Skip to main content

Stakeholder Definition in a Network Context: The Case of Piazza dei Mestieri

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical Research Cases

Part of the book series: Issues in Business Ethics ((IBET,volume 46))

Abstract

This article contributes to the body of stakeholder literature by providing a detailed analysis of the dynamics that pragmatically occur in a firm during the process of analysis of stakeholder relationships. This process can be fragmented when an entity operates through a coordinated combination of different firms (with several legal entities) that form a network. The application of stakeholder thinking could be difficult when the overall purpose of the network is to provide social goods for increasing social welfare in a critical community. Recent trends in the stakeholder salience model, such as stakeholder relationships model will be analyzed in detail. The case study focuses on a network of several entities that provide training and work possibilities to early school dropouts, i.e. young disadvantage people. The network analyzed is located in Italy and it is composed by several legal entities like profit, not-for-profit and training agencies. In recent years, the business model adopted by the network has demonstrated its validity in contrasting the social phenomena, and the network is currently in expansion. The methodological approach used is a Participatory Active Research (PAR) one, particularly important for testing the efficient application of a theory or the evolution of a theory in a proper manner. The case can add a contribution in the constant and still modern debate on stakeholder management in practice. Our research can bring useful insights for policy makers and all those organizations that provide guidelines for stakeholder engagement.

The authors would like to thank all the people involved in the project and especially the board and top managers of Piazza dei Mestieri. In particular, we thank Giulia Mancini and Andrea Martra for their passionate work that helped us in collecting data and design the project. In addition, we thank Dario Odifreddi, Cristiana Poggio and Giovanni Clot for demonstrating further that the cooperation can generate positive and unexpected results. In particular, we are glad and honored to have met and joined their incredible environment that have taught us more than we ever imagined.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Argandoña, Antonio, and Heidi von Weltzien Høivik. 2009. Corporate social responsibility: One size does not fit all. Collecting evidence from Europe. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, Bruce R., and Jeffrey S. Harrison. 2000. Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management 26: 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia, Massimo, Lara Bianchi, Marco Frey, and Emilio Passetti. 2015. Sustainability reporting and corporate identity: action research evidence in an Italian retailing cooperative. Business Ethics: A European Review 24: 52–72. doi:10.1111/beer.12067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2012. Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. Tampa: University of South Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso, Giacomo, and Kamalesh Kumar. 2009. Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US. Accounting Forum 33: 162–175. doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. David. 1985. People-centered development and participatory research. Harvard Educational Review 55 (1): 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz, Rogene A., and Sandra B. Rosenthal. 2005. Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58: 137–148. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1393-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, Max E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, David, and Teresa Brannick. 2014. Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corazza, Laura, and Maurizio Cisi. 2012. Accountability challenges in social enterprise and the implementation of a reporting standard: An Italian case study. Journal of Social Business 2: 44–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, Ericka, and Tommaso Ramus. 2012. The Italian economia aziendale and catholic social teaching: How to apply the common food principle at the managerial level. Journal of Business Ethics 106: 103–116. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1056-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cots, Elisabet Garriga. 2011. Stakeholder social capital: A new approach to stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review 20: 328–341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01635.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, Andrew, and Trish Ruebottom. 2011. Stakeholder theory and social identity: rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics 102: 77–87. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1191-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, John. 1999. Action Research: Theory, Practice and Trade Union Involvement. Working paper no. 99/06. Sheffield, Sheffield Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, Linda, and Karen Watkins. 1999. Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management Learning 30: 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, Thomas, and Lee E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65–91. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Colin, and Chris Huxman. 1996. Action research for the study of organisations. In Handbook of Organisational Studies, ed. Steward R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, 526–542. Washington: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, John. 1991. Action research for educational change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, William, and R. Edward Freeman. 1993. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Ethical Theory and Business, ed. Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, 75–84. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrero, Giovanni. 1987. Impresa e management. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409–421. doi:10.2307/3857340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Jeffrey S. Harrison, and Andrew C. Wicks. 2007a. Managing for stakeholders. Survival, reputation, and success. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan Parmar, and Simone De Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Martin Kirsten, and Bidhan Parmar. 2007b. Stakeholder capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics 74: 303–314. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9517-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, and John McVea. 2001. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Darden Business School Working Paper. No. 01-02. doi:10.2139/ssrn.263511

  • Freeman, R. Edward, and Alexander Moutchnik. 2013. Stakeholder management and CSR: questions and answers. uwfUmweltWirtschaftsForum 21:5-9. doi:10.1007/s00550-013-0266-3

  • Freeman, R. Edward, and Robert Phillips. 2002. Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defence. Business Ethics Quarterly 12: 331–349. doi:10.2307/3858020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Velamuri S. Ramakrishna, and Brian Moriarty. 2006. Company stakeholder responsibility: A new approach to CSR. Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, and David L. Reed. 1983. Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review 25: 88–106. doi:10.2307/41165018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Gianfranco Rusconi, Silvana Signori, and Alan Strudler. 2012. Stakeholder theory(ies): Ethical ideas and managerial action. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 1–2. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1374-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Andrew C. Wicks, and Bidhan Parmar. 2004. Stakeholder theory and “The corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science 15: 364–369. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, Kenneth. 1991. Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73. doi:10.2307/3857592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, J. Davydd, and Morten Levin. 2007. Introduction to action research, social research for social change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, Christine M., Richard C. Lamming, Jurong Zheng, and Thomas E. Johnsen. 2001. A Taxonomy of Supply Networks. Journal of Supply Chain Management 3: 21–27. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2001.tb00109.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, O. Matthew. 2010. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 2000. Participatory Action Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 567–605. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koshy, Elizabeth, Valsa Koshy, and Heather Waterman. 2010. Action research in healthcare. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J. 2001. Analysing moral issues in stakeholder relations. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(3): 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, Johanna, Anna Heikkinen, and Hanna Lehtimäki. 2012. Understanding the nature of stakeholder relationships: An empirical examination of a conflict situation. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 53–65. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1379-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, Josep M. 2005. Towards the relational corporation: From managing stakeholder relationship to building stakeholder relationships (waiting for Copernicus). Corporate Governance 5: 60–77. doi:10.1108/14720700510562668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVea, John F., and R. Edward Freeman. 2005. A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry 14: 57–69. doi:10.1177/1056492604270799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, Mario. 2012. Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 67–82. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, Mario, Maurizio Zollo, and Vittorio Coda. 2010. Stakeholder cohesion, innovation, and competitive advantage. Corporate Governance: An International Journal of Business in Society 10: 395–405. doi:10.1108/14720701011069632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review 22: 853–886. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myllykangas, Päivi, Johanna Kujala, and Hanna Lehtimäki. 2010. Analyzing the essence of stakeholder relationships: What do we need in addition to power, legitimacy, and urgency? Journal of Business Ethics 96: 65–72. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0945-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Leary, Zina. 2004. The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Robert. 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 25–41. doi:10.5840/beq20031312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Robert, R. Edward Freeman, and Andrew C. Wicks. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 479–502. doi:10.5840/beq200313434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, James E., Lee E. Preston, and Sybille Sachs. 2002. Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. California Management Review 45: 6–28. doi:10.2307/41166151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragazzi, Elena. 2008. Perchè nessuno si perda: la Piazza dei mestieri: un modello per contrastare la dispersione scolastica. Milano: Guerini e associati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury, eds. 2001. Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., I.F. Wilkinson, and W.J. Johnston. 2004. Managing in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing Management 33: 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, A. Stuart. 1995. Industrial-Strength Strategies: Regional Business Clusters and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, Timothy J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review 22: 887–910. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Signori, Silvana, and Gianfranco Rusconi. 2009. Ethical thinking in traditional Italian economia aziendale and the stakeholder management theory: The search for possible interactions. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 303–318. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0391-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susman, Gerald I., and Roger D. Evered. 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly: 582–603. doi:10.2307/2392581.

  • Tencati, Antonio, and Laszlo Zsolnai. 2009. The collaborative enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics 85: 367–376. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9775-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, William Foote. 1989. Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4: 367–385. doi:10.1007/BF01115015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, William Foote, Davydd J. Greenwood, and Peter Lazes. 1989. Participatory action research. The American Behavioral Scientist 32: 513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, Andrew, and R. Edward Freeman. 1998. Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, antipositivism and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9: 123–140. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappa, Gino. 1962. L’economia delle aziende di consumo. Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Corazza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Annex I Preliminary stakeholder analysis model

Annex I Preliminary stakeholder analysis model

Entity perspective

Stakeholders

Specific notes on stakeholders’ relationships

All entities of Piazza

Students

Present and alumni

Objectives

Provide them the highest amount of scholarships

Best training offer in order to find a high valuable work position

Theoretical training and Practical application

Be part of a family, self-esteem, positive future

Allocate the highest percentage of students in stage and find them a job or perspective career

Best practical training offer

Possibility to work with awarded professional trainers (enriched their CVs)Be part of a family

Understand the beauty in the word

Interactions Daily and constant; when discontinuous is due to external negative influence

Information sharing Bi-directional, practical and theoretical, creative

Value High level of trust and profound involvement, “take care of”

Learn Mutual for definition

Foundation

Founders

Institutional founders (Region)

Historical

Objectives Increase the offer of services in order to meet new societal need

Business continuity and growth

Increase the impact of Piazza in solving societal needs

Be a tool for recognize new societal needs and help public regulators as new civil economy model

Provide the highest amount of scholarships

Interactions constant during the year with peaks during project applications and reviews

Information sharing Accounting over projects; Represent an antenna on the district needs; Mutual sharing of daily practices to replicate the model

Value High level of trust

Learn Elevate propensity to reciprocal learn aimed to reach future improvements

 

Donors and Institutional donors

Partners (Private Companies)

Small donors

Historical, Prospective, One-shot

Objectives Transparency and accountability

Best practice for the district

Efficient allocation of funds

Visibility

Be involved in training programme in order to contribute to the training of their perspective employees

Provide the highest amount of scholarships to students

Partner in CSR actions

Interactions Depending on projects (constant or discontinuous); tendency to getting more involved in projects.

Information sharing Accounting over projects; usually mono-directional, but bi-directional when partners are active part in teaching and lectures

Value High level of trust and continuity; transparency; accuracy.

Learn Mutual in order to build long term relationships

 

Human resources (managerial and technical staff)

Historical, Prospective

Objectives

Internal welfare

Be part of a family of Piazza

Recognition

Interactions Daily

Information sharing Continuous share

Value High level of trust to assure the continuity and the guarantee the imagine of Piazza as “safe place”

Learn New training needs that require new supports

 

Association and other firms

Historical, Prospective

Objectives Build up new business networks to collaborate and offer new professional training skills

Efficient cost allocation

Business partnering

Interactions Discontinuous

Information sharing Open and effective in order to increase mutual benefit

Value Cooperation and collaboration, excluding competition

Training agencies and job centers

Family

Historical, Prospective

Objectives Positive future and “taking care of”

Definitive exit from critical situation of social disease

Best training offer in order to find a high valuable work position

Interactions Constant involvement and engagement, “forced in particular case”

Information sharing “Training deal signed by three Piazza, the students and the family”. Sometimes not always easy, critical and urgent.

Value High level of trust for the future of the family itself

 

Social services (sometimes instead of families)

Armed forces

Local social educators

Historical, important for the future

Objectives Prevent critical situation at high social risk

Prevent and tackle the risk of violence and domestic abuses

Prevent new social problems

Interactions In specific cases

Information sharing Critical and sensitive

Value High level of trust and rapidity

Learn Reciprocal and mutual learn in order to tackle and prevent high risky situation in time

 

Local entities (cities, province…)

Ministries

Historical

Objectives Active role of Piazza in the district and community

Public outcomes

Effective results of the project financed by them

Piazza as local best practice

Interactions Constant and increasingly accentuated over time depending on reciprocal benefit

Information sharing Normative, usually mono-directional, but Piazza aims to foster bi-directional dialogues

Value Cooperation

Learn Influence of Piazza as national and international best practice

 

Trainers

Teachers

Historical and perspective

Objectives Be part of a family of Piazza

Well-designed training activities

Be more than a teacher

Be creative and patient

Interactions Daily on routine basis

Information sharing From trainers to students and also from trainers to Piazza as a whole

Value Collaboration, trust, role of guide

 

Association and other partners

Historical and perspective

Objectives Innovative training methodology

Qualified workforce

Partnering for projects and programme

Interactions Depending on projects

 

Customers

Objectives Effective job centers

Cooperative

Customers

Objectives

High level quality and premium price

Excellent taste

Functional locations

 

Professional trainers

Historical and perspective

Objectives

Professional proud

Exclusivity

Visibility

Be the sounding board to attract students and customers

Interactions Daily on routine basis

Information sharing From trainers to students and from trainers to Piazza as a whole.

Value Collaboration, reciprocal trust, role of guide

 

Suppliers

Interactions Distinguishing between core suppliers and others

Objectives

Highest level of quality and excellence of the raw materials

Reciprocal trust

Association

Students

Student as members

Historical and perspective and alumni

Invest their time in valuable activities to prevent social risks

Help other students

 

Volunteers

Objectives

Give a practical help (for instance during training sessions)

Guarantee a professional help

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Corazza, L., Cisi, M. (2017). Stakeholder Definition in a Network Context: The Case of Piazza dei Mestieri. In: Freeman, R., Kujala, J., Sachs, S. (eds) Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical Research Cases. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62785-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics