IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v15y2025i5p538-d1603134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unfolding Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Design Process of National Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans: Case of Lithuania

Author

Listed:
  • Živilė Gedminaitė-Raudonė

    (Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Vitalija Simonaitytė

    (Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Rita Lankauskienė

    (Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Institute of Economics and Rural Development, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement in the process of policy formation can mitigate the risks of flaws in policy planning and implementation; it also facilitates the successful adoption of new decisions, reduces conflict, and enhances the sense of responsibility among all actors involved in the implementation phase. Effective stakeholder engagement requires a multi-stakeholder approach, supported by cost-effective, bottom-up mechanisms that are tailored to stakeholders’ needs, experiences, and the challenges they face. This study examines the organisation and implications of stakeholder engagement in the process of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plan (SP) formation in Lithuania. The research was conducted using qualitative methods. First, experts were selected through the quadruple helix approach, resulting in a total of 15 experts. Subsequently, a focus group was convened to deepen and expand our understanding of stakeholder engagement during the preparation of Lithuania’s Rural Development Programme 2023–2027. The focus group examined engagement in terms of the flexibility, transparency, inclusivity, and effectiveness of organisational and management practices. Analysis of stakeholders’ engagement in CAP SPs in Lithuania revealed that there is a certain middle ground between formalistic and more elaborated engagement.

Suggested Citation

  • Živilė Gedminaitė-Raudonė & Vitalija Simonaitytė & Rita Lankauskienė, 2025. "Unfolding Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Design Process of National Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans: Case of Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:5:p:538-:d:1603134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/5/538/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/5/538/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Sachs, 2013. "Governance Structures in Europe. WWWforEurope Deliverable No. 2," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 47023, October.
    2. Emil Erjavec & Ilona Rac, 2023. "Improving the Quality of CAP Strategic Planning through Enhancing the Role of Agricultural Economics," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(2), pages 71-76, August.
    3. Tommaso Ramus & Antonino Vaccaro, 2017. "Stakeholders Matter: How Social Enterprises Address Mission Drift," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 307-322, June.
    4. Roberto Cagliero & Francesco Bellini & Francesco Marcatto & Silvia Novelli & Alessandro Monteleone & Giampiero Mazzocchi, 2021. "Prioritising CAP Intervention Needs: An Improved Cumulative Voting Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Linda O’Riordan & Jenny Fairbrass, 2014. "Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 121-145, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reeti Kulshrestha & Arunaditya Sahay & Subhanjan Sengupta, 2022. "Constituents and Drivers of Mission Engagement for Social Enterprise Sustainability: A Systematic Review," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 31(1), pages 90-120, March.
    2. Jozef Cossey & Adrien Billiet & Frédéric Dufays & Johan Bruneel, 2025. "How Do Institutional Prescriptions (Fail to) Address Governance Challenges Under Institutional Hybridity? The Case of Governance Code Creation for Cooperative Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 196(2), pages 451-470, January.
    3. Isabel-María García-Sánchez & Cristina Aibar-Guzmán & Carmen Serrano-Valdecillos & Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán, 2022. "Analysis of the Dialogue with Stakeholders by the IBEX 35 Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Daniel J. Blake & Stanislav Markus & Julio Martinez‐Suarez, 2024. "Populist Syndrome and Nonmarket Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 525-560, March.
    5. Elizabeth A. R. Fowler & Betty S. Coffey & Heather R. Dixon-Fowler, 2019. "Transforming Good Intentions into Social Impact: A Case on the Creation and Evolution of a Social Enterprise," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 665-678, October.
    6. Urquía-Grande, Elena & Lorain, Marie-Anne & Rautiainen, Antti Ilmari & Cano-Montero, Elisa Isabel, 2021. "Balance with logic-measuring the performance and sustainable development efforts of an NPO in rural Ethiopia," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    7. Andreana Drencheva & Wee Chan Au, 2023. "Bringing the Family Logic in: From Duality to Plurality in Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 77-93, January.
    8. Diego Ponte & Caterina Pesci, 2022. "Institutional logics and organizational change: the role of place and time," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(3), pages 891-924, September.
    9. Stefan Ederer, 2015. "Macroeconomic Imbalances and Institutional Reforms in the EMU. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 87," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 57896, October.
    10. Syrus M Islam, 2022. "Social impact scaling strategies in social enterprises: A systematic review and research agenda," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 47(2), pages 298-321, May.
    11. Maria José Sanzo-Pérez & Marta Rey-García & Luis Ignacio Álvarez-González, 2022. "Downward accountability to beneficiaries in social enterprises: do partnerships with nonprofits boost it without undermining accountability to other stakeholders?," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1533-1560, July.
    12. Marian Oliński & Jarosław Mioduszewski, 2022. "Determinants of Development of Social Enterprises according to the Theory of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, November.
    13. Mersland, Roy & Nyarko, Samuel Anokye & Szafarz, Ariane, 2019. "Do social enterprises walk the talk? Assessing microfinance performances with mission statements," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Susana C. Esper & Luciano Barin-Cruz & Jean-Pascal Gond, 2024. "Engaging Stakeholders During Intergovernmental Conflict: How Political Attributions Shape Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 1-27, April.
    15. Keke Bai & Farid Ullah & Muhammad Arif & Sahar Erfanian & Saima Urooge, 2023. "Stakeholder-Centered Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainable Development: Evidence from CSR Practices in the Top Companies by Market Capitalization at Shanghai Stock Exchange of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-25, February.
    16. Singaram, Raja & Radu-Lefebvre, Miruna & Gartner, William B., 2023. "Gordian knot uncut: Understanding the problem of founder exit in social ventures," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    17. Mohamed Toukabri & Maher Toukabri, 2023. "Football Industry Accounting as a Social and Organizational Practice: from the Implementation of the CSR Process to Integrated Reporting," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 725-753, October.
    18. Drencheva, Andreana & Stephan, Ute & Patterson, Malcolm G. & Topakas, Anna, 2021. "Navigating interpersonal feedback seeking in social venturing: The roles of psychological distance and sensemaking," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    19. Claudia Savarese & Benjamin Huybrechts & Marek Hudon, 2021. "The Influence of Interorganizational Collaboration on Logic Conciliation and Tensions Within Hybrid Organizations: Insights from Social Enterprise–Corporate Collaborations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(4), pages 709-721, November.
    20. Sanzo-Pérez, María José & Álvarez-González, Luis I., 2022. "Partnerships between Spanish social enterprises and nonprofits: A rich hybridity-based setting for social innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:5:p:538-:d:1603134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.