PRESENTACIÓN DE RESULTADOS DE LAS ENCUESTAS APLICADAS A

Mainardes et al. (2011) claim that more studies are needed on how to relate good stakeholder management to organisational goals and Beach (2009) says possibly the most effective theoretical application might actually be in public or non-profit organisation rather than the private sector (Beach 2009). Phillips et al. (2003) assert that the application of stakeholder theory only to corporations is an ‘unnecessary limitation on the scope of stakeholder theory’ (2003, p. 495). They highlight how little attention has been paid by stakeholder theorists to other organisational forms, including governmental organisations. Laplume et al. (2008) made a similar observation and emphasised the need for appropriate research in order to rectify this deficiency. de Bussy and Kelly (2010) claim that writers in the field of policy development have also struggled with the same problems of stakeholder breadth. Colebatch (cited in de Bussy & Kelly 2010) argued that one of the greatest challenges faced by different tiers of government is the identification of who should be involved in the process of policy formulation and implementation.

Below are some of the empirical researches undertaken in the public and not-for-profit sectors using the theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Their summaries are presented in Table 3.9.

The first two studies are from the political domain in two different countries that applied the model proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997). First, O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) carried out a survey to investigate the relationships between political parties and their stakeholders (electoral groups, environmental groups, media, party members/representatives/staff, special interest/lobby groups) in Ireland. Their survey sought to reflect an internal party view of the key members of which stakeholder groups are most salient. Survey participants were the officials and activists in five major Irish political parties. O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) discovered that media was the most powerful stakeholder in the political arena. The power of media is believed to be continuous and is exercised not only during election time unlike that of the electorate. The respondents perceive that media as a moderately salient stakeholder, indicating the independence and impartiality of the media despite its importance. Nevertheless, the media were perceived as the least legitimate stakeholder group in the political domain. The electorate is perceived as the most legitimate and urgent stakeholder group in the political arena and they are also perceived as the most salient stakeholders. The level of urgency of the electorate group is expected to be lower during a government or council’s midterm. Party member/representatives achieved a moderate level of salience, although they possessed all three stakeholder attributes of Mitchell’s (1997) framework. However, the environmental groups despite their possession of only legitimacy are perceived as highly salient stakeholders. The special interest/lobby groups do not possess any of the three attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency) and are considered not salient. The findings indicate that legitimacy is the most important attribute for political parties in Ireland. That is, the possession of legitimacy of a stakeholder is considered more important than power and urgency when rating a stakeholder as salient.

However, O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) say ‘overall, the results suggest that political parties may find other attributes over and above the three proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997) to determine salience. This may indicate that political parties find other attributes, not accounted for by Mitchell et al.’s (1997) method, more important to assigning salience’ (p. 72). They further explain that the possession of one or two attributes may be more relevant to salience than the mere possession of all three attributes. Also, the three attributes of the framework do

not seem to completely describe salience to all organisations in a generic sense. ‘However, it appears that more ideologically oriented organisations may assign higher salience to stakeholders who fit their ideology, as opposed to those who possess power, legitimacy and urgency. The ideological dimension appears to be something beyond legitimacy’ (p. 73).

Similarly, in an attempt to explore the meaning of the stakeholder concept in politics, de Bussy and Kelly (2010) used the theory of stakeholder identification and salience as a framework. They attempted to discover whether a gap existed between those politicians they say they should pay attention to in-principle (stakeholder identification) and those they actually pay attention to in practice (stakeholder salience). They believe the existence of any such gap would not auger well for the resolution of the democratic deficit. This qualitative study involved in-depth interviews with 23 politicians and political advisers in Western Australia and was conducted in the style of a grounded theory investigation. Unlike O’Higgins and Morgan’s (2006) study they did not nominate any particular stakeholders to as participants.

de Bussy and Kelly (2010) found in the political arena a stakeholder is referred to as a person or group with a legitimate interest or claim in a particular situation or policy decision. Hence, in a political context, in terms of stakeholder identification, they view legitimacy as the most important of the three variables of the theory of stakeholder identification and salience. When turning to the notion of salience, de Bussy and Kelly (2010) explored ‘that there are many groups with legitimate interests who are effectively excluded from the consultative process because they are largely unorganised and hence lack the power to command the attention of the political elite’ (p. 300). In particular, these unorganised groups include young people, Australian Muslims, Aboriginal people, single parents, stay-at-home mothers, people with disabilities, gay and lesbian people, and people living in remote, rural or regional areas as mentioned by various participants. However, the participants also mention that the issues of these unorganised groups will become salient during the election time. They say ‘the heightened perceived urgency of these claims for politicians seeking re-election naturally increases their salience as the polling date approaches, irrespective of their legitimacy’ (de Bussy & Kelly 2010, p. 299). However, in practice, those who are with power and urgency to influence their claims obtain the most attention from the politicians and their advisers. de Bussy and Kelly (2010) say, ‘Unsurprisingly, urgency is a particular factor in the lead-up to elections when those with power redouble their efforts to sway the policy debate’ (p. 301).

Table 3.9: Summary of Empirical Studies in Public and Not-for-Profit Sectors employing the Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience

Author(s) and year

Context of study

Focus of the Study Key Findings O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) Officials and activists in five major Irish political Parties

Whether stakeholder salience based on attributes portray who and what really matters to political parties and the differences between parties in relation to their assignment of stakeholder salience are reflected in their electoral success

Stakeholders considered more important to the organisation receive higher levels of

engagement from the parties than those stakeholders thought to be less critical. The results suggest that high levels of stakeholder engagement can yield beneficial electoral results for political parties Collier (2008) a non-profit distributing quasi-public organisation

Focus on board and its

accountability to its three main stakeholders

The board did not equally identify the stakeholders in terms of their power, legitimacy and urgency nor equally prioritised the stakeholder demands in terms of salience de Bussy and Kelly (2010) 23 Politicians and political advisers in Western Australia.

To explore the meaning of the stakeholder concept in politics, using theories drawn from the fields of management, political science and public relations. In particular, the theory of stakeholder identification and salience is to be used as a framework.

There is a gulf between how politicians think stakeholder status should be accorded in principle and what happens in reality.

In practice, power seems to play a far greater role than legitimacy in determining stakeholder salience among political decision-makers

Assard and Goddard (2010) Two Tanzanian Non- governmental organisations (NGOs).

To investigate the influence of stakeholders on accountability relationships and the

development of accounting practices and processes within two Tanzanian NGOs

Overseas donors were the stakeholders with the highest salience.

Differences in the accounting functions in the NGOs were explained by the influence of dominant stakeholders indicating that it was largely a tool for satisfying claims of the highly salient stakeholders Masoud and Wilson(20 11) 213 managers from 20 privatised firms and 35 state owned firms in Tanzania

To analyse the effects of stakeholder attributes on the stakeholder salience of shareholders groups in state- owned and privatized firms in Tanzania

Employees, customers, and community attained inferior status compared to the results obtained in developed countries for which the theory had been developed. Results indicated that the effects on salience are similar for

shareholders but different for the remaining stakeholder groups Wynn- Williams (2012) New Zealand’s system, the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC)

To explore how a public sector entity within New Zealand’s public health system,

continues to operate unfettered with ongoing public challenges

Ministry of Health as funder is a dominant stakeholder, indicating that there is no urgency being applied to PHARMAC for change. The recipient group, the general public is viewed as a dependent stakeholder with no power.

Accordingly they assert that there exists a gap between stakeholder identification and salience in the political domain. That is ‘there is a difference between who politicians say they should pay attention to in principle and who is actually taken into account in practice’ (p. 301). The gap created has the potential to worsen the democratic deficit. Accordingly, in theoretical terms they suggest that, legitimacy is the major determinant of stakeholder identification but power and urgency are the keys to understanding stakeholder salience, in a political context. de Bussy and Kelly (2010) further argue that in the content of stakeholder theory, this gulf between the stakeholder perception and the actual practice could be termed the normative/descriptive divide as explained by Donaldson and Preston (1995). These findings are similar to the findings of O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) claim that ideology plays an important role in stakeholder salience in politics.

With the aim of exploring accountability of organisations to multiple stakeholders, Collier (2008) undertook a four-year longitudinal field study via participant observation of a non- profit distributing quasi-public organisation providing ‘affordable housing’ to low income tenants. The researcher was an independent board member. The study was focusing on board and its accountability to its three main stakeholders who had differing interests, namely: the Housing Corporation as regulator; lenders; and tenants. Collier (2008) says since accountability requires governance, the stakeholder accountability perspective is the only available option for non-profit distributing quasi-public organisations with social welfare objects. The housing association was going through a structural transformation with the aim of improving its capability to fulfil its multiple but not mutually exclusive accountabilities. The board had multiple accountabilities to multiple stakeholders, prioritising explicitly or implicitly the different demands and claims. However, Collier (2008) observed that during the transformation, the board of the housing association neither equally identified the stakeholders in terms of their power, legitimacy and urgency nor equally prioritised the stakeholder demands in terms of salience.

Assad and Goddard (2010) investigated the influence of stakeholders on accountability relationships and the development of accounting practices and processes within two Tanzanian non-governmental organisations (NGOs). They use grounded theory approach and employ the theory of stakeholder identification and salience in order to evaluate the positions of stakeholder groups. In-depth interviews, observation and documentary analysis are the methods used to collect data for the study. During the analysis of stakeholders they identified

six major stakeholders: the government, donors, the board of trustees, the regulatory accounting board, members and beneficiary communities. According to the analysis the government falls under the category of definitive stakeholder who possesses all three stakeholder attributes, since it possesses the power to allow registration and de-registration of an NGO, it has legitimacy claims on NGO operations which are mostly urgent. Donors and board of trustees according to the Mitchell et al. (1997) framework are also considered as definitive stakeholders. Most of these donors are based in the USA and Europe and have common concerns and requirements for accountability and accounting with respect to their donations. The requirements of donors’ accounting information demands and their effect on other internal organisational resource priorities are viewed as burdensome. Hence the reporting requirements including financial reporting were carried with much discontentment even in the organisations that were reputed to be credible. It was also noted that the board of trustees, in spite of being a definitive stakeholder, failed to exercise its oversight functions due to depth of personal relationships with management. The regulatory accounting board is viewed as a dominant stakeholder who does not have any urgency to accomplish its needs and claims. The members of the Tanzanian NGOs and beneficiary communities are considered as dependent stakeholders who lack power to pursue their claims even when they are urgent. They need the support of a definitive stakeholder, such as donors, the regulatory accounting board or government in order to accomplish their claims.

In order to analyse the effects of stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency on the stakeholder salience of shareholders, employees, customers, and community in state- owned and privatised firms in Tanzania, Masoud and Wilson (2011) administered a survey. Further they compared the results with studies carried out in developed countries such as the USA (Agle et al. 1999) and Spain (Gago & Antolin 2004). They found both in state-owned and privatised sectors the shareholders were definitive (power, legitimacy and urgency). For state-owned organisations, employees and the community were perceived as dangerous (power and urgency). Customers were viewed as demanding (urgency) by state-owned organisations. Moreover, the customers, employees and the community were seen as dependent (legitimacy and urgency) by the management of the privatised organisations. When comparing the results with the USA and Spain, they found that the shareholders were classified as dependent (legitimacy and urgency) in the developed countries while in Tanzania the classification was definitive (power, legitimacy and urgency). However, in Tanzanian context, employees, customers, and community attained inferior status compared to the results

(2011) argued these differences can be not only due to economic and financial differences of the developed and developing nations but due to cultural differences as well.

Wynn-Williams (2012) explored how a public sector entity within New Zealand’s public health system, the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), continues to operate with minimal government interference in the face of ongoing public challenges. PHARMAC is a crown entity and a statutory corporation with different stakeholders such as, funders (Ministry of Health - government), providers and recipients (public). The data was collected from publicly available documents and semi-structured interviews. The analysis revealed that the Ministry of Health as funder is a dominant stakeholder, indicating that there is no urgency being applied to PHARMAC for change. The recipient group, the general public is viewed as a dependent stakeholder with no power. Wynn-Williams (2012) stated that ‘PHARMAC’s accountability is limited to these two major stakeholder groups, and they are quite unequal in terms of ability to induce action’ (p. 353).