Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Understanding the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships: An Empirical Examination of a Conflict Situation

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

Abstract

This article examines stakeholder relationships in a conflict situation. The focus of analysis is on how to understand stakeholder relationships as both ethical and strategic, and further, how the interests of different stakeholders become justified. To describe stakeholder relationships, we use media texts reporting on the case of a foreign investment project. The description shows how relationships evolve and how they constitute different episodes related to the conflict. We address the episodes by analysing stakeholder relationships and their salience. Furthermore, we examine how different stakeholder interests are justified in relation to the conflict. By providing a rich detailed qualitative analysis, we elaborate on the strategic and ethical nature of stakeholder relationships.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., & Oijala, T. (2008). Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvano, L. (2008). Multinational corporations and local communities: A critical analysis of conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 793–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1994). A risk-based model of stakeholder theory. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Stakeholder Theory. University of Toronto, The Centre for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics, Toronto.

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders. Survival reputation and success. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory. The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W., & Lasch, K. (1983). The political culture of welfare policy. In S. E. Spiro (Ed.), Evaluating the welfare state. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. (2009). Cooperation in stakeholder networks: Firms’ ‘Tertius Iungens role’. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 623–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. R. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: An empirical exploration. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberg, J., Pajunen, K., Parvinen, P., & Savage, G. T. (2008). Stakeholder management and path dependence in organizational transitions. Management Decision, 46(6), 846–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J. F., Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lametrz, K. (2004). Social networks and non-market strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 4(2), 170–189.

    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(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Näsi, J. (1995). What is stakeholder thinking? In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19–32). Helsinki: LSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (2004). Understanding stakeholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business & Society, 43, 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santana, A., Vaccaro, A., & Wood, D. J. (2009). Ethics and the networked business. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiio, J. (2006). Media uudistuvassa yhteiskunnassa. Median muuttuvat pelisäännöt [Media in renewing society. The changing rules of the media]. Sitran raportteja 65, Edita, Helsinki.

  • Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. I. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflict. Business & Society, 47(1), 68–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the parallel sessions of the 11th EBEN Research Conference in Tampere, Finland, June 2010 and the 3rd Bergamo-Wharton Joint Conference in Bergamo, Italy, July 2010, as well as the anonymous reviewers and Professor R. Edward Freeman for their constructive comments on previous versions of this article. The financial support of the Academy of Finland, The Finnish Work Environmental Fund and Finnish Foundation for Economic Education for conducting this research is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Kujala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kujala, J., Heikkinen, A. & Lehtimäki, H. Understanding the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships: An Empirical Examination of a Conflict Situation. J Bus Ethics 109, 53–65 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2

Keywords

Navigation