IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11765-d918956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vulnerable Stakeholders’ Engagement: Advancing Stakeholder Theory with New Attribute and Salience Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Kamran Shafique

    (Springfield Campus, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central 4300, Australia
    St Lucia Campus, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia)

  • Cle-Anne Gabriel

    (St Lucia Campus, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement is a central tenet for understanding and solving sustainability challenges. Given the existing stakeholder knowledge base and the fact that practitioners mostly focus on the engagement of high-power and salience stakeholders, the interests of low-power and vulnerable stakeholders are often manipulated. Therefore, this research is devoted to the engagement of low-power and vulnerable stakeholders. Grounded in the stakeholder theory and the results of two illustrations, we demonstrate how the physical proximity of vulnerable stakeholders influences salience patterns in a multi-stakeholder engagement context. The contribution of the study is the conceptualisation of proximity as a stakeholder attribute, in addition to power, legitimacy, and urgency, to help managers identify and appropriately engage with vulnerable stakeholders. Thus, we extend stakeholder typologies by incorporating proximity into the existing attribute model. The proposed model addresses the paradoxical nature of stakeholder salience and engagement theories and furthers the sustainability agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamran Shafique & Cle-Anne Gabriel, 2022. "Vulnerable Stakeholders’ Engagement: Advancing Stakeholder Theory with New Attribute and Salience Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11765-:d:918956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11765/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11765/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    2. Benjamin Neville & Simon Bell & Gregory Whitwell, 2011. "Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 357-378, September.
    3. Jose Luis Retolaza & Ricardo Aguado & Leire Alcaniz, 2019. "Stakeholder Theory Through the Lenses of Catholic Social Thought," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 969-980, July.
    4. Mohammad A. Ali, 2017. "Stakeholder Salience for Stakeholder Firms: An Attempt to Reframe an Important Heuristic Device," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 153-168, August.
    5. Sofyan Sufri & Febi Dwirahmadi & Dung Phung & Shannon Rutherford, 2020. "Enhancing community engagement in disaster early warning system in Aceh, Indonesia: opportunities and challenges," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(3), pages 2691-2709, September.
    6. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    7. Veeshan Rayamajhee & Alok K. Bohara, 2021. "Social capital, trust, and collective action in post-earthquake Nepal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1491-1519, January.
    8. Rob Tulder & Nienke Keen, 2018. "Capturing Collaborative Challenges: Designing Complexity-Sensitive Theories of Change for Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 315-332, June.
    9. Shahzad Khurram & Sandra Charreire Petit, 2017. "Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 485-515, July.
    10. Jan Jonker & David Foster, 2002. "Stakeholder excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a stakeholder perspective of the firm," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 187-195, December.
    11. Bernadette Best & Sandra Moffett & Rodney McAdam, 2019. "Stakeholder salience in public sector value co-creation," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(11), pages 1707-1732, November.
    12. Bulent Menguc & Seigyoung Auh & Lucie Ozanne, 2010. "The Interactive Effect of Internal and External Factors on a Proactive Environmental Strategy and its Influence on a Firm's Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 279-298, June.
    13. Jan Anton van Zanten & Rob van Tulder, 2018. "Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(3), pages 208-233, December.
    14. Pia Lotila, 2010. "Corporate Responsiveness to Social Pressure: An Interaction-Based Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 395-409, July.
    15. Nardia Haigh & Andrew Griffiths, 2009. "The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: the case of climate change," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(6), pages 347-359, September.
    16. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    17. Gabriel, Cle-Anne & Bond, Carol, 2019. "Need, Entitlement and Desert: A Distributive Justice Framework for Consumption Degrowth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 327-336.
    18. Gilbert Silvius & Ron Schipper, 2019. "Planning Project Stakeholder Engagement from a Sustainable Development Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meryem Elif Çelebi Karakök & Şebnem Ertaş Beşir, 2023. "Usage Strategies to Increase the Socioeconomic Sustainability of Monumental Structures: The Example of the Hacı Ali Ağa Bath," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-25, May.

    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. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    2. Theresa Gehringer, 2020. "Corporate Foundations as Partnership Brokers in Supporting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Jiawen Chen & Linlin Liu, 2020. "Eco-Efficiency and Private Firms’ Relationships with Heterogeneous Public Stakeholders in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Yakovleva, Natalia & Vazquez-Brust, Diego Alfonso, 2018. "Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 52-62.
    5. Sibel Hoştut & Seçil Deren het Hof & Hediye Aydoğan & Gülten Adalı, 2023. "Who’s in and who’s out? Reading stakeholders and priority issues from sustainability reports in Turkey," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Radka MacGregor Pelikánová & Robert Kenyon MacGregor & Martin Èernek, 2021. "New trends in codes of ethics: Czech business ethics preferences by the dawn of COVID-19," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 12(4), pages 973-1009, December.
    7. Adam P. Balcerzak & Radka MacGregor Pelikánová, 2020. "Projection of SDGs in Codes of Ethics—Case Study about Lost in Translation," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Samuel Petros Sebhatu & Bo Enquist, 2022. "Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(4), pages 1059-1074, November.
    9. Rob Van Tulder & Suzana B. Rodrigues & Hafiz Mirza & Kathleen Sexsmith, 2021. "The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals: Can multinational enterprises lead the Decade of Action?," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Christoph Constantin Niemann & Petra Dickel & Gordon Eckardt, 2020. "The interplay of corporate entrepreneurship, environmental orientation, and performance in clean‐tech firms—A double‐edged sword," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 180-196, January.
    11. James X. Zhan & Amelia U. Santos-Paulino, 2021. "Investing in the Sustainable Development Goals: Mobilization, channeling, and impact," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 166-183, March.
    12. Simona Fiandrino & Francesco Scarpa & Riccardo Torelli, 2022. "Fostering Social Impact Through Corporate Implementation of the SDGs: Transformative Mechanisms Towards Interconnectedness and Inclusiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(4), pages 959-973, November.
    13. Oksana Seroka‐Stolka & Kamil Fijorek, 2020. "Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Proactive environmental strategy, stakeholder pressure and the moderating effect of firm size," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2338-2354, September.
    14. Leopoldo Gutierrez & Ivan Montiel & Jordi A. Surroca & Josep A. Tribo, 2022. "Rainbow Wash or Rainbow Revolution? Dynamic Stakeholder Engagement for SDG-Driven Responsible Innovation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(4), pages 1113-1136, November.
    15. Larissa Oliveira‐Duarte & Diane Aparecida Reis & Andre Leme Fleury & Rosana Aparecida Vasques & Homero Fonseca Filho & Mikko Koria & Julia Baruque‐Ramos, 2021. "Innovation Ecosystem framework directed to Sustainable Development Goal #17 partnerships implementation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 1018-1036, September.
    16. Silvana Signori & Yves Fassin, 2023. "Family Members’ Salience in Family Business: An Identity-Based Stakeholder Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 191-211, February.
    17. Marta Cuesta-González & Julie Froud & Daniel Tischer, 2021. "Coalitions and Public Action in the Reshaping of Corporate Responsibility: The Case of the Retail Banking Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 539-558, October.
    18. Tulin Dzhengiz & Andra Riandita & Anders Broström, 2023. "Configurations of sustainability‐oriented textile partnerships," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4392-4412, November.
    19. Magrizos, Solon & Apospori, Eleni & Carrigan, Marylyn & Jones, Rosalind, 2021. "Is CSR the panacea for SMEs? A study of socially responsible SMEs during economic crisis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 291-303.
    20. Helen M. Haugh & Alka Talwar, 2016. "Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of Empowerment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 643-658, February.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11765-:d:918956. 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.