Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a Model of Corporate and Social Stakeholder Engagement: Analyzing the Relations Between a French Mutual Bank and Its Members

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to develop a new classification of stakeholders based on the concept of corporate and social engagement. Engagement is analyzed as an organizational learning process between the managers of an organization and its stakeholders. It is a necessary condition to improve the organization’s impact on its economic, social, and natural environment. Applied to the membership of a French mutual bank in order to identify the members’ varying levels of engagement, this new mapping technique may help managers to adapt their practices to the degree of engagement of each identified group of members, and to modify their financial products and communications to foster engagement among as many of these groups as possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cf. Study “60 million members in co-operative banks: What does it mean?” carried out in 2006 by the European Association of Cooperative Banks.

  2. Membership rates of different organisations (online). 2006. Available on the INSEE website: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATSOS05512%C2 (found November 10, 2009).

References

  • Berthoin Antal, A., & Sobczak, A. (2004). Beyond CSR: Organizational learning for global responsibility. Journal of General Management, 30(2), 77–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, D., & Werhane, P. H. (2011). Stakeholder theory. In M. Painter-Morland & R. Ten Bos (Eds.), Business ethics and continental philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S., Black, B., & Blair, M. (2004). Relational investing and firm performance. Journal of Financial Research, 27(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31, 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozonnet, J.-P. (2008). Socialisation et engagement écologiste en Europe. L’école, la famille et l’environnementalisme en héritage. Congrès de l’AISLF, Istanbul, 11 juillet.

  • Caroll, A. B. (1989). Business & society. Cincinnati: South Western Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiffet, J.-P. (2006). Que signifie avoir 60 millions de sociétaires ?. Communication at the Convention of European Cooperative banks (Convention des banques coopératives européennes), 28 March.

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 85–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasterling, B. (2008). A propos de l’actionnariat “détaché”. Ethique et Economique, 5(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

  • Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1987). Managing stakeholder relationships. In S. P. Sethi & C. M. Falbe (Eds.), Business and society: Dimensions of conflict and cooperation (pp. 397–423). Lexington: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Mc Vea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In M. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 189–207). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, J., & Williams, A. (2007). Universal owners: Challenges and opportunities. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemoine, J.-F., & Onnée, S. (2001). Vers une meilleure compréhension du statut d’actionnaire individuel-client. Gestion, 2000(4), 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2009). Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder activists and corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, M. R. (2009). Emerging investor networks and the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizen, 34, 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richez-Battesti, N. (2006). Gouvernance coopérative et reconquête du sociétariat: une aventure inachevée ? Le cas des banques coopératives en France. In Communication at the XXIInd international conference on cooperative research.

  • Scholes, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (1998). Communication with stakeholders: An integrated approach. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibieude, T., & Vidal, R. (2008). Enjeux et perspectives du sociétariat des groupes mutualistes complexes face aux stratégies de développement à l’échelle du groupe: quelques enseignements du cas du Groupe MACIF. Working paper DR 08011, ESSEC Research Centre, Cergy.

  • Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement. From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizen, 36, 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieb, J. A. (2009). Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thamotheram, R., & Wildsmith, H. (2007). Increasing long-term market returns: Realising the potential of collective pension fund action. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 438–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups. Organization Science, 13(1), 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1994). Business and society. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ariane Berthoin Antal and Julie Bayle-Cordier for their stimulating comments. Remaining errors are, of course, the authors’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Audencia Nantes School of Management, GREMA—Institute for Global Responsibility, 8, Route de la Jonelière, BP 31 222, 44 312, Nantes Cedex 3, France

    Carine Girard & André Sobczak

Authors
  1. Carine Girard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Sobczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Sobczak.

Appendix 1: Sections 1 and 2 of the Survey

Appendix 1: Sections 1 and 2 of the Survey

Section 1: ‘You as a Member of Society’

Please indicate, by circling a number from 1 to 5, how often you do the following things:

  • ① Never ② Rarely ③ Sometimes ④ Often ⑤ Whenever possible

1.

I buy fair-trade products

1

2

3

4

5

2.

I buy organically grown produce

1

2

3

4

5

3.

I choose seasonal fruit and vegetables

1

2

3

4

5

4.

I buy local produce

1

2

3

4

5

5.

I recycle my rubbish

1

2

3

4

5

6.

I choose public transport or car-pooling

1

2

3

4

5

7.

I give to humanitarian, charitable or environmental organizations

1

2

3

4

5

8.

I am an active member of an organization or the public sphere

1

2

3

4

5

9.

I consider social and environmental factors in my savings and investment choices

1

2

3

4

5

10.

I keep up to date on sustainable development via the press, the internet and attending meetings

1

2

3

4

5

Section 2: You as a Member of the Banque Populaire Atlantique

Please indicate, by circling a number from 1 to 5, to what extent you agree with the following statements:

  • ① Strongly disagree ② Disagree ③ Indifferent ④ Agree ⑤ Stronglyagree

11.

I am very pleased to be a BPA member

1

2

3

4

5

12.

I enjoy talking about the BPA with my colleagues, friends and family

1

2

3

4

5

13.

I feel concerned by the BPA’s problems

1

2

3

4

5

14.

I could just as easily have become a member or shareholder of another bank

1

2

3

4

5

15.

I do not feel like a member of the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

16.

I am not engaged to the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

17.

I am loyal to the BPA because we share the same values

1

2

3

4

5

18.

I am proud to tell others I am a BPA member

1

2

3

4

5

19.

I am worried about loss related to my investments with the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

20.

It would be difficult for me to leave the BPA today, even if I wanted to

1

2

3

4

5

21.

I plan on leaving the BPA as I am not too involved as a member

1

2

3

4

5

22.

It would be too costly for me to leave the BPA today

1

2

3

4

5

23.

I am loyal to the BPA because I have invested a lot in this bank (be it economically, emotionally or socially)

1

2

3

4

5

24.

I have never thought of leaving the BPA because I have not had many opportunities

1

2

3

4

5

25.

I believe I am not under any obligation to remain a member of the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

26.

Even to my disadvantage, I would remain a member of the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

27.

I would feel guilty if I had to leave the BPA

1

2

3

4

5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Girard, C., Sobczak, A. Towards a Model of Corporate and Social Stakeholder Engagement: Analyzing the Relations Between a French Mutual Bank and Its Members. J Bus Ethics 107, 215–225 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1034-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1034-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation