IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v109y2012i1p53-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna Kujala
  • Anna Heikkinen
  • Hanna Lehtimäki

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna Kujala & Anna Heikkinen & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2012. "Understanding the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships: An Empirical Examination of a Conflict Situation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 53-65, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:53-65
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2?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. Lisa Calvano, 2008. "Multinational Corporations and Local Communities: A Critical Analysis of Conflict," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 793-805, November.
    2. Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1991. "Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 53-73, January.
    3. Adele Santana & Antonino Vaccaro & Donna Wood, 2009. "Ethics and the Networked Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 661-681, December.
    4. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    5. Elisabet Garriga, 2009. "Cooperation in Stakeholder Networks: Firms’ ‘Tertius Iungens’ Role," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 623-637, December.
    6. Julia Roloff, 2008. "Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 233-250, September.
    7. Benjamin Neville & Bulent Menguc, 2006. "Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 377-391, July.
    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. Liu, Wentong & Kwong, Caleb C.Y. & Kim, Young-Ah & Liu, Hongfei, 2021. "The more the better vs. less is more: Strategic alliances, bricolage and social performance in social enterprises," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 128-142.
    2. Eastmure, Elizabeth & Cummins, Steven & Sparks, Leigh, 2020. "Non-market strategy as a framework for exploring commercial involvement in health policy: A primer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    3. Sefa Hayibor & Colleen Collins, 2016. "Motivators of Mobilization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 351-374, December.
    4. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Carola Hillenbrand & Kevin Guy Money & Chris Brooks & Nicole Tovstiga, 2019. "Corporate Tax: What Do Stakeholders Expect?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 403-426, August.
    6. Kabelo Esther Rathobei & Helena Ranängen & Åsa Lindman, 2024. "Stakeholder integration in sustainable business models to enhance value delivery for a broader range of stakeholders," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 3687-3706, May.
    7. Monfardini, Patrizio & Barretta, Antonio D. & Ruggiero, Pasquale, 2013. "Seeking legitimacy: Social reporting in the healthcare sector," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 54-66.
    8. Maili Marjamaa & Hanna Salminen & Johanna Kujala & Riikka Tapaninaho & Anna Heikkinen, 2021. "A Sustainable Circular Economy: Exploring Stakeholder Interests in Finland," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 10(1), pages 50-62, April.
    9. Edwin Rühli & Sybille Sachs & Ruth Schmitt & Thomas Schneider, 2017. "Innovation in Multistakeholder Settings: The Case of a Wicked Issue in Health Care," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 289-305, June.

    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. Edwin Rühli & Sybille Sachs & Ruth Schmitt & Thomas Schneider, 2017. "Innovation in Multistakeholder Settings: The Case of a Wicked Issue in Health Care," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 289-305, June.
    2. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    3. Silvana Signori & Yves Fassin, 2023. "Family Members’ Salience in Family Business: An Identity-Based Stakeholder Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 191-211, February.
    4. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Alejandra Marin & Ronald Mitchell & Jae Lee, 2015. "The Vulnerability and Strength Duality in Ethnic Business: A Model of Stakeholder Salience and Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 271-289, August.
    6. Bazlur RAHMAN, & Idris ALI, & Alexandru Mircea NEDELEA, 2017. "Greenwashing In Canadian Firms: An Assessment Of Environmental Claimsgreenwashing In Canadian Firms: An Assessment Of Environmental Claims," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, july.
    7. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    8. Michal Zdziarski & Robert G. Boutilier, 2016. "Strategic Challenges in Stakeholder Networks (Strategiczne wyzwania w sieciach interesariuszy)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 14(64), pages 62-79.
    9. Anna Heikkinen & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2013. "Managing Stakeholder Dialogue: The Case of Botnia in Uruguay," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 2(1), pages 25-37, June.
    10. Samuel Mansell, 2013. "Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 583-599, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    13. Azadegan, Arash & Golara, Sina & Kach, Andrew & Mousavi, Nasim, 2018. "Corporate environmental investments: A cross-national study on managerial decision making," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 47-64.
    14. Julien Granata & Marie-Clémence da Fonseca & Pierre Marques & Mickaël Géraudel, 2016. "The dynamic of SMEs collective strategy: the case of Pic Saint-Loup winemakers [Dynamique d'évolution d'une stratégie collective entre PME : le cas des vignerons du Pic Saint- Loup]," Post-Print hal-01588177, HAL.
    15. Aureli, Selena & Del Baldo, Mara, 2019. "Performance measurement in the networked context of convention and visitors bureaus (CVBs)," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 92-105.
    16. Adel Aloui & Khaled Saadaoui & Manal Wehbi Sleiman, 2015. "Le concept de parties prenantes : proposition d'une modélisation systémique par le modèle SAGACE," Post-Print hal-01870859, HAL.
    17. Pablo Rodrigo & Ignacio J. Duran, 2021. "Why Does Context Really Matter? Understanding Companies’ Dialogue with Fringe Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-26, January.
    18. Julien Granata & Marie Clémence da Fonseca & Pierre Marques & Mickaël Géraudel, 2016. "Dynamique d'évolution d'une stratégie collective entre PME : le cas des vignerons du Pic Saint-Loup," Post-Print hal-01794519, HAL.
    19. Adel Aloui & Khaled Saadaoui & Manal Wehbi Sleiman, 2015. "Le concept de parties prenantes : proposition d'une modélisation systémique par le modèle SAGACE," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01870859, HAL.
    20. Mollie Painter & Mar Pérezts & Ghislain Deslandes, 2021. "Understanding the human in stakeholder theory : a phenomenological approach to affect-based learning," Post-Print hal-03188192, HAL.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:109:y:2012:i:1:p:53-65. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.