Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AIF:

Agence Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie [Intergovernmental Francophonie Agency]

CIJF:

Comité International des Jeux de la Francophonie [Games of the Francophonie International Committee]

COJF:

Comité Organisateur des Jeux de la Francophonie [Games of the Francophonie Organizing Committee]

CONFEJES:

Conférence des Ministres de la Jeunesse et des Sports des pays ayant le français en partage [Conference of Youth and Sport Ministers of Countries Having French as a Common Language]

COO:

Chief Operating Officer

PAGS:

Pan American Host Society

PASO:

Pan American Sports Organization

President-CEO:

President and Chief Executive Officer

Vteam:

Venue Team

References

  • Agle B. R., Mitchell R. K., Sonnenfeld J. A. 1999 Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal 42: 507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken L., West S. G. 1991 Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer M. W., Gaskell G. 2000 Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J. R.: 2003, ‹Turin Sees its Olympic Moment As Investment in Future’, The Salt Lake City Tribune (Retrieved December 11, 2003, http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03102003/utah/36867.asp)

  • Buanes A., Jentoft S., Karlsen G. R., Maurstad A., Soreng S. 2004 In Whose Interest? An Exploratory Analysis of Stakeholders in Norwegian Coastal Zone Planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 47, 207–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‹The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons 34(4), 30–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A. B. 1996 Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd Edition. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson M. B. E. 1995 A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COJF.: 2001, Manuel D’ÉvÉnement RÉdigÉ Á L’Intention Des DÉlÉgations. [Event Manual Written for the Delegations] (IV Games of La Francophonie Organizing Committee, Ottawa-Hull, Ontario-Quebec)

  • Coombs W. T. 1998 The Internet as Potential Equalizer: New Leverage for Confronting Social Irresponsibility. Public Relations Review 24, 289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T., Preston L. 1995 The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll C., Crombie A. 2001 Stakeholder Legitimacy Management and the Qualified Good Neighbor: The case of Nova Nada and JDI. Business & Society 40, 442–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll C., Starik M. 2004 The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 49, 55–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M. 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias A. A., Cavana R. Y., Jackson L.S. 2002 Stakeholder Analysis for R&D Project Management. R&D Management 32, 301–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A. 1964 Modern Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. T., Mason D. S. 2004 A Stakeholder Approach to Understanding Economic Development Decision Making: Public Subsidies for Professional Sport Facilities. Economic Development Quarterly 18, 236–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden B. R. 1992 The Past Is the Past – or Is It? The Use of Retrospective Accounts As Indicators of Past Strategy. Academy of Management Journal 35, 848–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey B., Schaefer A. 2001 Managing Relationships with Environmental Stakeholders: A Study of U.K. Water and Electricity Utilities. Journal of Business Ethics 30, 243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini J., Brenner S. N. 1992 The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: A Methodology to Generate Value Matrix Weights. Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 99–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard M., Vidgen R., Powell P. 2003 Overcoming Stakeholder Barriers in the Automotive Industry: Building to Order with Extra-Organizational Systems. Journal of Information Technology 18, 27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IJzerman M. J., Reuzel R. P. B., Severens H. L. 2003 Pre-Assessment to Assess the Match Between Cost-Effectiveness Results and Decision Makers’ Information Needs – An Illustration Using Two Cases in Rehabilitation Medicine in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19, 17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeurissen R. 2004 Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 53, 87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang R. H. J., Bansal P. 2003 Seeing the Need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies 40, 1047–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel J. E., Miskel C. G. 2002 Stakeholder Salience: Business and Educational Policy. Teachers College Record 104, 325–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller C. C., Cardinal L. B., Glick W. H. 1997 Retrospective Reports in Organizational Research: A Reexamination of Recent Evidence. Academy of Management Journal 40, 189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., Wood D. J. 1997 Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan L. V., Schneider M. 2003 Institutional Investor Power and Heterogeneity: Implications for Agency and Stakeholder Theories. Business & Society 42, 398–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott W. R. 1995 Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman M. C. 1995 Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torino 2006: 2006, February 27, Results, Numbers and Oddities (Retrieved August 1, 2007). (http://www. torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/news/news_ ita161367.html)

  • Welcomer S. A., Cochran P. L., Rands G., Haggerty M. 2003 Constructing a Web: Effects of Power and Social Responsiveness on Firm-Stakeholder Relationships. Business & Society 42, 43–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn M. I., Keller L. R. 2001 A Modeling Methodology for Multiobjective Multistakeholder Decisions – Implications for Research. Journal of Management Inquiry 10, 166–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xerox: 1999, Xerox Documents Pan Am Games Results Faster Than Ever Before (Retrieved April 8, 2003, http://media.xerox.ca /news/default.asp?aID=142)

  • Yin R. K. 2003 Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Milena M. Parent

    Present address: Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, 125 University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta, 3-23 Business Building, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2R6

    David L. Deephouse

Authors
  1. Milena M. Parent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David L. Deephouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milena M. Parent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parent, M.M., Deephouse, D.L. A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. J Bus Ethics 75, 1–23 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation