Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups: An Empirical Verification of a Three‐Level Model

Podnar, Klement; Jančič, Zlatko

doi:10.1080/13527260600720376

Cited by 48 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The case study was developed by a group of sustainability experts who established a stakeholder map based on the Jancic model (Podnar and Jancic, 2006) and applied the Mitchell model (Mitchell et al, 1997) to identify the most important stakeholders: students, non-academic staff and academic staff. Next, data were collected through an online survey based on the work of Larrán et al (2012) and adapted to the context.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawn from Freeman's definition of stakeholders, Mitchell et al (1997) proposed a typology of stakeholders according to whether they possess one, two or three of the following attributes: the power of the stakeholder to influence the organisation, the legitimacy of the stakeholder's relationship with the organisation, and the urgency of the stakeholder's claim on the organisation. Similarly, Podnar and Jancic (2006) found three different levels of stakeholders: "inevitable exchange", "required exchange" and "desirable exchange" that can differ based on the stakeholder's power to influence organisational success. Focusing on higher education, Burrows (1999) proposed four dimensions for distinguishing stakeholders: (i) location, (ii) involvement status, (iii) potential for cooperation and (iv) interest in and influence on the organisation.…”

Section: Stakeholder Engagement In Heismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education

Ferrero-Ferrero

Izquierdo

Torres

et al. 2018

IJSHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability reporting (SR) for higher education institutions (HEIs), together with the materiality principle and stakeholder expectations. Design/methodology/approach This research uses an exploratory approach based on content analysis, a case study and descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings Three key findings come out of this research. First, the results indicate that HEIs use diverse criteria for grouping stakeholders and that stakeholder engagement is a heterogeneous process. Second, the expectations of internal stakeholders align with the material aspects of SR. Finally, among internal stakeholders, students and academics disagree on the prioritisation of some sustainability aspects, with non-academic staff adopting an intermediate position. Practical implications This analysis improves our knowledge of stakeholder engagement in HEIs. It helps to identify the relevant impacts of stakeholder engagement, enhances the quality of reporting and encourages a real dialogue with stakeholders. Originality/value The study examines stakeholder engagement and how the materiality principle is adopted by HEIs through SR. Furthermore, it compares these results with stakeholder expectations, considering the discrepancies between stakeholders. The results open the way to future research to explore the potential conflicts and collaborations between and within stakeholders to advance towards more sustainable institutions in the higher education sector.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stakeholder Engagement In Heismentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education

Ferrero-Ferrero

Izquierdo

Torres

et al. 2018

IJSHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of consistency between different ratings creates an issue of comparability and the problem seems to be compounded when the positioning of a company and its CSR status are expressed symbolically, or when using a numerical scale (EscrigOlmedo et al, 2010). Despite these differences, most agencies seek to rate companies through a combination of positive and negative criteria; and these are based on an adapted Stakeholder Model (Fassin, 2009;Podnar & Jancic, 2006) and a series of global standards. Escrig-Olmedo et al (2010) also noted that companies are faced with a lack of information that makes it difficult for them to discover which actions would enable them to perform better (and be included in a CSR index) and investors equally face difficulties selecting sustainable companies for investment.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies

Saadaoui

Soobaroyen

2018

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This paper analyses the similarities and differences in the methodologies adopted by CSR (corporate social responsibility) rating agencies. Design/methodology:We gather secondary and primary evidence of practices from selected agencies on the methodologies and criteria they rely upon to assess a firm's CSR performance. Findings:We find evidence of similarities in the methodologies adopted by the CSR rating agencies (e.g. the use of environment, social and governance themes, exclusion criteria, adoption of positive criteria, client/'customised' input, quantification), but also several elements of differences emerge, namely in terms of the thresholds for exclusion, transparent vs. confidential approach, industry-specific ratings, and weights for each dimension. Drawing from Sandberg et al.'s (2009) conceptualisations, we tentatively argue that this mixed picture may reflect competing organisational pressures to adopt a differentiation approach at the strategic and practical levels whilst recognising, and incorporating, the 'globalising' tendencies of the CSR business at the terminological levels.Implications: Although our data is based on a relatively small number of agencies, our findings and analysis convey some implications for users of CSR ratings and policy-makers;

show abstract

“…Over recent years academics have shown more interest in the topic, starting with a classification of 'community' that considers its specific features (Putnam, 2000;Freeman et al, 2006;Harting et al, 2006;Podnar and Jančič 2006): the place of community affiliation; the country where a community develops; the group of people with whom one carries out some activity and shares interests with; the virtual community one takes part in, etc. Thus the meaning of "community" may differ according to one's particular point of view (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value and significance of corporate community relations: an Italian SME perspective

Palazzo

Foroudi

Siano

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -This paper investigates the link between community of place and small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) in Lombard industrial districts in Italy.Design/methodology/approach -A brief literature review of international authors from the stakeholder approach and Corporate Community Relations field is presented. This paper refers to a survey of Lombard industrial districts conducted by ALTIS. The data was collected via a telephone survey from 834 firms.Findings -The main finding is that managing Corporate Community Relations (CCR) is of major importance for company success. The results of the survey show that there are some tools and actions that Italian industrial district SMEs uses to interact with their particular communities of place to develop effective and coherent relationships with their stakeholder groups. Moreover, although the survey shows that though SMEs do implement different CCR activities, they are not able to communicate these effectively through systematic communication strategies. However, the narrow sample includes only a sample of some Lombard districts. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that effective CCR seems to confer competitive advantage based on stakeholder responses and rewards sought.Research limitations/implications -The framework could assist in supporting CCR developments between industrial districts as various players would know how to improve CCR activities. One further suggestion is that University and Research Centres could have a role to play in creating and communicating codified knowledge concerning community relations in industrial districts, while other public players still have to develop specific tasks in improving infrastructures.Originality/value -This study is in line with the main focus of CCR, which is in striving to meet stakeholder and societal needs. However, industrial district SMEs have to learn how to communicate their CCR activities from the examples set by large Italian companies. The paper links the notion of CCR with tools and actions to develop meaningful relationships with both community of place and interest. Moreover, considering the survey results, a new framework for local player roles is proposed.

show abstract

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups: An Empirical Verification of a Three‐Level Model

Cited by 48 publications

References 16 publications

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting in higher education

An analysis of the methodologies adopted by CSR rating agencies

The value and significance of corporate community relations: an Italian SME perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About