ANÁLISIS PROXIMAL

This subsection considers the prior empirical research which focuses on the findings of the relationship between stakeholder attributes and stakeholder salience which provides mix results. The summary of these findings are presented in Table 3.7.

The first empirical study to test Mitchell et al.’s theoretical model (1997) was undertaken by Agle et al. (1999). They examined stakeholder salience by surveying CEOs at 80 firms and found ‘that in the minds of CEOs, the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency are individually (with only two exceptions) and cumulatively (with no exceptions) related to stakeholder salience’ (p. 520). The stakeholders identified in the study are shareholders, employees, customers, government and communities. Their findings suggest that stakeholder attributes do affect the degree to which top managers give priority to competing stakeholders. The perceptions of CEOs with regard to power, legitimacy and urgency are individually and cumulatively related to CEO values and stakeholder salience across all stakeholder groups.

In the discipline of environmental management, Harvey and Schaefer (2001) found that stakeholders with significant power, legitimacy and urgency were given high priority in the minds of managers while stakeholders with only one or two attributes have only limited direct influence on actions of the managers. Similarly, Gago and Antolin (2004) discovered that environmental urgency significantly influences the environmental salience positively for all ten stakeholders under investigation while environmental power has a positive significant effect on salience except for owners and suppliers. Environmental urgency of all stakeholders has a greater impact on environmental salience. As perceived by managers, urgency and legitimacy are the most influential attributes on organisational environmental actions compared to stakeholder power.

Parent and Deephouse (2007) found a positive relationship between the number of stakeholder attributes and perceived stakeholder salience which supports the theory of stakeholder identification and salience of Mitchell et al. (1997). They found that the attribute of power has the most important effect on salience, followed by urgency and legitimacy. They further state that utilitarian power was more powerful than normative or coercive power.

Table 3.7: Summary of Empirical Studies that Relate Stakeholder Attributes to Salience Author(s) and

year

Context of study Focus of the Study Key Findings Agle et al.

(1999)

80 US companies Relationships among the stakeholder attributes and salience

the attributes do affect the degree to which top management give priority to competing stakeholder needs Parent and

Deephouse (2007)

Two Canadian large scale sporting organisation committees

Examine the stakeholder identification and

prioritisation by managers using the power,

legitimacy and urgency

Positive relationship between stakeholders attributes and perceived stakeholder salience. Power has the most important effect on salience, followed by urgency and legitimacy Harvey and

Schaefer (2001)

Six U.K. water and electricity

companies

Managing the relationships with green stakeholders

Stakeholders with significant power, legitimacy and urgency were given high priority in the minds of managers Gago and Antolin (2004) 277 large manufacturing firms in Spain

To identify how managers assess different

stakeholders and their attributes in relation to environmental issues. How these attributes influence stakeholders’ environmental salience

environmental urgency significantly influences the environmental salience of all stakeholder groups Eesley and Lenox (2006) 600 secondary stakeholder actions in the US

It explores the conditions under which secondary stakeholder groups are likely to elicit positive firm responses

The findings support Mitchell et al.'s (1997) stakeholder identification and salience framework that power, legitimacy, and urgency are important drivers of salience Boesso and Kumar (2009b) 130 USA managers and 114 Italian managers

Examine the extent to which the power, legitimacy, and urgency that managers

associate with various stakeholder groups, determines how managers prioritize competing stakeholder claims

The power and legitimacy that managers associate with a stakeholder group cumulatively are the most important determinant of how managers go about

prioritising competing claims.

Gifford (2010) Six UK and US investee companies

To analyse the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, to determine the factors that are likely to enhance shareholder salience

All the three attributes need not be present to achieve high levels of salience. The study suggests that within the engagement of practitioner community, there is a strong preference for legitimacy- based engagement in the first instance, with an appropriate degree of intensity, and power being applied only after legitimacy based options have been exhausted.

Eesley and Lenox (2006) develop and test a theory of the extent to which secondary stakeholder groups may obtain positive responses from firms to their requests based upon Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder identification and salience framework. While this framework is based on the notion that fixed attributes of stakeholder groups determine their saliency to managers, Eesley and Lenox (2006) sought to ‘extend this framework and propose that saliency is dependent on the specific interaction between the stakeholder group and the targeted organisations. In particular, they contend that stakeholder groups interact with targeted firms by making requests to change their activities consistent with some issue of concern’ (p. 767). The saliency of this request, according to Eesley and Lenox (2006) depends not only on stakeholder attributes but also on the nature of the request and the attributes of the targeted organisation. If the same stakeholder group had made a different request to the same organisation, the organisation may view the request as more or less salient. Similarly, the same stakeholder group making the same request of a different organisation may be perceived as more or less salient. With such a conceptualization, they measure saliency by action rather than preference. In other words, saliency is determined by the degree to which an organisation positively responds to a specific stakeholder request. By 'positively', they mean that the organisation acts in ways consistent with the stakeholder's request (p.767). To test this framework, Eesley and Lenox (2006) built a unique dataset of over 600 secondary stakeholder actions within the United States, all concerning environmental issues over the period 1971-2003. In particular, their data covered actions such as protests, boycotts, and letter writing campaigns. Their findings generally supported Mitchell et al.'s (1997) stakeholder identification and salience framework that power, legitimacy, and urgency are important drivers of salience.

Boesso and Kumar (2009b) attempt to empirically examine the perceptions of the USA and Italian managers on stakeholder attributes associated with the claims of different stakeholder groups and the salience associated with those groups. The stakeholder groups were financial community, labour unions, customer groups, social and environmental groups and professional and industry groups. The results indicate power influenced the salience accorded to a stakeholder group in all of the five cases. While urgency was associated with the salience of labour, financial and customer groups, legitimacy influenced the salience of labour, financial, and social and environmental groups. The situation is explained by the varying nature of the relationships between the organisation and the stakeholders.

Gifford (2010) employs the model of stakeholder salience to the shareholder context with the aim of analysing the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, and determining the factors that are likely to enhance shareholder salience. A qualitative case study approach was undertaken in six UK and US investee companies. The results reveal that shareholders are most salient when there have high levels of power, legitimacy and urgency and the target company managers have values that allow for the accommodating of the shareholders’ concerns. The most important determinants of salience were a strong business case and the values of the managers of investee companies. However, the study concludes that the presence of all three attributes is not necessary to achieve high levels of salience. The study further suggests that ‘within the engagement practitioner community, there is a strong preference for legitimacy-based engagement in the first instance, with an appropriate degree of intensity, and power being applied only after legitimacy based options have been exhausted’ (p. 97).