IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v249y2016i3p1050-1062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning

Author

Listed:
  • Cairns, George
  • Goodwin, Paul
  • Wright, George

Abstract

Scenario planning is a method widely used by strategic planners to address uncertainty about the future. However, current methods either fail to address the future behaviour and impact of stakeholders or they treat the role of stakeholders informally. We present a practical decision-analysis-based methodology for analysing stakeholder objectives and likely behaviour within contested unfolding futures. We address issues of power, interest, and commitment to achieve desired outcomes across a broad stakeholder constituency. Drawing on frameworks for corporate social responsibility (CSR), we provide an illustrative example of our approach to analyse a complex contested issue that crosses geographic, organisational and cultural boundaries. Whilst strategies can be developed by individual organisations that consider the interests of others – for example in consideration of an organisation's CSR agenda – we show that our augmentation of scenario method provides a further, nuanced, analysis of the power and objectives of all concerned stakeholders across a variety of unfolding futures. The resulting modelling framework is intended to yield insights and hence more informed decision making by individual stakeholders or regulators.

Suggested Citation

  • Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1050-1062
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715006669
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacob W. Ulvila & Warren D. Snider, 1980. "Negotiation of International Oil Tanker Standards: An Application of Multiattribute Value Theory," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 81-96, February.
    2. Carson, Thomas L., 1993. "Does the Stakeholder Theory Constitute a New Kind of Theory of Social Responsibility?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 171-176, April.
    3. Morgan Miles & Linda Munilla & Jenny Darroch, 2006. "The Role of Strategic Conversations with Stakeholders in the Formation of Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 195-205, December.
    4. Ram, Camelia & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2013. "Exploring the impact of evaluating strategic options in a scenario-based multi-criteria framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 657-672.
    5. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    6. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    7. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    8. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2010. "Improving the Generation of Decision Objectives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 238-255, September.
    9. Heath, Joseph, 2006. "Business Ethics without Stakeholders," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 533-557, October.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    11. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    12. Paul Goodwin & George Wright, 2001. "Enhancing Strategy Evaluation in Scenario Planning: a Role for Decision Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Ralph L. Keeney, 2004. "Making Better Decision Makers," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 193-204, December.
    14. G Montibeller & L A Franco, 2011. "Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 855-867, May.
    15. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    16. Luis Perez-Batres & Jonathan Doh & Van Miller & Michael Pisani, 2012. "Stakeholder Pressures as Determinants of CSR Strategic Choice: Why do Firms Choose Symbolic Versus Substantive Self-Regulatory Codes of Conduct?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 157-172, October.
    17. Tashman, Pete & Raelin, Jonathan, 2013. "Who and What Really Matters to the Firm: Moving Stakeholder Salience beyond Managerial Perceptions," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 591-616, October.
    18. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:492-508 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne Marchais-Roubelat & Fabrice Roubelat, 2019. "History, time and futures studies. Tensions from geostrategy anticipatory practices," Post-Print hal-02557600, HAL.
    2. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    3. Gordon, Adam Vigdor, 2020. "Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Andersen, Per Dannemand & Hansen, Meiken & Selin, Cynthia, 2021. "Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Yang, Yuanyuan & Bao, Wenkai & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Scenario simulation of land system change in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Ayedh Almutairi & John P. Wheeler & David L. Slutzky & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Integrating Stakeholder Mapping and Risk Scenarios to Improve Resilience of Cyber‐Physical‐Social Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 2093-2112, September.
    7. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    8. George Cairns & George Wright, 2019. "Making scenario interventions matter: Exploring issues of power and rationality," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    9. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    10. Almutairi, Ayedh & Collier, Zachary A. & Hendrickson, Daniel & Palma-Oliveira, José M. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2019. "Stakeholder mapping and disruption scenarios with application to resilience of a container port," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 219-232.
    11. Derbyshire, James, 2024. "Integrating modelling-based and stakeholder-focused scenario approaches to close the planning gap and accelerate low-carbon transitions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    12. Anne Marchais-Roubelat & Fabrice Roubelat, 2018. "The sustainability of the making of global communities. Functions, dysfunctions, scenarios," Post-Print hal-02557578, HAL.
    13. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    14. George Cairns, 2021. "Resistance to hegemony in theorising scenario methods: A manifesto in response to Fergnani and Chermack, 2021," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3-4), September.
    15. Derbyshire, James & Morgan, Jamie, 2022. "Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    16. Gong, Jianzhou & Hu, Zhiren & Chen, Wenli & Liu, Yansui & Wang, Jieyong, 2018. "Urban expansion dynamics and modes in metropolitan Guangzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 100-109.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    2. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    3. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    5. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    6. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    7. Melissa Garber & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2017. "A Framework for Multiobjective Decision Management with Diverse Stakeholders," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 335-356, July.
    8. Tobias Witt & Matthias Klumpp, 2021. "Multi-Period Multi-Criteria Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Renewable Energy Transition Case from Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    10. Babooshka Shavazipour & Theodor J. Stewart, 2021. "Multi-objective optimisation under deep uncertainty," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2459-2487, December.
    11. Giovanni Ferri & Angelo Leogrande, 2015. "Was the Crisis due to a shift from stakeholder to shareholder finance? Surveying the debate," Mo.Fi.R. Working Papers 108, Money and Finance Research group (Mo.Fi.R.) - Univ. Politecnica Marche - Dept. Economic and Social Sciences.
    12. G Montibeller & L A Franco, 2011. "Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 855-867, May.
    13. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    14. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    15. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    16. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2008. "Corporate citizenship as stakeholder management: An ordonomic approach to business ethics," Discussion Papers 2008-4, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    17. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    18. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    19. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Machani, Mahdi & Nourelfath, Mustapha & D’Amours, Sophie, 2015. "A scenario-based modelling approach to identify robust transformation strategies for pulp and paper companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 41-63.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1050-1062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.