Abstract
Stakeholder theory calls for decision makers to balance stakeholder interests, but before this can happen, management must understand how other parties view its decisions. Effective stakeholder dialogues convened to reach this understanding require management to appreciate how others perceive the risks posed by their decision. Although understanding others’ risk perception is crucial for effective communications, we do not have a clear idea of how viewing a situation from multiple stakeholder perspectives affects risk perception. Based on a technique derived from risk perception studies of health and environmental issues, an experiment with 224 business students examined how an individual’s risk perception can account for both managerial and customer perspectives. Factors described as customer participation, extent of the effect, and management input, together with the respondent’s self-assessed understanding of the decision process, help categorize overall risk perceptions and are shown to be associated with behaviors based on the decision’s riskiness. Discussion includes implications for designs of business communications, including their content and transparency, and for understanding the audience for these communications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. J. Atman A. Bostrom B. Fischhoff M. G. Morgan (1994) ArticleTitle‘Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I’ Risk Analysis 14 IssueID5 779–788
K. Buysse A. Verbeke (2003) ArticleTitle‘Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective’ Strategic Management Journal 24 IssueID5 453–470 Occurrence Handle10.1002/smj.299
COSO [Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission]: 2004, Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework (COSO, Jersey City, NJ).
A. J. Daboub J. M. Calton (2002) ArticleTitle‘Stakeholder Learning Dialogues: How to Preserve Ethical Responsibility in Networks’ Journal of Business Ethics 41 IssueID1/2 85–98 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1021302206747
T. K. Das B.-S. Teng (2004) ArticleTitle‘The Risk-based View of Trust: A Conceptual Framework’ Journal of Business and Psychology 19 IssueID1 85–116 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040274.23551.1b
T. Donaldson L. E. Preston (1995) ArticleTitle‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’ Academy of Management Review 20 IssueID1 65–91
R. E. Freeman (1994) ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation’ T. L. Beauchamp N. E. Bowie (Eds) Ethical Theory and Business Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ 66–76
J. Frooman (1999) ArticleTitle‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’ Academy of Management Review 24 IssueID2 191–205
“Have fat cats had their day?”: 2003, The Economist (24 May), pp. 63–64.
T. M. Jones A. C. Wicks (1999) ArticleTitle‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’ Academy of Management Review 24 IssueID2 206–221
Karger, C. and P. M. Wiedemann: 1998, ‘Kognitive und Affektive Determinanten der Intuitiven Bewertung von Umweltrisiken’ [‘Cognitive and Affective Determinants of the Intuitive Evaluation of Environmental Risks’]. Working paper.
L. Koonce M. L. McAnally M. Mercer (2005) ArticleTitle‘How Do Investors Judge the Risk of Financial Items?’ The Accounting Review 80 IssueID1 221–241
D. G. MacGregor P. Slovic M. Berry H. R. Evensky (1999) ArticleTitle‘Perception of Financial Risk: A Survey Study of Advisors and Planners’ Journal of Financial Planning 12 IssueID8 68–86
J. C. Nunnally (1978) Psychometric Theory EditionNumber2 McGraw-Hill New York, NY
S. L. Payne J. M. Calton (2004) ArticleTitle‘Exploring Research Potentials and Applications for Multi-stakeholder Learning Dialogues’ Journal of Business Ethics 55 IssueID1 71–78 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10551-004-1570-1
Rohrmann, B.: 1999, ‘Risk Perception Research: Review and Documentation’, rev. ed. Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, v. 69, (Foschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik [MUT], Jülich, Germany).
H. Schütz P. M. Wiedemann (2003) ArticleTitle‘Risikowahrnehmung in der Gesellschaft’ Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 46 IssueID7 539–555
Schütz, H., P. M. Wiedemann, and P. C. R. Gray: 2000, ‘Risk Perception Beyond the Psychometric Paradigm’. Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, v. 78, (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik [MUT], Jülich, Germany).
Z. Shapira (1995) Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective Russell Sage Foundation New York, NY
J. M. Shepard M. Betz L. O’Connell (1997) ArticleTitle‘The Proactive Corporation: Its Nature and Causes’ Journal of Business Ethics 16 IssueID10 1001–1010 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1017957618855
Sjöberg, L.: 1999, ‘The Psychometric Paradigm Revisited’. Invited lecture given to the Royal Statistical Society Conference, University of Warwick.
L. Sjöberg (2000) ArticleTitle‘Factors in Risk Perception’ Risk Analysis 20 IssueID1 1–11
L. Sjöberg (2002) ArticleTitle‘Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well?’ Risk Analysis 22 IssueID4 665–669
P. Slovic B. Fischhoff S. Lichtenstein (1985) ‘Characterizing Perceived Risk’ R. W. Kates C. Hohenemser J. K. Kasperson (Eds) Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology Westview Press Boulder, CO 91–125
Wiedemann, P. M. and I. Balderjahn: 1999, ‘Risikobewertungen im Kognitiven Kontext’ [‘Risk Assessment in the Cognitive Context’], Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, v. 73, (Foschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik [MUT], Jülich, Germany).
Wiedemann, P. M. and R. M. Kresser: 1997, ‘Intuitive Risikobewertung – Strategien der Bewertung von Umweltrisiken’ [‘Intuitive Risk Assessment – Assessment Strategies for Environmental Risks’], Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, v. 62, (Foschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik [MUT], Jülich, Germany).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schwarzkopf, D.L. Stakeholder Perspectives and Business Risk Perception. J Bus Ethics 64, 327–342 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0002-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0002-9