Management Decision

A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships

Emerson Wagner Mainardes Helena Alves Mário Raposo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Emerson Wagner Mainardes Helena Alves Mário Raposo, (2012),"A model for stakeholder classification
and stakeholder relationships", Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss 10 pp. 1861 - 1879
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 01:08 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 70 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8189 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lynda Bourne, Derek H.T. Walker, (2005),"Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence", Management
Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 5 pp. 649-660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680
Yvon Pesqueux, Salma Damak-Ayadi, (2005),"Stakeholder theory in perspective", Corporate
Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 5-21 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700510562622
Nigel M. de Bussy, Lorissa Kelly, (2010),"Stakeholders, politics and power: Towards an understanding of
stakeholder identification and salience in government", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 14 Iss
4 pp. 289-305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632541011090419

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:195450 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

A model for
A model for stakeholder stakeholder
classification and stakeholder classification
relationships
1861
Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Helena Alves and Mário Raposo
Management and Economics Department and
NECE – Center for Studies in Management Science,
University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilhã, Portugal
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to develop a new model of stakeholder classification and a model for
explaining the relationship between the organization and its respective stakeholders.
Design/methodology/approach – The new proposed model is based on an empirical study that
comprises an exploratory study based on 15 interviews and a confirmatory study based on 684
questionnaires answered by staff of 11 public universities. The main variable deployed is the
stakeholder’s respective level of influence from the organization’s management perspective, that is,
their level of legitimacy, power and urgency.
Findings – The new model proposes six stakeholder types (regulator, controller, partner, passive,
dependent and non-stakeholder). To explain the relationship between the stakeholder and the
organization, the traditional needs-satisfaction vision was expanded. The variables of relevance,
mutual influence and participation were found to be important in explaining the organization and
stakeholder relationship. This study contributes both in simplifying stakeholder classification and in
explaining the relationships between parties.
Research limitations/implications – The study proposes a new model for stakeholder
classification based on empirical research carried out with public organizations, therefore it is
advisable to test this new classification scheme with other types of organizations.
Originality/value – This research proposes a stakeholder classification scheme previously unpublished
in the literature, which helps organizations managing the relationships with their stakeholders.
Keywords Stakeholder, Stakeholder theory, Stakeholder management, Stakeholder importance,
Stakeholder influence, Stakeholder relationships, Universities’ stakeholders, Stakeholder analysis,
Management theory
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Stakeholder theory first emerged in the 1980s before undergoing consolidation in the
1990s, especially due to the works by Goodpaster (1991), Clarkson (1994, 1995),
Donaldson and Preston (1995), Mitchell et al. (1997), Rowley (1997), and Frooman
(1999), among others. This theoretical approach established its position among
academics and management professionals as a new managerial model incorporating,
beyond shareholders, employees, suppliers and clients, other parties potentially
interested in a company’s activity (Clarkson, 1995).
Management Decision
This research was supported by the Portuguese Science Foundation through NECE – Núcleo de Vol. 50 No. 10, 2012
Investigação em Ciências Empresariais (Programa de Financiamento Plurianual das Unidades de pp. 1861-1879
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
I&D da FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino 0025-1747
Superior/Portugal). DOI 10.1108/00251741211279648
 MD Within this framework and from the perspective of Clarkson (1995), Donaldson and
50,10 Preston (1995), Rowley (1997), Scott and Lane (2000) and Baldwin (2002), the
stakeholder management concept serves to ensure organisations recognise, analyse
and examine the individual and group characteristics that influence or are influenced
by organisational behaviours and actions. This management approach takes place
across three levels: the identification of stakeholders, the development of processes that
1862 recognise their respective needs and interests, and the establishing and building of
relationships with them and with the overall process structured in accordance with
organisational objectives. In turn, stakeholders hold expectations, experience the
effects of the relationship with the organisation, evaluate the results obtained and act
according to their evaluations, strengthening or otherwise their links (Polonsky, 1996;
Post et al., 2002; Neville et al., 2004; Mantere, 2005; Almazan et al., 2009; Bosse et al.,
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

2009; King et al., 2010; Shrivastava and Berger, 2010).

Stakeholder theory guides managerial actions even while some theoretical aspects
remain at a very embryonic stage with a deepening of the proposals made in recent
decades required (Key, 1999; Agarwal and Helfat, 2009; Chatterji et al., 2009; Davis
et al., 2010; Mainardes et al., 2011). Among such proposals are two factors fundamental
to the theory: stakeholder classification (setting out criteria for prioritising their
respective relevance) and the means of organisational stakeholder interaction. On one
hand, it is possible to estate that various different proposals for stakeholder
classification exist (Goodpaster, 1991; Savage et al., 1991; Clarkson, 1995; Mitchell et al.,
1997; Rowley, 1997; Scholes and Clutterbuck, 1998; Frooman, 1999; Bourne and
Walker, 2005; Kamann, 2007; Fassin, 2009). However, no consensus has thus far
emerged either in the literature or among professionals adopting and putting
stakeholder theory in practice.
On the other hand, despite authors approaching stakeholder theory affirming that
the organisation should relate to its stakeholders (such as, and for example, Freeman,
1984; Polonsky, 1995; Frooman, 1999; Friedman and Miles, 2006; Lamberg et al., 2008),
there are very few studies describing just what types of relationship actually exist.
Correspondingly, models explaining and guiding these relationships represent a clear
means of advancing stakeholder theory. Hence, our first objective is to set out a new
classification model for organisational stakeholders. In addition, the second objective is
to put forward a model explaining the relationship between the organisation and its
stakeholders.
In order to attain these objectives, this study first provides a brief literature review
including the existing stakeholder classification typologies and the relationships
between organisations and stakeholders. We then put forward a new model for
stakeholder classification as well as establishing a model capable of guiding the
organisation in its relationships with stakeholders.

2. Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory draws on four of the social sciences: sociology, economics, politics
and ethics, especially the literature on corporate planning, systems theory, corporate
social responsibility and organisational studies. Freeman (1984), in his work entitled
Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, and generally accepted as the
founding theoretical landmark, defines how stakeholders with similar interests or
rights each form a group. The facet that Freeman (1984) sought to explain was the
 relationship between the company and its external environment in conjunction with its A model for
behaviour within this environment. The author presented his model as a map in which stakeholder
the company is positioned at the centre and interacts with the surrounding
stakeholders. In this model, company-stakeholder relationships are dyadic and classification
mutually independent (Frooman, 1999).
The ideas of Freeman (1984), which culminated in stakeholder theory, emerged out
of an organisational context in which the business community was beginning to 1863
understand that it was not self-sufficient and dependent on the external environment,
as observed earlier by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). Freeman (1984) named these
external groups stakeholders with a later approach by Frooman (1999) applying the
term resource dependency.
According to both Jones and Wicks (1999), Savage et al. (2004) and Phillips et al.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

(2010), the core assumptions of stakeholder theory are:

.
Organizations engage in relationships with many groups that either influence or
are influenced by them, stakeholders in accordance with the Freeman (1984)
terminology.
.
The theory focuses on these relationships in terms of processes and results for
the company and the stakeholder.
.
The interests of all legitimate stakeholders are of intrinsic value and no single set
of interests prevails over all others, as proposed by Clarkson (1995) and
Donaldson and Preston (1995).
.
The theory focuses on managerial decision making.
.
The theory identifies how stakeholders seek to influence organizational decision
making processes so they become consistent with their needs and priorities.
.
As regards the organizations themselves, they should strive to understand,
reconcile and balance the various participant interests.

Within this broad theoretical context, we perceive how diverse stakeholder groups
interact with the company. According to Clarkson (1995), these groups may be divided
into two: the primary, those which have formal or official contractual relationships
with the company, such as clients, suppliers, employees, shareholders, among others,
and the secondary, those not holding such contracts, such as governments and the local
community, for example. In this way, a company is conceived of as a network of
explicit and implicit relationships spanning both the internal and external
environments. Furthermore, with the advance of stakeholder theory, greater interest
began to be shown in these distinct interest groups and not only company shareholders
or owners (Laffont and Martimort, 1997; Argandoña, 1998; Gibson, 2000; Delmar and
Shane, 2006; Wang et al., 2008; Forray and Goodnight, 2010; Hirsch and Morris, 2010).
In parallel with its theoretical progress, stakeholders slowly moved inwards from
the periphery of organisational activities to take up a more central role in the
organisation. Andriof et al. (2002) explains that the concept of stakeholders, their
involvement and relationship with the organisation are all contemporary
characteristics of more modern companies. In the last two decades, a rising number
of research projects dealing with strategy and the fundamental factors to stakeholder
involvement in organisational decision making have been published (Asher et al.,
2005). Diverse studies point to the utilisation of Stakeholder Theory in contemporary
 MD organisational contexts (Freeman and Liedtka, 1997; Metcalfe, 1998; Baron, 2001;
50,10 Clarke, 2005; Baron and Diermeier, 2007; Desai, 2008; Lo et al., 2008; Szczesny et al.,
2008; Harrison et al., 2010).
According to Clement (2005), this emphasis may be attributed to the increased
pressures on organisations to respond to different stakeholder group interests. As
stakeholders are in ongoing relationships with the company, they are susceptible to
1864 generating contributions and important resources. To this end, analysing just who the
stakeholders are, their respective interests and how they act is fundamental to
contemporary organisations. In particular, attention must centre on identifying the
stakeholders most important to organisational survival and meeting their respective
needs and expectations (Hill and Jones, 1998; Helm and Mauroner, 2007; Julian et al.,
2008; Baron, 2009).
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

3. Stakeholder classification typologies

Taking into consideration the model proposed by Freeman (1984) includes a broader
spectrum of stakeholders and not only the traditional (clients, shareholders, members
of staff, suppliers and competitors), one issue that has concerned field research from
the outset is how to deal with all stakeholders simultaneously. According to Fassin
(2008), this is simply not possible and the utilisation of criteria prioritising stakeholders
has always been a theoretical requirement. While meeting every need is not always
feasible, there is the necessity of paying greater attention to certain specific groups to
the detriment of others. Hence, we encounter a dilemma: where should organisations
pay greatest attention? Are they targeting their efforts correctly or does there need to
be some kind of restructuring so as to best satisfy the demands of those really
important to sustainable survival and success? Thus, these are the questions
organisations need to be concerned about (Friedman and Miles, 2006).
The literature makes various proposals for classifying stakeholders by their
respective level of importance (see Table I). Of the aforementioned approaches, the
most popular has proven to be the Mitchell et al. (1997) model. Entitled stakeholder
salience, this has been the most commonly discussed and deployed model in the
literature. With the objective of identifying and classifying stakeholder importance,

Authors Classification/criteria used

Goodpaster (1991) The strategic and the moral stakeholder

Savage et al. (1991) Stakeholder’s potential powers to threaten or cooperate with the
organization
Clarkson (1995) The primary (with formal relationships) and the secondary
(without formal relationships)
Mitchell et al. (1997) Power, legitimacy and urgency
Rowley (1997) Network density and the centrality of the organization focus
Scholes and Clutterbuck (1998) Power of influence, impact on the organization and affinity with
organizational objectives
Table I.
Stakeholder classification Kamann (2007) Power and the level of interest
typologies Fassin (2009) Classical stakeholders, stakewatchers, stakekeepers
 this instrumental stakeholder theory application was primarily designed by Mitchell A model for
et al. (1997), who researched manager perceptions of stakeholder characteristics and stakeholder
their salience as regards the factors of power, legitimacy and urgency. Aaltonen et al.
(2008) find that existing research does point to senior management paying attention to classification
stakeholders in accordance with their credibility in terms of power, legitimacy and
urgency.
There are some more restrictive definitions that attempt to specify the pragmatic 1865
reality in which managers simply cannot take into consideration all the demands, real
and potential, and which correspondingly set out a series of priorities for managerial
attention (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Within this perspective, a theory of stakeholder
relevance is needed so as to explain to whom and to what should managers really pay
their attention (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

To resolve this question, Mitchell et al. (1997) advanced a model incorporating these
three factors:
(1) power;
(2) urgency; and
(3) legitimacy.

Entitled stakeholder salience, according to Friedman and Miles (2006), this model
includes stakeholder powers of negotiation, their relational legitimacy with the
organisation, and the urgency in attending to stakeholder requirements. According to
Mitchell et al. (1997), stakeholder salience is a dynamic model, based on a typology of
identification that enables explicit recognition of the uniqueness of each situation and
managerial perceptions to explain how managers should prioritise relationships with
stakeholders. The authors demonstrate how the identification typology enables
forecasts to be made as to managerial behaviour as regards each stakeholder class, as
well as predictions as to how stakeholders may change from one class to another and
the consequences for management. This model displays three advantages: it is political
(considering the organisation as the result of conflicting and unequal interests), is
operationally practical (qualifying the stakeholders), and is dynamic (considers
changes in interests over social space and time).
The model proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997) suggests strategic behaviour is subject
to various groups located in the surrounding environment with organisational
strategies needing to meet the needs of these groups in accordance with their respective
importance. This is defined by the three aforementioned factors varying in accordance
with the situation.
According to the authors, the proposed model is dynamic for three reasons:
(1) the three attributes are variables (and neither static nor stationary);
(2) the attributes are socially constructed (and thus not objective); and
(3) stakeholders do not always know that they are in possession of one or more
attributes.

These aspects rendered the stakeholder salience model fairly dynamic and frequently
changing. The stakeholders, for example, may possess one attribute today before
acquiring one or two more at some point in the future.
 MD The same authors affirm that the three factors mentioned, when combined, generate
50,10 a total of seven stakeholder types (Table II), beyond identifying the non-stakeholders.
According to Friedman and Miles (2006), the typology presented by Mitchell et al.
(1997) gained in popularity among stakeholder theory theoreticians and practitioners.
Despite this statement, very few studies actually empirically test the model as
undertaken by Agle et al. (1999), O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) and Magness (2008).
1866 These empirical research projects revealed some model limitations susceptible of
throwing up controversial results:
.
Mitchell et al. (1997) report that the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency
are binary (either you do or you do not have power, legitimacy or urgency).
However, when looking at the characteristics making up each attribute, there are
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

serious doubts as to whether they may be measured in binary terms, such as, for

Stakeholder type Classification options

Latent stakeholders (in possession of Dormant stakeholder. Groups and individuals with the
only one attribute, probably receiving power to impose their wills on the organization but lack
little company attention) either legitimacy or urgency. Hence, their power falls into
disuse with little or no ongoing interaction with the
company. Nevertheless, company management needs to be
aware and to monitor this stakeholder and evaluate its
potential to take on a second factor
Discretionary stakeholder. Groups and individuals with
legitimacy but that lack both the power to influence the
company and any urgency. In these cases, attention should
be paid to this stakeholder under the framework of
corporate social responsibility as they tend to be more
receptive
Demanding stakeholder. When the most important attribute
is urgency. Without power or legitimacy, they do not
demand greatly of the company but require monitoring as
regards their potential to gain a second attribute
Expectant stakeholders (in possession Dominant stakeholder. Groups and individuals that hold
of two attributes resulting in a more influence over the company guaranteed by power and
active posture both from the legitimacy. Correspondingly, they expect and receive a lot of
stakeholder and from the company) attention from the company
Dangerous stakeholder. When there is power and urgency
but stripped of any legitimacy. The coercive stakeholder
(and possibly violent) may represent a threat to the
organization
Dependent stakeholder. Groups and individuals that hold
attributes of urgency and legitimacy but which however
depend on another stakeholder for their claims to be taken
into consideration
Definitive stakeholder (whenever the stakeholder holds power, legitimacy and urgency with managers
therefore paying immediate attention and prioritising this stakeholder)
Table II. Non-stakeholder (when groups and individuals neither hold any influence nor are influenced by
Typology of stakeholder organization operations)
salience model
stakeholders Source: Adapted from Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 875)
 example, dealing equally with stakeholders holding a lot of power and a A model for
stakeholder with less power as both actually have power. For example, in the stakeholder
study by O’Higgins and Morgan (2006), a supposed stakeholder displaying the
three attributes (thereby theoretically a definitive stakeholder) was ruled to be classification
not salient.
.
Another limitation referred to takes into account how a specific stakeholder may
or may not be endowed with power, legitimacy or urgency. Where a particular 1867
stakeholder has only a minimum of power, legitimacy and urgency, then,
according to the model, this should be deemed a definitive stakeholder. After all,
however minor the attribute, it does exist.
.
A third limitation is the prioritisation awarded to the various different
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

stakeholders falling into the same category. Where various stakeholders are
perceived as definitive, there is little means of differentiating and prioritising
between them.

These limitations are primarily due to the lack of a scale determining whether or not a
stakeholder effectively does have power and/or legitimacy and/or urgency. This seems
to be the single most important drawback to the stakeholder salience model. Hence,
despite being a theoretically simple and clear technical model, putting it into
operational practice has yet to be achieved.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Object of study
This research aims to overcome the shortcomings found in earlier models tested. To
this end, this research starts with the classification of Mitchell et al. (1997), given that
this has been the most consensual classification in the literature, and intends to
propose a new model for classification and explanation of the relationship between an
organisation and its stakeholders.
To that end it was chosen to study public organisations as the stakeholder theory
has proven useful for these organisations, and also, because these organisations as is
the case with universities and hospitals display a greater quantity of stakeholders than
traditional business firms (Etzioni, 1964). Therefore the object of study in this research
are the stakeholders of public universities.
In order to identify the stakeholders of these organisations, we initially carried out
an exploratory approach, involving one university. Fifteen extended interviews
involving two professors, two members of staff, two degree program directors, two
department presidents, two faculty presidents, two members of the management team,
two administrative managers and one former senior management member, and
applying content analysis to the interview content, resulted in the identification of 21
stakeholders. Subsequently, the stakeholders identified in this exploratory phase were
subject to confirmation by populations sampled from across the remaining selected
universities.

4.2 Population and sample definition

The target population of this research is made up of all members of staff at eleven
Portuguese public universities, totalling 18,257 individuals. All potential respondents
were invited to take part in the research, thus including: professors, researchers,
 MD members of staff, degree program directors, department heads, faculty presidents,
50,10 research centre leaders, the dean’s office and administrative managers. Following the
deadline set for data collection, we found we had obtained a response rate of 3.76 per
cent, with a total of 684 valid questionnaires (and corrected level of error – 3.8 per cent,
Malhotra, 1999).

1868 4.3 Development of the data collection instrument

The list of the 21 stakeholders identified in the extended interviews founded the basis
for the development of a non-disguised structured questionnaire, in accordance with
Hair et al. (2003). The questionnaire was broken up into four distinct sections
questionnaire with questions based on a five-point semantic differential scale aimed at
confirming or not the 21 stakeholders found in the exploratory stage, identifying the
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

way of influence between universities and their stakeholders, and identifying the level
of power, legitimacy and urgency of each stakeholder.
The stakeholder concept was pre-presented to ensure the individual had an
appropriate level of understanding of the term as deployed in this study. This common
understanding was also verified as regards the other research concepts (power,
legitimacy and urgency).
Following the drafting of the questionnaire, it was then subject to two pre-tests for
the purposes of content validation. The first was a pre-test with two
professor-researchers, specialists both in university management and in research
methodologies in this field. The second pre-test, with the questionnaire already in an
on-line format, was completed by 20 professor-investigators belonging to the research
target-population, who carried out the final content validation of the instrument.
The following step was to send out the questionnaire to the eleven selected
universities. It was first distributed by e-mail on 23rd March 2010 to all serving
teaching staff and non-teaching staff at the universities (the entire study
target-population), with the instrument due to be completed on-line. The 809
questionnaires filled in were received between 23rd March and 10th April. On the
deadline expiring, researchers analysed the data collected and verifying there was no
undue bias or shortcoming or problem in the data completion process. Of the 809
questionnaires received, 684 were ruled valid.

4.4 Data analysis methods

For this research project, two forms of analysis were deployed: basic descriptive
analysis and factor analysis. To obtain the confirmation of the 21 stakeholders tested
for, descriptive frequency analysis proved sufficient for completely analysing the data
gathered. As regards the analysis of the power, legitimacy and urgency attributes, and
for each of the 21 stakeholders, we first carried out descriptive analysis before then
submitting the data to factor analysis (Hair et al., 2006), with the purpose of breaking
the stakeholders down into groups of low, medium, high and very high power,
legitimacy and urgency, thereby enabling a categorisation of the stakeholders within
the categories put forward under the auspices of the Mitchell et al. (1997) model.
Relative to the influence held by each stakeholder over the university, analysis was
made of the proportions of responses attributed to each influence alternative (only
influence, are only influenced, influence and are influenced, do not influence and are not
influenced).
 5. Analysis of results A model for
Following confirmation that there was no bias in the data gathered, we moved onto stakeholder
checking whether or not the 21 university stakeholders identified in extended
interviews at one Portuguese public university also represented the stakeholders classification
across the 11 entities making up our sample. Indeed, respondents indicated all 21
stakeholders researched to currently be stakeholders of their respective universities.
1869
5.1 Analysis of the power, legitimacy and urgency of the 21 stakeholders
In order to test the stakeholder salience model, we analysed its three component
attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency). The relationship between these three
attributes results in seven stakeholder categories (latent, discretionary, demanding,
dominant, dangerous, dependent and definitive), in addition to an eighth category, the
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

non-stakeholder. Despite this model having first been put forward over a decade ago,
there have been few studies empirically testing the model’s validity.
Following individual analysis of the components making up the stakeholder
salience model, we sought to interrelate the three attributes in order to attain the eight
types of stakeholder generated by the model: latent (only power), discretionary (only
legitimacy), demanding (only urgency), dominant (power and legitimacy), dangerous
(power and urgency), dependent (legitimacy and urgency), definitive (power,
legitimacy and urgency) and non-stakeholders (none of the factors). To
operationalise this relationship, our data was subject to factor analysis. Factor
analysis aggregates the mutually correlated variables around each factor thus
bringing about a reduction in the number of initial variables with the obvious loss of
some depth through facilitating data interpretation. In this case study, this analytical
method was applied to the 21 stakeholders across each one of the three measurements
through the principal component method in conjunction with varimax rotation. The
results obtained from the three factor analysis processes carried out are set out in
tables three and four.
Table III details the explained variance and attaining 61.01 per cent for power, 61.23
per cent for legitimacy and 66.22 per cent for urgency. The KMO tests show that the
analytical processes were robust and the Cronbach’s alpha tests reveal the internal
consistency of the factors obtained. Given the loadings of the final values for each
variable, it was possible to associate each attribute to the stakeholders analysed,

Factor analysis of Factor analysis of Factor analysis of

Validity indexes power legitimacy urgency

KMO Index 0.875 0.856 0.891

Anti-image minimum correlation 0.782 0.762 0.804
Minimum communalities 0.511 0.532 0.545
Explained variance (%) 61.01 61.23 66.22
Percentile residues greater than 0.05
(%) 30 37 36
Cronbach’s Alpha – Factor 1 0.818 0.822 0.894
Cronbach’s Alpha – Factor 2 0.772 0.729 0.856 Table III.
Cronbach’s Alpha – Factor 3 0.653 0.839 0.845 Validity tests on the three
Cronbach’s Alpha – Factor 4 0.750 0.836 0.797 factor analysis processes
 MD resulting in very high, high, average or low stakeholder relationships for each
50,10 respective attribute. Table IV describes this association between the attributes and the
stakeholders.
Given these results, we were able to achieve a classification of the different
stakeholders in accordance with Stakeholder Salience model (Table V).

1870 5.2 Analysis of the influence flows between universities and the 21 stakeholders
With the objective of verifying the results obtained via the stakeholder salience model,
another aspect measured was the relationship between each stakeholder and the
university. Taking Table VI into consideration, the majority of the 21 groups are
referenced as both influencing and influenced by the university.
Following due analysis, three groups emerged:
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

(1) one in which the stakeholders only influence the universities (national
government, ministries and accreditation agencies and the European Union);
(2) one in which stakeholders influence and are influenced by the university but
where they hold more influence than are influenced (professional orders); and
(3) one with the remaining 18 stakeholders, which influence and are influenced by
the university.

Stakeholder Power Legitimacy Urgency

Senior university management (the dean’s team,

general board, council of deans) Very high Very high Very high
National government/ministries/accreditation
agencies Very high Very high Very high
Teaching and/or research staff High Very high High
Students High Very high High
European Union Very high High Very high
Scientific communities and their publications Medium High Medium
Research and development partner companies Medium High Medium
Research and development actors (incubators,
technological parks, patent agencies, research
centres, external researchers) Medium High Medium
Employers Medium High Medium
Professional orders Very high High Very high
Private financiers (business angels, risk capital
companies, investors) Very high High Medium
Other universities and/or higher education
institutions (public or private) Medium Medium Medium
Host municipality (local government authorities) Low Medium Low
Portuguese society in general Low Low Low
University host local community (population,
companies, services) Low Medium Low
Non-teaching members of staff Low Low Low
Foreign students Low Low Low
Families of students Low Low Low
Table IV. Business/trade associations Low High Low
Summary of factor Former students Low Low Low
analysis results Secondary schools Low Low Low
 A model for
Portuguese public university stakeholders
Definitive Senior university management (the dean’s team, general board, council of deans) stakeholder
National government/ministries/accreditation agencies classification
Teaching and/or research staff
Students
European Union
Professional orders 1871
Dominant Private financiers (business angels, risk capital companies, investors)
Discretionary Scientific communities and their publications
Research and development partner companies
Research and development actors (incubators, technological parks, patent
agencies, research centres, external researchers)
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Employers
Business/trade associations
Non-stakeholders Other universities and/or higher education institutions (public or private)
Host municipality (local government authorities)
Portuguese society in general
University host local community (population, companies, services)
Non-teaching members of staff Table V.
Foreign students Categorisation of
Student families stakeholders according to
Former students the power, legitimacy and
Secondary schools urgency concepts

These results demonstrate that the relationships of influence between a university and
its stakeholders cannot be measured only by four factors (only influence, are only
influenced, influence and are influenced, do not influence and are not influenced). On
the contrary, relational influences need to be evaluated across a far broader scope
taking into account whether such entities and institutions are influenced more than
they influence and vice-versa. Based on this new classification, previously unpublished
in the literature, we were able to generate a new theoretical stakeholder model
(Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows how the mutual relational influences between a university and its
stakeholders may be portrayed. This representation is reflected in the arrows linking
the university with each of its stakeholders. Where there is a strongly coloured and
wide arrow pointing only in one direction, the influence is unidirectional and strong. In
instances with two arrows, the sharper defined and broader symbol represents the
greater influence of the source over the target, with the stakeholder and university
levels of influence in accordance with the respective findings. In cases of the same
arrows pointing in both directions, these depict a relationship of mutual and equal
influence without one side prevailing over the other (a balance between the parties).
Furthermore, the length of the arrows, as well as the boxes enclosing the name of each
stakeholder, hold no meaning.
By generalising these results to any organisation in general, it is possible to state
that:
.
Where the stakeholder holds influence over the organization while the latter
holds no (or very little) influence over the stakeholder, we are in the presence of
the regulatory stakeholder: with its influence over the organization determining
 MD
Influence and Only Only
50,10 influenced by influence the influenced by Non
the university university the university stakeholder
Stakeholder (%) (%) (%) (%)

Teaching and/or research staff 89.47 7.60 2.05 0.58

1872 Students 90.06 1.75 7.60 0.29
Research and development partner
companies 75.44 12.87 3.80 3.22
Senior university management (the
dean’s team, general board, council of
deans) 69.01 21.64 4.39 2.05
National government/ministries/
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

accreditation agencies 25.15 63.16 2.05 5.26

Non-teaching members of staff 57.31 8.19 21.64 8.48
Research and development actors
(incubators, technological parks,
patent agencies, research centres,
external researchers) 76.61 8.77 4.97 4.39
University host local community
(population, companies, services) 69.30 2.92 15.50 7.89
Scientific communities and their
publications 72.81 14.91 4.09 2.63
Employers 53.22 14.91 12.87 11.40
Other universities and/or higher
education institutions (public or
private) 68.42 8.19 2.63 12.57
Host municipality (local government
authorities) 63.74 6.73 15.20 10.53
Portuguese society in general 67.25 5.85 4.39 14.62
Professional orders 40.64 31.29 4.97 11.11
Private financiers (business angels,
risk capital companies, investors) 52.05 19.30 4.97 10.53
Former students 52.34 6.43 10.82 20.18
Secondary schools 36.26 9.36 14.91 32.16
Student families 34.80 3.22 22.81 30.70
Table VI. Business/trade associations 50.00 8.19 7.02 19.59
Stakeholder classification European Union 27.19 51.17 2.05 9.65
by influence Foreign students 70.76 2.63 9.65 9.36

certain actions by the organization itself, irrespective of whether or not the

organization would otherwise opt to take such actions.
.
Where the stakeholder and the organization mutually influence each other even
while the stakeholder holds more influence over the organization than the inverse,
we face a controller stakeholder, with its greater influence over the organization
establishing a relationship of stakeholder control over the organization.
.
Where the stakeholder and the organization mutually influence each other but
when neither party predominates and hence there is equilibrium, we arrive at a
partner stakeholder and a balance of influence between the parties ensures that
the organization and stakeholder act in conjunction.
 A model for
stakeholder
classification

1873
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Figure 1.
New university
stakeholder model

.
Where the stakeholder and the organization mutually influence each other but
when the organization enjoys greater influence, we encounter a passive
stakeholder with the organization in command of the relationship with the
stakeholder accepting decisions handed down.
.
Where the organization holds influence over the stakeholder and the latter holds
little or no influence over the organization, we term such cases dependent
stakeholders as the stakeholder depends on the organization to meet its needs
and wishes.
.
Where the stakeholder and the organization do not influence each other, this is a
non-stakeholder.

Correspondingly, the influence of stakeholder and organization relationships

represents an important bond within the scope of the model put forward here. A
schematic representation of these relationships is provided in Figure 2.
 MD
50,10

1874
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Figure 2.
Illustration of the
organization and
stakeholder relationships
of influence

Taking Figure 2, the relationship of influence between the parties is portrayed by the
arrows linking up the stakeholder category to the organisation. As may be deduced
from simple observation, the thickness of the arrows reflects the strength of the
influence between the respective parties. This model represents an alternative to the
original sociogram by Freeman (1984) given how this original model was subject to
criticism for failing to discriminate between an organisation’s different stakeholder
levels of influence (Fassin, 2009). Within this new configuration, it is possible to
discriminate between relationships existing between parties.
In order to Measure the influence ongoing between the organisation and the
stakeholder (from the perspective of organisation managers), according to the scale
tested in this research, the following scale in Figure 3 is proposed.

6. Model limitations: temporal and contextual factors

Having completed the explanation of the proposed model, we now proceed to establish
the limitations to its application (Schultz and Hatch, 2005). Whetten (1989) explains
how on finishing proposing a model, it is necessary to define both its range and its
extent. Hence, what type of entity is served by the model? Under what circumstances is
it practical and adoptable? These questions guide our analysis of the limitations
inherent to the model.

Figure 3.
Suggested scale for
stakeholder classification
 To begin with, the model put forward proves of worth to organisations in general. A model for
Clearly, the model’s application requires adaptations depending on the characteristics stakeholder
of each organisation particularly given that the objective here was to set out a fairly
generic model eligible for application in a multiplicity of situations. classification
One model limitation relates to the measurement of perceptions and analysis of the
efficiency in organisational relationships. Stakeholder perceptions may vary over time
which necessarily involves such measurements being taken with a certain degree of 1875
frequency so that the organisation may appropriately adjust to new demands as well
as acting to eliminate no longer relevant demands and successively onwards. In this
way, the main issue relates to the static nature of a model and how good management
today may not prove effective tomorrow. This lack of a model dynamic means that
managerial supervision should be constant and involves adjustments made on a
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

relatively frequent basis.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

The management literature demonstrates that running organisations based on
stakeholder relationships is a feasible management alternative, especially for
organisations with multiple and varied stakeholders, as is the case with political
organisations. Stakeholder theory details how this approach may serve to make a
significant contribution towards achieving organisational objectives.
In accordance with stakeholder theory principles, this management approach
requires the classification of stakeholders by order of importance as they can neither all
be taken simultaneously into account nor receive the same level of attention. Despite
the diverse proposals in the literature, with different variables, some of which pose
challenges to their effective measurement, as seen in this study, the prioritisation of an
organisation’s stakeholders according to the influence wielded by each stakeholder
(from the organisation’s point-of-view) seems the simplest and most coherent
approach.
Nevertheless, this classification of stakeholder importance is not in itself enough. It
is necessary to understand relationships so as to engage in actions able to meet
stakeholder demands on the organisation. Managing the relationships with each
stakeholder should furthermore pay attention to how these are guided by
organisational actions and initiatives established with the purpose of creating,
building and strengthening the organisation’s bonds with each respective stakeholder.
Finally, we should emphasise that this study results in a theoretical proposal based
on an empirical research carried out with public organisations. Therefore, in order to
advance and improve our understanding of the phenomena under study, the next step
involves the empirical testing of the proposed model with other kind of organisations.

References
Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K. and Tuomas, O. (2008), “Stakeholders salience in global projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 509-16.
Agarwal, R. and Helfat, C. (2009), “Strategic renewal of organizations”, Organization Science,
Vol. 20, pp. 281-93.
Agle, B., Mitchell, R. and Sonnenfeld, J. (1999), “Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of
stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 507-25.
 MD Almazan, A., Suarez, J. and Titman, S. (2009), “Firms’ stakeholders and the costs of
transparency”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 871-900.
50,10
Andriof, J., Husted, B., Waddock, S. and Sutherland-Rahman, S. (2002), Unfolding Stakeholder
Thinking, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Argandoña, A. (1998), “The stakeholder theory and the common good”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1093-102.
1876 Asher, C., Mahoney, J. and Mahoney, J. (2005), “Towards a property rights foundation for a
stakeholder theory of the firm”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 5-32.
Baldwin, L. (2002), “Total quality management in higher education: the implications of internal
and external stakeholders’ perceptions”, PhD thesis, Graduate School in Business
Administration, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Baron, D. (2001), “Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy”,
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-45.
Baron, D. (2009), “A positive theory of moral management, social pressure, and corporate social
performance”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-43.
Baron, D. and Diermeier, D. (2007), “Strategic activism and nonmarket strategy”, Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 599-634.
Bosse, D., Phillips, R. and Harrison, J. (2009), “Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 447-56.
Bourne, L. and Walker, D. (2005), “Visualizing and mapping stakeholder influence”,
Management Decision, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 649-60.
Chatterji, A., Levine, D. and Toffel, M. (2009), “How well do social ratings actually measure
corporate social responsibility?”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 125-69.
Clarke, T. (2005), “Accounting for Enron: shareholder value and stakeholder interests”,
Corporate Governance – An International Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 598-612.
Clarkson, M. (1994), “A risk based model of stakeholder theory”, Proceedings of the Second
Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory: Centre for Corporate Social Performance and
Ethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, April.
Clarkson, M. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Clement, R. (2005), “The lessons from stakeholder theory for US business leaders”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 255-64.
Davis, E., Kee, J. and Newcomer, K. (2010), “Strategic transformation process: toward purpose,
people, process and power”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 66-80.
Delmar, F. and Shane, S. (2006), “Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience
on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 215-47.
Desai, V. (2008), “Constrained growth: how experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking
in organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 19, pp. 594-608.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Etzioni, A. (1964), Modern Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fassin, Y. (2008), “Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical
representation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 879-88.
 Fassin, Y. (2009), “The stakeholder model refined”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 1, A model for
pp. 113-35.
stakeholder
Forray, J. and Goodnight, J. (2010), “Think global, act local: a methodology for investigating
international business curriculum priorities using stakeholder feedback”, Organization classification
Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 56-64.
Freeman, R. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder’s Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Freeman, R. and Liedtka, J. (1997), “Stakeholder capitalism and the value chain”, European 1877
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 286-96.
Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2006), Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Frooman, J. (1999), “Stakeholders influence strategies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

No. 2, pp. 191-205.

Gibson, K. (2000), “The moral basis of stakeholder theory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 245-57.
Goodpaster, K. (1991), “Business ethics and stakeholder analysis”, Business Ethics Quarterly,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 53-73.
Hair, J. Jr, Babin, B., Money, A. and Samouel, P. (2003), Essentials of Business Research Methods,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Hair, J. Jr, Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison, J., Bosse, D. and Phillips, R. (2010), “Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility
functions, and competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 58-74.
Helm, R. and Mauroner, O. (2007), “Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and
guidelines for further research”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 237-70.
Hill, C. and Jones, T. (1998), Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Hirsch, P. and Morris, M. (2010), “Immoral but not illegal: monies vs mores amid the mortgage
meltdown”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Jones, T. and Wicks, A. (1999), “Convergent stakeholder theory”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 206-21.
Julian, S., Ofori-Dankwa, J. and Justis, R. (2008), “Understanding strategic responses to interest
group pressures”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 963-84.
Kamann, D. (2007), “Organizational design in public procurement: a stakeholder’s approach”,
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 127-36.
Key, S. (1999), “Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ‘theory’”, Management
Decision, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 317-36.
King, B., Felin, T. and Whetten, D. (2010), “Finding the organization in organizational theory:
a meta-theory of the organization as a social actor”, Organization Science, Vol. 21,
pp. 290-305.
Laffont, J. and Martimort, D. (1997), “The firm as a multicontract organization”, Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 201-34.
Lamberg, J., Pajunen, K., Kalle, P. and Savage, G. (2008), “Stakeholder management and path
dependence in organizational transitions”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 846-63.
 MD Lo, C., Egri, C. and Ralston, D. (2008), “Commitment to corporate, social, and environmental
responsibilities: an insight into contrasting perspectives in China and the US”,
50,10 Organization Management Journal, No. 5, pp. 83-98.
Magness, V. (2008), “Who are the stakeholders now? an empirical examination of the Mitchell,
Agle and Wood theory of stakeholder salience”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 177-92.
1878 Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2011), “Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve”,
Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 226-52.
Malhotra, N. (1999), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mantere, S. (2005), “Strategic practices as enablers and disablers of championing activity”,
Strategic Organization, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-84.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Metcalfe, C. (1998), “The stakeholder corporation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 30-6.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-8.
Neville, B., Bell, S. and Whitwell, G. (2004), “Stakeholder salience revisited: toward an action tool
for the management of stakeholders”, Academy of Management Best Conference Paper,
SIM D1-D5, Montreal, July.
O’Higgins, E. and Morgan, J. (2006), “Stakeholder salience and engagement in political
organizations: who and what really counts?”, Society & Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 62-76.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Phillips, R., Berman, S., Elms, H. and Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010), “Strategy, stakeholders and
managerial discretion”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 176-83.
Polonsky, M. (1995), “A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing
strategy”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 29-37.
Polonsky, M. (1996), “Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: potential strategic
marketing tools”, Journal of Marketing-Focused Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 209-29.
Post, J., Preston, L. and Sachs, S. (2002), “Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder
view”, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 6-28.
Rowley, T. (1997), “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.
Savage, G., Dunkin, J. and Ford, D. (2004), “Responding to a crisis: a stakeholder analysis of
community health organizations”, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-414.
Savage, G., Nix, T., Whitehead, C. and Blair, J. (1991), “Strategies for assessing and managing
organizational stakeholders”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 61-75.
Scholes, E. and Clutterbuck, D. (1998), “Communication with stakeholders: an integrated
approach”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 227-38.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M. (2005), “Building theory from practice”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 337-47.
Scott, S. and Lane, V. (2000), “A stakeholder approach to organizational identity”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
 Shrivastava, P. and Berger, S. (2010), “Sustainability principles: a review and directions”, A model for
Organization Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 246-61.
Szczesny, A., Lenk, A. and Huang, T. (2008), “Substitution, availability and preferences in
stakeholder
earnings management: empirical evidence from China”, Review of Managerial Science, classification
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 129-60.
Wang, H., Choi, J. and Li, J. (2008), “Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between
corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 19, 1879
pp. 143-59.
Whetten, D. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 490-5.

Further reading
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

Beach, S. (2009), “Who or what decides how stakeholders are optimally engaged by governance
networks delivering public outcomes?”, Proceedings of the 13th International Research
Society for Public Management Conference (IRSPM XIII), Copenhagen Business School,
Fredericksberg, April.

About the authors

Emerson Wagner Mainardes is PhD in Management. His academic background includes a
Master’s degree in Management, specialisation in Educational Management (FURB, 2007), and
degree in Electrical Engineering. He is a teacher and researcher in Management. He is a research
fellow in NECE – “Núcleo de Estudos em Ciências Empresariais”. Expertise: educational
management and services marketing.
Helena Alves is Assistant Professor at the University of Beira Interior, Portugal. She has a
PhD in Management and she has been doing research in the area of educational marketing. She
has published some articles on this topic in The Service Industries Journal, Total Quality
Management and International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing. She is Managing
Editor of the International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing. Expertise: educational
marketing, services marketing and relationship marketing. Helena Alves is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Mário Raposo is PhD in Management, Full Professor at Management and Economic
Department at University of Beira Interior, Scientific coordinator of Research Unit in Business
Science and of the PhD Programme in Marketing and Strategy. He teaches subjects in the area of
marketing, strategy and entrepreneurship. In the recent past he was vice-rector of the University
and head of the Liaison Office. He has been the chairman of international conferences and has
coordinated studies with significant impact, has several papers published, as author or co-author
in several international journals and belongs to editorial boards. He is Portugal vice-president of
the ECSB – European Council of Small Business.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Goran Svensson, Nils M. Høgevold, Danie Petzer, Carmen Padin, Carlos Ferro, HB Klopper, Juan Carlos
Sosa Varela, Beverly Wagner. 2016. Framing stakeholder considerations and business sustainability efforts:
a construct, its dimensions and items. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:2. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Morgan P Miles, Martin Grimmer, Geralyn McClure Franklin. 2016. How well do AACSB, AMBA and
EQUIS manage their brands?. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34:1, 99-116. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
3. Vinod Kumar, Zillur Rahman, A. A. Kazmi. 2016. Stakeholder identification and classification: a
sustainability marketing perspective. Management Research Review 39:1, 35-61. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
4. Pietro Beritelli, Federica Buffa, Umberto Martini. 2015. Logics and interlocking directorships in a multi-
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 01:08 31 January 2016 (PT)

stakeholder system. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management . [CrossRef]

5. Melissa Garber, Shahram Sarkani, Thomas A. Mazzuchi. 2015. Multi-Stakeholder Trade Space
Exploration Using Group Decision Making Methodologies. INCOSE International Symposium
25:10.1002/iis2.2015.25.issue-1, 1118-1132. [CrossRef]
6. Samantha Miles. 2015. Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of
Definitions. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
7. Menoka Bal, David Bryde. 2015. Measuring Performance to Engage the Extended Project Team in
Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 5, 1-10. [CrossRef]
8. Monica Mensah, Musah Adams. 2014. The nexus between corporate governance and records management
in private and public hospitals in Ghana. Records Management Journal 24:1, 32-55. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]