Dealing with More Complex Networks of Stakeholders

  • Günter Müller-StewensEmail author
  • Tami Dinh
  • Bettina Hartmann
  • Martin J. Eppler
  • Fabienne Bünzli
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Business book series (BRIEFSBUSINESS)


In this chapter, we share our observations on how the ICRC deals with increasingly complex networks of stakeholders. We describe the shifts in stakeholder settings and relations, especially with regard to beneficiaries and donors. We also show how decision-making at the ICRC is becoming increasingly dynamic, interdependent, and simultaneous. We propose ‘simple rules’ as (strategic) shortcuts to save time and effort by focusing the managers’ attention on key issues. Stressing the increasing demand for greater accountability, we identify a range of challenges, such as the difficulties of measuring humanitarian performance, or managing perceived distractions from the ‘real’ work. We conclude the chapter with the presentation of two ‘operating modes’ for decision-making and action taking in this increasingly complex network of stakeholders.


Stakeholder Settings Increase Accountability Regional Desks Emergency Mode Incident Management Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Sull, D., Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Simple Rules. Einfache Regeln für komplexe Situationen, Econ: Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Schreyögg, G. (Ed.). (2013). Stakeholder-Dialoge. Zwischen fairem Interessenausgleich und Imagepflege. Berlin: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Everett, J., & Friesen, C. (2010). Humanitarian accountability and performance in the Théâtre de L’Absurde. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 468–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Roberts, J. (1991). The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(4), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Greiling, D. (2017). Erfolgsmassstäbe für Nonprofit-Organisationen. Die Unternehmung, 71(2), 126–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter Müller-Stewens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tami Dinh
    • 2
  • Bettina Hartmann
    • 3
  • Martin J. Eppler
    • 4
  • Fabienne Bünzli
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Accounting, Control and AuditingUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  3. 3.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  4. 4.Institute for Media and Communications ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations