A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers
Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1):1 - 23 (2007)
| Abstract | The purpose of this article is to examine stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers using the power, legitimacy, and urgency framework of Mitchell et al. (Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886; 1997). We use a multi-method, comparative case study of two large-scale sporting event organizing committees, with a particular focus on interviews with managers at three hierarchical levels. We support the positive relationship between number of stakeholder attributes and perceived stakeholder salience. Managers’ hierarchical level and role have direct and moderating effects on stakeholder identification and perceived salience. We also found that most stakeholders were definitive, dominant, or dormant types – the other five types were rare. Power has the most important effect on salience, followed by urgency and legitimacy. Based on our case study, we offer several ways to advance the theory of stakeholder identification and salience. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJulia Roloff (2008). Learning From Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1):233 - 250.
Adele Santana (2012). Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics 105 (2):257-265.
Heather Elms, Shawn Berman & Andrew C. Wicks (2002). Ethics and Incentives: An Evaluation and Development of Stakeholder Theory in the Health Care Industry. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (4):413-432.
Andrew C. Wicks (2002). Ethics and Incentives. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (4):413-432.
Scott J. Reynolds, Frank C. Schultz & David R. Hekman (2006). Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decision-Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests. Journal of Business Ethics 64 (3):285 - 301.
Vanessa Magness (2008). Who Are the Stakeholders Now? An Empirical Examination of the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood Theory of Stakeholder Salience. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (2):177 - 192.
Päivi Myllykangas, Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki (2010). Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What Do We Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency? Journal of Business Ethics 96 (S1):65-72.
Ronald K. Mitchell, Bradley R. Agle, James J. Chrisman & Laura J. Spence (2011). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Salience in Family Firms. Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (2):235-255.
Cathy Driscoll & Mark Starik (2004). The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 49 (1):55-73.
Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell & Gregory J. Whitwell (2011). Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (3):357-378.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads11 ( #99,611 of 549,550 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,550 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
