IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1609-d111478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations

Author

Listed:
  • Liliana Hawrysz

    (Department of Organization and Management, Opole University of Technology, 45-758 Opole, Poland)

  • Jolanta Maj

    (Department of Organization and Management, Opole University of Technology, 45-758 Opole, Poland)

Abstract

Organisations are responsible for the impact of their decisions and actions on society and environment. This responsibility should be exercised by, among others, transparent and ethical conduct, which contributes to sustainable development, including the welfare and health of society, consideration of the stakeholders’ expectations, maintaining compliance with the current law, and coherence with international standards of conduct, and should be integrated with the organisation’s actions and exercised in its relations. An organisation’s social responsibility, aside from the fact that it is an obligation towards society, can bring the organisation measurable benefits in the long-term, such as an increase in the interest of investors, for whom a company’s financial credibility is often dependent on its social credibility, improved consumer and stakeholder loyalty, as well as increased competitiveness. The purpose of this article, the consideration of which is embedded in stakeholder theory, is to answer the question of whether Polish stock exchange companies identify their stakeholders, and to identify the possible effects of such identification on the organisations. From among 102 organisations that took part in CATI (computer-assisted telephone interview) studies, 28% identify their stakeholders. It is interesting that organisations that identify their stakeholders generated positive financial results more often than organisations that do not identify them. Organisations that identify their stakeholders are more transparent, i.e., disclose their non-financial information. On the other hand, organisations that do not identify their stakeholders do not practically disclose any non-financial information. In the light of the analysis of the subject literature and the obtained results of our research, we deem it necessary to analyse the stakeholders and assess their expectations in order to select the optimal level of co-operation with the stakeholders—in terms of the entity’s vision—and consider their needs in the company value generation strategy. This action offers managers more resources to achieve success.

Suggested Citation

  • Liliana Hawrysz & Jolanta Maj, 2017. "Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1609-:d:111478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1609/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1609/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juliet Lodge, 1994. "Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 343-368, September.
    2. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    3. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    4. Dominique Diouf & Olivier Boiral, 2017. "The quality of sustainability reports and impression management," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(3), pages 643-667, March.
    5. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips, 2010. "Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    6. Heath, Joseph, 2009. "The Uses and Abuses of Agency Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 497-528, October.
    7. Secchi Davide, 2004. "The Italian Experience in Social Reporting," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf04016, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    8. Cuili Qian & Xinzi Gao & Albert Tsang, 2015. "Corporate Philanthropy, Ownership Type, and Financial Transparency," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(4), pages 851-867, September.
    9. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    10. Davide Secchi, 2006. "The Italian experience in social reporting: an empirical analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 135-149, July.
    11. Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges & Thomas M. Leschine, 2004. "Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1641-1664, December.
    12. Juliet Lodge, 1994. "Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 330-342, September.
    13. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.
    14. Dunham, Laura & Freeman, R. Edward & Liedtka, Jeanne, 2006. "Enhancing Stakeholder Practice: A Particularized Exploration of Community," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 23-42, January.
    15. Mao-Chang Wang, 2017. "The Relationship between Firm Characteristics and the Disclosure of Sustainability Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Robert Newcombe, 2003. "From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 841-848.
    17. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    18. Danila Djokic, 2015. "Transparency of the Non-Financial Reports in the Republic of Slovenia," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 10(4), pages 379-397.
    19. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    20. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    21. Caterina Tantalo & Richard L. Priem, 2016. "Value creation through stakeholder synergy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 314-329, February.
    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. Adelaide Martins & Delfina Gomes & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2020. "Managing Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure: An Accountability vs. Impression Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. repec:thr:techub:10033:y:2022:i:1:p:468-478 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Diana Rokita-Poskart & Łukasz Mach, 2019. "Selected Meso-Economic Consequences of the Changing Number of Students in Academic Towns and Cities (A Case Study of Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Jolanta Maj, 2018. "Embedding Diversity in Sustainability Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Ionica Oncioiu & Delia-Mioara Popescu & Anca Elena Aviana & Alina Șerban & Florica Rotaru & Mihai Petrescu & Andreea Marin-Pantelescu, 2020. "The Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure in Financial Transparency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Constantine Iliopoulos & Vladislav Valentinov, 2018. "Member Heterogeneity in Agricultural Cooperatives: A Systems-Theoretic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    7. Liliana Hawrysz, 2020. "Strategic Orientation and Effects of E-Administration: Findings from the Miles and Snow Framework," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Tatag Muttaqin & Fitri Raflesia & Erni Mukti Rahayu, 2022. "Measuring the role of stakeholders in management of Yang Highlands Wildlife Reserve Area, Situbondo Districts East Java Indonesia," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 33(1), pages 468-478, July.
    9. Jakub Horak & Tomas Krulicky & Zuzana Rowland & Veronika Machova, 2020. "Creating a Comprehensive Method for the Evaluation of a Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-23, November.
    10. Iliopoulos, Constantine & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2018. "Member heterogeneity in agricultural cooperatives: A systems-theoretic perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22.

    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. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    2. André Laplume & Kent Walker & Zhou Zhang & Xin Yu, 2021. "Incumbent Stakeholder Management Performance and New Entry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 629-644, December.
    3. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    4. Kull, Alexander J. & Mena, Jeannette A. & Korschun, Daniel, 2016. "A resource-based view of stakeholder marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5553-5560.
    5. Daniel L Gamache & François Neville & Jonathan Bundy & Cole E Short, 2020. "Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1305-1335, July.
    6. Claus Dierksmeier, 2016. "What is ‘Humanistic’ About Humanistic Management?," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 9-32, September.
    7. Arzi Adbi & Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Chirantan Chatterjee, 2020. "Stakeholder Orientation and Market Impact: Evidence from India," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 479-496, January.
    8. Bidhan (Bobby) L. Parmar & Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 2022. "Stakeholder Management & The Value of Human‐Centred Corporate Objectives," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 569-582, March.
    9. Thomas Schneider & Sybille Sachs, 2017. "The Impact of Stakeholder Identities on Value Creation in Issue-Based Stakeholder Networks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 41-57, August.
    10. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    11. John Hasnas, 2013. "Whither Stakeholder Theory? A Guide for the Perplexed Revisited," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 47-57, January.
    12. Elise Perrault, 2017. "A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 25-38, November.
    13. Lee Siew Tee & Ismail Nizam, 2020. "The Influence of Corporate Governance on Financial Performance Mediated by Gender Diversity," Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 61-79, January.
    14. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    15. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    16. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    17. Midtgård, Kenneth & Selart, Marcus, 2024. "The cognitive perspective in strategic choice," SocArXiv 4xpza, Center for Open Science.
    18. Ahmad Salman & Mastura Jaafar & Diana Mohamad & Mana Khoshkam, 2023. "Understanding Multi-stakeholder Complexity & Developing a Causal Recipe (fsQCA) for achieving Sustainable Ecotourism," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10261-10284, September.
    19. Lite J. Nartey & Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu, 2023. "Reciprocity in Firm–Stakeholder Dialog: Timeliness, Valence, Richness, and Topicality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 429-451, March.
    20. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.

    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:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1609-:d:111478. 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.