizing the importance of capacity, passion and interests when identifying and prioritizing donors. Further, status-markers such as exclusive benefits, recognition, membership and access can be used to manage donors toward the organization's goals.

show abstract

“…Though researchers have proposed new attributes (Ali, ; Perrault, ) and discussed the finely grained types of attributes (Neville et al, ), effort has remained limited to conceptual work.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder salience and collaboration decisions in microfinance organizations: Evidence from developing Islamic country's context

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies mutually disagree on which stakeholders matter to the managers. Based on a finer differentiation of salience attributes—power, legitimacy, urgency, and proximity—this study finds that stakeholders that possess four attributes' types—that is, structural legitimacy, utilitarian power, organized proximity, and criticality—are considered salient by managers of microfinance organizations. Collaboration with salient stakeholders is considered indispensable by microfinance managers.

show abstract

A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status

Cited by 21 publications

References 61 publications

Engaging with the Natural Environment

Engaging with the Natural Environment

Stakeholder status in the identification, prioritization and management of college athletic donors

Stakeholder salience and collaboration decisions in microfinance organizations: Evidence from developing Islamic country's context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About