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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
Barringer, Bruce R., and Jeffrey S. Harrison. 2000. Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management 26: 367–403.
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.
Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2012. Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. Tampa: University of South Florida.
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.
Brown, L. David. 1985. People-centered development and participatory research. Harvard Educational Review 55 (1): 69–76.
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.
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.
Coghlan, David, and Teresa Brannick. 2014. Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Darwin, John. 1999. Action Research: Theory, Practice and Trade Union Involvement. Working paper no. 99/06. Sheffield, Sheffield Business School.
Dickens, Linda, and Karen Watkins. 1999. Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management Learning 30: 127–140.
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.
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.
Elliot, John. 1991. Action research for educational change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
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.
Ferrero, Giovanni. 1987. Impresa e management. Milano: Giuffrè.
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
———. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409–421. doi:10.2307/3857340.
Freeman, R. Edward, Jeffrey S. Harrison, and Andrew C. Wicks. 2007a. Managing for stakeholders. Survival, reputation, and success. London: Yale University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Freeman, R. Edward, Velamuri S. Ramakrishna, and Brian Moriarty. 2006. Company stakeholder responsibility: A new approach to CSR. Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
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.
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.
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.
Goodpaster, Kenneth. 1991. Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73. doi:10.2307/3857592.
Greenwood, J. Davydd, and Morten Levin. 2007. Introduction to action research, social research for social change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
Jackson, O. Matthew. 2010. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
Koshy, Elizabeth, Valsa Koshy, and Heather Waterman. 2010. Action research in healthcare. London: Sage.
Kujala, J. 2001. Analysing moral issues in stakeholder relations. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(3): 233–247.
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.
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.
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.
Minoja, Mario. 2012. Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics 109: 67–82. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1380-9.
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.
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.
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.
O'Leary, Zina. 2004. The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield: Pitman.
Phillips, Robert. 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 25–41. doi:10.5840/beq20031312.
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.
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.
Ragazzi, Elena. 2008. Perchè nessuno si perda: la Piazza dei mestieri: un modello per contrastare la dispersione scolastica. Milano: Guerini e associati.
Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury, eds. 2001. Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
Ritter, T., I.F. Wilkinson, and W.J. Johnston. 2004. Managing in complex business networks. Industrial Marketing Management 33: 175–183.
Rosenfeld, A. Stuart. 1995. Industrial-Strength Strategies: Regional Business Clusters and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
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.
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.
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
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.
Whyte, William Foote. 1989. Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4: 367–385. doi:10.1007/BF01115015.
Whyte, William Foote, Davydd J. Greenwood, and Peter Lazes. 1989. Participatory action research. The American Behavioral Scientist 32: 513.
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.
Zappa, Gino. 1962. L’economia delle aziende di consumo. Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62785-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62784-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62785-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)