The second conceptual building block of the collaborative planning approach draws on stakeholder theory. In general terms, stakeholder in an organisation is any individual or an identifiable group who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the organisation’s objectives (Freeman, 1984). Thus, a stakeholder has a legitimate interest in aspects of the organisation’s activities, and has either the power to affect the firm’s performance, and/or has a stake in the firm’s performance (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; cited in Sautter & Leisen, 1999). As the actors of collaboration, stakeholders have been defined by Jamal & Getz (1995) based on Gray (1989) as: ‘the actors with an interest in a common problem, including all individuals, groups, or organizations directly influenced by the actions others take to solve a problem’ (p.188).
Stakeholder theory emerged in the mid-1980’s by Freeman’s landmark book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984). Contrary to the separation thesis which claims that ethics and economics can be clearly and sharply separated, stakeholder theory is based on the premise that values are necessarily and explicitly a part of doing business (Freeman, 1994; Freeman, Wicks & Parmar, 2004). Most fundamentally, the theory claims that an organisation is primarily characterised by its actors and relationships with various other groups and individuals (Freeman, 1984). The principal aim of the organisation is to manage the myriad of these corporate groups and resulting relationships in a strategic fashion (Freeman & McVea, 2001). With other words, the main goal is to establish a single strategic framework that facilitates the formulation of a corporate strategy along ethical lines, and is as well responsive to managerial concerns of extreme environmental turbulence and change (Freeman & McVea, 2001; Robson & Robson, 1996). Stakeholder theory recognises that there are various groups that can and should have a direct influence in managerial decision-making (Jones, 1995; cited in Sautter & Leisen, 1999). ‘The central task in this process is to manage and integrate the relationships and interests of stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, communities and other
groups) in a way that ensures the long-term success of the firm’ (Freeman & McVea, 2001; p.192).
One of the major distinguishing characteristic of the theory is the recognition that managers must formulate and implement processes which satisfy all, by dealing with only those groups who have a stake in the business (Freeman & McVea, 2001). This notion of strategic stakeholder management has been best explained by Freeman (1984): ‘To be an effective strategist you must deal with those groups that can affect you, while to be responsive (and effective in the long run) you must deal with those groups that you can affect’ (p.46).
The implication of stakeholder theory in tourism planning arose from the argument that runs across the community tourism planning literature, namely, that there is a need to more effectively involve those affected by tourism development. The industry has been often criticised for being reactionary rather than integrative (Reid, Mair, & George, 2004) for using methods that impose planning decisions on the local population (Keogh, 1990; cited in Sautter & Leisen, 1999), for maintaining the dominance of the profit-oriented tourism industry (Blackstock, 2005) and for being driven by level of government (Joppe, 1996) rather than empowering local residents in the lack of a genuine transformative intent.
Thus, there is a wide-ranging consensus that ‘a viable tourism industry requires a co- ordinated and co-operative management effort from those responsible for delivery of the tourism product’ (Plog, 1991; cited in Simpson, 2001). While the ethical and moral dimensions of managerial decision-making were addressed by Wheeler (1992), the conceptual foundations of stakeholder theory in tourism planning have been laid down by Robson & Robson (1996) and Sautter & Leisen (1999). These studies argue that stakeholders need to be identified, their relationships mapped and perspectives explored, in order to understand and synthesise them in a strategic framework that allows for the management of transactions or bargains between stakeholders and the organisation responsible for tourism planning (Goodpaster, 1993; cited in Robson & Robson, 1996; Freeman & McVea, 2001; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Adapting Freeman’s stakeholder map of the firm (1984; p. 55), Robson & Robson (1996) identified the stakeholder groups and presented the stakeholder map of tour operators and that of the local government tourism marketer. Using the same method, Sautter & Leisen (1999) constructed the stakeholder
map of tourism planners, which is presented in Figure 3.7. They emphasise that the framework depicts only a starting point for the identification of stakeholders in mapping the stakeholder relations of a tourism initiative, the complexity of which – both the process and the resulting structure – is often underestimated by planners.
Figure 3.7:Stakeholder map of tourism planners
Source: Sautter & Leisen (1999), adapted from Freeman (1984)
In addition to the identification of stakeholders and their network relationships, stakeholder theory stipulates the identification and classification of ‘stake’ of the relevant groups or individuals. While all stakeholders’ interests have intrinsic value, they vary in the ‘worth’ or substance from the view of the issue at stake. To distinguish them, is again a challenging task because a stakeholder may share other perspectives than those represented by the stakeholder group he or she pertains, and may as well serve in multiple roles within the larger macro-environment. Thus, those interests or perspectives should be addressed by planners that are ‘defined by the roles which they serve with regard to the particular development initiative’ (Sautter & Leisen, 1999; p.316). That is, the role played by an entity in a system determines the value of its stake or interest.
Following the conceptualisation of stakeholder theory as a normative planning tool to promote collaboration, in a series of research, Byrd (2003; 2007; Byrd, Cárdenas, & Greenwood, 2008; Byrd & Gustke, 2007) addressed the questions who should be considered stakeholders in tourism development and how could relevant stakeholders be involved in the tourism planning and development process. He argued that by taking into consideration sustainability as a normative rule, four tourism stakeholder groups can be distinguished: the present visitors, future visitors, present host community, and future host community. The host community comprises the residents, business owners and government officials. The planning considerations arising from Byrd’s (2007) conceptualisation based on the community changes by these stakeholder groups are presented in Figure 3.8.
The figure illustrates that the interests of the present visitors involve the quality of experience they have or will have, while in the community. Any change to the community may impact the present visitor’ experience positively or negatively, and will impact the likelihood of future visitors’ travel to the community, the duration of their stay and the activities they may engage in. Hence the underlying argument for stakeholder involvement from the sustainability perspective is that in addition to the tangible part of the tourism product (the number of rooms, facilities, and natural resources) the intangible part of the tourism product is the overall experience for all stakeholders (not only for the tourists), which should also be incorporated in product development.
Concerning the host community, and in line with the above conceptualisation, there is not a definable single generic interest for the host community (Byrd, 2007). The level of stakeholder involvement varies between and within communities according to the interests and empowerment of the stakeholder groups, stemming from different social roles, missions and value platforms (Robson & Robson, 1996). Changes to the community may impact the present host community in three ways: first, it influences community dynamics by assisting in drawing new or keeping the present residents in the community or by accelerating emigration. Second, it will determine their support for future development and will as influence their interactions with visitors that is, community hospitality. Lastly, changes will impact the community area, infrastructure and services and the demographic characteristics of the future community. This shows that support and participation interact and influence the social dimension of sustainable tourism in relation to the stakeholders in the community (Byrd, 2003).
Figure 3.8: Planning considerations based on the impacts of community change by tourism stakeholder group
Source: Author, based on Byrd (2007)
While all stakeholders can not be and need not to be included in the decision-making process equally, all interests should be identified and understood (Donaldson & Preston, 1995 cited in: Byrd, 2007; Freeman, 1984; Donald Getz & Timur, 2005). A failure to identify the interests of a single relevant stakeholder group may jeopardise the entire development process (Clarkson, 1995; cited in Byrd, 2007). Thus, the stakeholder approach does not guarantee a win-win situation for all stakeholder groups, but it will distribute both harms and benefits in a way that ensures the long-term support of all stakeholders (Freeman & McVea, 2001).
Quality of visitor experience Present visitors Future visitors Present host community Future host community Residents Business owners Government officials Likelihood of travel, duration of stay and activities to be involved in
Community dynamics
Support for future
development Hospitality Community area
Services and infrastructure
Demographic characteristics