How Does the Management of Multiple Stakeholders’ Interests Influence Decision-Making Processes? Exploring the Case of Crowdsourced Placemaking

  • Riccardo Maiolini
Conference paper


Considering the difficulties that concern the stakeholder engagement, there is a strong debate on the opportunities that web 2.0 and crowdsourcing platforms can arise to resolve decision-making and facilitate alternative choices. The paper is based on the analysis of two companies that use a platform of crowdsourced placemaking trying to engage multiple stakeholders to construct and discuss about the most relevant solutions. This is an explorative paper that tries to understand the new phenomenon.


Stakeholder Theory Multiple Stakeholder Stakeholder Engagement Collective Intelligence Triple Bottom Line 
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. 1.
    Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S. (2003). Unfolding Stakeholder thinking: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance. Sheffield: greenhalf.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garriga, E., & Melè D. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neville, B., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frooman J., (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies, Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 191–205.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory Building from Cases; opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Third Edition (Vol. 5). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maiolini, R., & Naggi, R. (2010). Crowdsourcing and SMEs: Opportunities and Challenges. VII itAIS (Italian Chapter of Association of Information Systems). Naples.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 5, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pénin, J. (2008). More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies. Working Papers of BETA (Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée). Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burger-Helmchen, T., & Pénin, J. (2010). The limits of crowdsourcing inventive activities: What do transaction cost theory and the evolutionary theories of the firm teach us? Working Papers of BETA (Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boyd, D. (2002). Faceted Id/entity: Managing Representation in a Digital World. Cambridge: Cambridge MA: MIT Master’s Thesis.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Savitz, A., & Weber, K. (2006). The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success and How You Can Too. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mason, R., & Mitrof, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: theory, cases. and techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Näsi, J. (1995). A Scandinavian Approach to Stakeholder Thinking: an analysis of its theoretical and practical uses. Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrol, A., & Näsi, J. (1997). Understanding Stakeholder Thinking: Themes from a Finnish conference. Business Ethics a European review, 6(1), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dushnitsky, T., & Klueter, G. (2011). Is There an eBay for Ideas? Insights from Online Knowledge Marketplaces. European Management Review , 8, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R & Dellarocas C. (2010) The Collective Intelligence Genome, MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3), 21–31.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pedersen, E. (2006). Making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Operable: How Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(532–550).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessLUISS Guido CarliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations