Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy

Santana, Adele

doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0966-y

Cited by 53 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, as salience is a dynamic concept (Santana ; Sonpar et al. ), NFP management should not lose sight of stakeholders seen at this point in time as less salient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who and What Really Count? An Examination of Stakeholder Salience in Not‐for‐Profit Service Delivery Organizations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivated by the importance of understanding how managers of not-for-profit organizations (NFPs) in Australia perceive and prioritize their stakeholders, this study tests and applies Mitchell et al.'s (1997) stakeholder salience framework, enhanced by Neville et al.'s (2011) developments to the framework, in the not-for-profit context. The study examines the salience of six key stakeholder groups in NFPs, as perceived by top management, and the relation between three stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, and salience. Data were collected from 260 Australian NFPs in the education and health service areas. It was found that managers in sampled NFPs weighted the three stakeholder attributes differently. In particular, urgency is weighted strongly across all stakeholder groups, a condition that we suggest is a consequence of enhanced immediacy and reach of media to escalate and manage crises in the contemporary environment of the 21st century. The study contributes to the stakeholder salience literature and has important implications for policy making and regulatory reform for NFPs in Australia as well as managerial practices in NFPs.

show abstract

“…Also, as salience is a dynamic concept (Santana ; Sonpar et al. ), NFP management should not lose sight of stakeholders seen at this point in time as less salient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who and What Really Count? An Examination of Stakeholder Salience in Not‐for‐Profit Service Delivery Organizations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Managers are influenced by multiple factors such as organisational values, principles, and strategies as well as personal beliefs and self‐serving interpretations (Gioia & Chittipeddi, ; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, ). In this vein, Santana () argues that the assessment of a stakeholders' legitimacy is a social construction of reality, and the way a company's management perceives the legitimacy of a stakeholder may or may not be in accordance with the stakeholder's perception of legitimacy, which is, in turn, another social construction.…”

Section: Institutional Pressuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction between institutional and stakeholder pressures: Advancing a framework for categorising carbon disclosure strategies

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple institutional and stakeholder demands have led to different strategies in the measurement and disclosure of carbon-related information. Although scholars acknowledge the prevalence of competing institutional logics as being a driver of different outcomes, existing research offers conflicting views on their implications, thus lacking clarity. In response, this paper proposes two frameworks (a) to clarify the institutional and stakeholder influences on carbon disclosure and (b) to depict four different types of carbon disclosure strategies to assess a company's "true" carbon position. We identify various concepts of institutional fields, organisations, and stakeholders that influence disclosure and combine the two critical concepts of logic centrality and stakeholder salience to categorise the multiple institutional and stakeholder pressures on carbon disclosure. Whereas the first framework proposes that institutional theory and stakeholder theory both provide, on different levels, a theoretical foundation to examine the influences on carbon disclosure, the second model categorises carbon disclosure outcomes in terms of logic centrality and stakeholder salience. Both frameworks advance the understanding of the interaction between firm-level agency and field-level pressures and synthesise the current literature to offer conceptual clarity regarding the varied implications and outcomes linked to carbon disclosure practices and strategies. KEYWORDS carbon disclosure strategy, carbon management practices, institutional logics, stakeholder salience

show abstract

“…This theoretical conception is further addressed in section 2.1.1 deliberating on possible measures for the stakeholder salience. Other authors (e.g., Neville et al, 2011;Santana, 2012) have refined the attributes to account for the complex business reality. Their arguments will be discussed in section 2.1.2.…”

Section: Salience Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the third attribute Santana (2012) has argued that legitimacy is not onedimensional in itself, but applies to the stakeholder as entity, their behaviour, and their claims.…”

Section: Further Development Of Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Dong et al., 2014, JCLEPRO, 84, 59–69

Zoellick

2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy

Abstract: Organizational legitimacy, Stakeholder behavior, Stakeholder claim, Stakeholder legitimacy, Stakeholder theory, Stakeholder attributes,

Cited by 53 publications

References 35 publications

Who and What Really Count? An Examination of Stakeholder Salience in Not‐for‐Profit Service Delivery Organizations

Who and What Really Count? An Examination of Stakeholder Salience in Not‐for‐Profit Service Delivery Organizations

The interaction between institutional and stakeholder pressures: Advancing a framework for categorising carbon disclosure strategies

Reply to Dong et al., 2014, JCLEPRO, 84, 59–69

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About