Three component stakeholder analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Both public and private organizations are increasingly employing stakeholder engagement as an important strategy for improving external stakeholder relations. Incorporating stakeholders’ opinions is valuable for improving decision-making processes and project implementation [Deelstra, Nooteboom, Kohlmann, van den Berg, & Innanen (2003) Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 517–541]. Currently, the prevailing practice domain for stakeholder engagement is largely characterized by complex and dynamic environments containing a wide range of stakeholders, from hostile to conciliatory, from obstructive to collaborative [Crocker (2007) Organizational arrangements for the provision of cross-boundary transport infrastructure and services. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology]. This diverse range of stakeholders with different interests and expectations requires fl exible and indeed specialized engagement tools [Shandas & Messer (2008) Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 408–418]. Yet the practise of stakeholder analysis, a pre-requisite for successful stakeholder engagement [Clarkson (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117; Reed et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949], has been insufficiently explored. At present, there is no integrated stakeholder analysis method that investigates the stakeholder sufficiently, i.e., from multiple space–time subjectivities, rather then from a single space–time representation. To arrive at an integrated stakeholder analysis methodology, Reed et al. (2009) have suggested investigating the potential for combining existing methods to derive more useful results. This article will therefore offer a new integrated framework, covering all components; salience, frames of reference and networks.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)318-333
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Journal of Multiple Research Approaches
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

stakeholder
institute of technology
environmental management
management
decision-making process
academy
community
subjectivity
environmental impact
natural resources
typology
Netherlands
infrastructure
decision making
planning
methodology

Keywords

  • stakeholder engagement
  • stakeholder analysis
  • methodology

Cite this

Three component stakeholder analysis. / Kivits, Robbert A.

In: International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2011, p. 318-333.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6f01bdff3b3d4d3dbd35cd5ce7fe671f,
title = "Three component stakeholder analysis",
abstract = "Both public and private organizations are increasingly employing stakeholder engagement as an important strategy for improving external stakeholder relations. Incorporating stakeholders’ opinions is valuable for improving decision-making processes and project implementation [Deelstra, Nooteboom, Kohlmann, van den Berg, & Innanen (2003) Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 517–541]. Currently, the prevailing practice domain for stakeholder engagement is largely characterized by complex and dynamic environments containing a wide range of stakeholders, from hostile to conciliatory, from obstructive to collaborative [Crocker (2007) Organizational arrangements for the provision of cross-boundary transport infrastructure and services. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology]. This diverse range of stakeholders with different interests and expectations requires fl exible and indeed specialized engagement tools [Shandas & Messer (2008) Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 408–418]. Yet the practise of stakeholder analysis, a pre-requisite for successful stakeholder engagement [Clarkson (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117; Reed et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949], has been insufficiently explored. At present, there is no integrated stakeholder analysis method that investigates the stakeholder sufficiently, i.e., from multiple space–time subjectivities, rather then from a single space–time representation. To arrive at an integrated stakeholder analysis methodology, Reed et al. (2009) have suggested investigating the potential for combining existing methods to derive more useful results. This article will therefore offer a new integrated framework, covering all components; salience, frames of reference and networks.",
keywords = "stakeholder engagement, stakeholder analysis, methodology",
author = "Kivits, {Robbert A}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.318",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "318--333",
journal = "International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches",
issn = "1834-0806",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three component stakeholder analysis

AU - Kivits, Robbert A

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Both public and private organizations are increasingly employing stakeholder engagement as an important strategy for improving external stakeholder relations. Incorporating stakeholders’ opinions is valuable for improving decision-making processes and project implementation [Deelstra, Nooteboom, Kohlmann, van den Berg, & Innanen (2003) Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 517–541]. Currently, the prevailing practice domain for stakeholder engagement is largely characterized by complex and dynamic environments containing a wide range of stakeholders, from hostile to conciliatory, from obstructive to collaborative [Crocker (2007) Organizational arrangements for the provision of cross-boundary transport infrastructure and services. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology]. This diverse range of stakeholders with different interests and expectations requires fl exible and indeed specialized engagement tools [Shandas & Messer (2008) Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 408–418]. Yet the practise of stakeholder analysis, a pre-requisite for successful stakeholder engagement [Clarkson (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117; Reed et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949], has been insufficiently explored. At present, there is no integrated stakeholder analysis method that investigates the stakeholder sufficiently, i.e., from multiple space–time subjectivities, rather then from a single space–time representation. To arrive at an integrated stakeholder analysis methodology, Reed et al. (2009) have suggested investigating the potential for combining existing methods to derive more useful results. This article will therefore offer a new integrated framework, covering all components; salience, frames of reference and networks.

AB - Both public and private organizations are increasingly employing stakeholder engagement as an important strategy for improving external stakeholder relations. Incorporating stakeholders’ opinions is valuable for improving decision-making processes and project implementation [Deelstra, Nooteboom, Kohlmann, van den Berg, & Innanen (2003) Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 517–541]. Currently, the prevailing practice domain for stakeholder engagement is largely characterized by complex and dynamic environments containing a wide range of stakeholders, from hostile to conciliatory, from obstructive to collaborative [Crocker (2007) Organizational arrangements for the provision of cross-boundary transport infrastructure and services. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology]. This diverse range of stakeholders with different interests and expectations requires fl exible and indeed specialized engagement tools [Shandas & Messer (2008) Fostering green communities through civic engagement: Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 408–418]. Yet the practise of stakeholder analysis, a pre-requisite for successful stakeholder engagement [Clarkson (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117; Reed et al. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949], has been insufficiently explored. At present, there is no integrated stakeholder analysis method that investigates the stakeholder sufficiently, i.e., from multiple space–time subjectivities, rather then from a single space–time representation. To arrive at an integrated stakeholder analysis methodology, Reed et al. (2009) have suggested investigating the potential for combining existing methods to derive more useful results. This article will therefore offer a new integrated framework, covering all components; salience, frames of reference and networks.

KW - stakeholder engagement

KW - stakeholder analysis

KW - methodology

U2 - 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.318

DO - 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.318

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 318

EP - 333

JO - International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches

JF - International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches

SN - 1834-0806

IS - 3

ER -