SlideShare a Scribd company logo
A THEORY OF
STAKEHOLDER
IDENTIFICATION AND
SALIENCE
PRESENTED BY: GROUP 3 SEC B
ANKIT AGGARWAL
GAUTAM MAHESH
13P081
MONIKA KHETAN
13P088
GOPESH NAKRA
13P104
SATYAJIT TRIPATHY
13P109
SUYASH NIGOTIA
13P116

13P063
Stakeholder Theory Overview


This article of Stakeholder theory deals with two
prominent concepts:





Identifying who the stakeholders are
Salience of the various Stakeholder classes and their
claims to the organization

Who is a Stakeholder?
“Any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organization‟s
objectives” ~ Freeman
Stakeholders
Defining Stakeholders - Broad Vs Narrow
View


Narrow view
Concerned with only the risk factor and includes:




Voluntary Stakeholders & Involuntary
Stakeholders

Broad View
Takes into account all those groups who can
affect or are affected by the achievement of the
organization‟s objectives.



who can affect the organization – Influencers
who are affected by the organization – Claimants
Stakeholder Attributes
1. Power
A relationship among social actors, in which A can get
B to do something which B would not have otherwise done
Categorization of power – Coercive, Utilitarian &
Normative
2. Legitimacy
Socially accepted and expected structures or behavior under
a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and
LEGITIMACY
definitions
INDIVIDUAL

ORGANIZATIONAL

SOCEITAL
Stakeholder Attributes
3. Urgency
Exists when 2 conditions are met –
 When a relationship or claim is of a time-sensitive
nature
 When it is critical to the stakeholder
Stakeholder Classes
Power
Dormant

Definitive

Urgency

Dependen
t

Demanding

Discretionary

Legitimac
y
Stakeholder Classes


Class 1 - Latent Stakeholders
•
•
•



Powe
r

One Attribute & Low Salience
Dormant
Managers may choose to do nothing
Consists of – Dormant,
Legitimacy
Urgency
Demanding and
Deman
Discreti
onary
Discretionary shareholders
ding

Dormant Stakeholders
• Possess power to impose their will but little or no
interaction as they lack legitimacy or urgency
• Examples – Those who have a loaded gun, those who
can spend a lot of money
Class 1 - Latent Stakeholders (Continued)

•

•

Discretionary Stakeholders
Powe
Likely to be recipients of corporate
r
philanthropy
Dormant
Examples – Beneficiaries of charity,
Non-profit organizations
Legitimacy
such as schools & hospitals
Deman
Discreti
ding

onary

Urgency

•

•
•

Demanding Stakeholders
Those with urgent claims but no legitimacy or power
Irritants for management but not worth considering
Examples – People with unjustified grudges, serial
complainers
Class 2 - Expectant
Stakeholders
•
•
•



2 Attributes & Moderate Salience
Active rather than Passive
Consists of – Dominant, Dependent
and Dangerous Stakeholders

Dominant Stakeholders
 Many theories position them as the
only stakeholders of an organisation
 Possess Power + Legitimacy
 Examples – Board of Directors, Public relations
Class 2 - Expectant Stakeholders
(Continued)

 Dangerous
•

Stakeholders
Those with powerful and urgent
claims and can be coercive and
possibly violent

 Dependent
•

•

Stakeholders
Stakeholders who are dependent
on other bodies to carry out their will,
because they lack the power to enforce their
stake
Examples – Residents & animals impacted by incidents
like Oil Spill, Mining etc.
Class 3 - Definitive Stakeholders
•

•

•

Often dominant stakeholders
with an urgent issue
Dependent groups with
powerful legal support

Examples –
Democratic legitimacy achieved by a „Dangerous‟
nationalist party by winning national elections
DYNAMISM in RELATIONS


A stakeholder can increase/decrease their
salience by acquiring or losing one of the
attributes: power, legitimacy or urgency

Nonstakeholder



Latent

Expectant

Definitive

Example: When SEBI/IRDA receives a
complaint, it moves from being a expectant to
a definitive stakeholder
POWER-DYNAMISM MATRIX


Stakeholders in groups A &
B:
Are the easiest to deal with

Dynamism



Stakeholders in group C:
Are important because they are
powerful. But low dynamism
means their reaction is
predictable and expectations
can be managed
Stakeholders in group D: Are
important because thy are
powerful. But low dynamism
means their reaction is

High

Low


Power Low
Fewer
Problems
(A)

Unpredictabl
e but
Manageable
(B)

High

Powerful but
Predictable
(C)

Greatest
Danger or
Opportunitie
s (D)
British Petroleum


Shareholder-driven company(bottom-line)



Attempted to gain higher stock values through
higher profits at the expense of safety
concerns
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Biggest hit for BP and its public
relations that had a direct impact on its
share prices
•

Killed 11 people and injured many
others
•

Date:

Environmental Disaster: ignited public
antagonism
•

Most importantly, it was not the first
disaster linked to the BP brand.
•

20th April, 2010

Place:

Gulf of Mexico
CSR Presentation by  Group 3 - Stakeholder theory
Stakeholders of BP Identified









Government(federal and state)
Employees(current and the ones killed)
Shareholders(majority and minority)
Environmentalists
Businesses along the coast(Tourism, Seafood)
Coastal Residents
Customers
Stakeholders and their Classes for
BP
Stakeholders
Power
Government
Employees
Shareholders
Environmentalists
Businesses along the
coast
Coastal Residents
Customers

*
*
*
-

Attributes
Legitimacy Urgency

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
-

Shareholder
class
Definitive
Expectant
(Dependent)
Expectant
(Dominant)
Expectant
(Dangerous)
Expectant
(Dependent)
Expectant
(Dependent)
Latent
(Discretionary)
What the company did?






Undermined the extent of the damage
Denied various claims made by researchers
Use of unethical practices
No empathy with those affected

No consistency between the image
it was trying to portray and
what it really was!
What BP should have done?
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

Be more alert to the significance of the company‟s
identity in the minds of the public
React quickly
Be present on the ground to build an emotional connect
with those affected
Balance legal/economic language with
emotional/empathic tones in their public statements
Acknowledged the company‟s moral responsibility
before dealing with legal liabilities
Put the interests of the company‟s shareholders and
managers after those of the environment and the
communities affected by the spill
References








http://citizenpolity.com/2010/09/07/definingshareholders-stakeholders/
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/bp-oil-spillfallout-whos-affected-03758.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/business/energyenvironment/13bprisk.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes&
http://taprootcreative.com/2011/04/lessons-in-crisiscommunication-an-analysis-of-bp%E2%80%99sresponse-to-the-gulf-oil-disaster/
Questions

More Related Content

PPTX
Case Study Analysis on GlaxoSmithkline
PPTX
Leadership Fundamentals
PDF
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING 101 part 1
PDF
Great Man Leadership Theory .pdf
PDF
Hay Group leadership development programs
PPT
Sustainable Leadership
PPT
Balanced Scorecard
PPT
Ethical Leadership
Case Study Analysis on GlaxoSmithkline
Leadership Fundamentals
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING 101 part 1
Great Man Leadership Theory .pdf
Hay Group leadership development programs
Sustainable Leadership
Balanced Scorecard
Ethical Leadership

What's hot (20)

PPT
Business Leadership
PPTX
People management
PPTX
Shell CSR
PPTX
PPT Wells Fargo
PDF
Salience Model-Supply Chain Management
PDF
Effective Leadership Behavior
PPT
LEADERSHIP POWERPOINT
PPTX
Good to great
PPTX
Morgan
PDF
Leadership Development Program Powerpoint Presentation Slides
PPTX
The concept of Core Competency
PPTX
Consulting Skills Workshop
PPTX
Good to great PPT Slides
PPTX
Are Leaders born or made?
PPTX
Creating shared value (CSV)
PPTX
The five messages leaders must manage
PPT
Developing leadership skills
PDF
Creating Shared Value
PDF
Good to great
DOC
Robin Hood Case Study
Business Leadership
People management
Shell CSR
PPT Wells Fargo
Salience Model-Supply Chain Management
Effective Leadership Behavior
LEADERSHIP POWERPOINT
Good to great
Morgan
Leadership Development Program Powerpoint Presentation Slides
The concept of Core Competency
Consulting Skills Workshop
Good to great PPT Slides
Are Leaders born or made?
Creating shared value (CSV)
The five messages leaders must manage
Developing leadership skills
Creating Shared Value
Good to great
Robin Hood Case Study
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PPT
Stakeholder Analysis
PPTX
Criticism on Carroll's Model
PPT
An Introduction To Stakeholder Theory
PPT
Stakeholder theory
PPTX
Carroll's pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
PPTX
Corporate social responsibility powerpoint presentation templates
PPS
Social Responsibility + Profits - Friedman
PPT
The pyramid of corporate social responsibility
PPTX
BP PR Strategy Brief
PPTX
stakeholder theory.
PPT
The Social Responsibility Of Business by Milton Friedman
PPT
Carroll Model
PPTX
Trends in stakeholder management somrita sen
PDF
Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas
PDF
Applying Policy to Maximize Social Good: Hydro Fracturing in Maryland
PPTX
Stakeholder organization stout 5 6 from carly
PPT
The Shareholder Primacy Norm - Shlensky v, Wrigley
PPTX
”Investing in water and sanitation: Investing in water and sanitation: Incre...
PPS
Stakeholders
PPTX
BE Group presentation for Broadband Stakeholder Group
Stakeholder Analysis
Criticism on Carroll's Model
An Introduction To Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory
Carroll's pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility powerpoint presentation templates
Social Responsibility + Profits - Friedman
The pyramid of corporate social responsibility
BP PR Strategy Brief
stakeholder theory.
The Social Responsibility Of Business by Milton Friedman
Carroll Model
Trends in stakeholder management somrita sen
Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas
Applying Policy to Maximize Social Good: Hydro Fracturing in Maryland
Stakeholder organization stout 5 6 from carly
The Shareholder Primacy Norm - Shlensky v, Wrigley
”Investing in water and sanitation: Investing in water and sanitation: Incre...
Stakeholders
BE Group presentation for Broadband Stakeholder Group
Ad

Similar to CSR Presentation by Group 3 - Stakeholder theory (20)

PPSX
Stakeholder Analysis
PPTX
Toward_a_theory_of_stakeholder_identific.pptx
PPTX
Csr theories & stakeholders
PPTX
Business and Stakeholder Management for Corporate Sustainability
PPT
Enterprisemodulesect8
PPTX
Lecture 7 Stakeholder engagement.pptx
PPTX
Chapter 3
PPT
Final ugbs 207 lecture3
PPT
Stakeholders.ppt
PPTX
Business & its stakeholders
PPTX
Managing stakeholders from the disengaged to the difficult
PPTX
Unregulated Corporate Reporting Decisions : Considerations of Systems-orient...
PPTX
Stakeholders
PPTX
ITNetwork BACon agile spring. Мария Попова - Стейкхолдер менеджмент: что это...
PPTX
CHP - STAKEHOLDERS grade 10 icse .pptx
PPTX
CHP - STAKEHOLDERS .pptx
PPTX
Fundamentals core Topic 3 Stakeholders.pptx
PPT
Stakeholder engagement and management
PPSX
Stakeholder Analysis
PPSX
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Toward_a_theory_of_stakeholder_identific.pptx
Csr theories & stakeholders
Business and Stakeholder Management for Corporate Sustainability
Enterprisemodulesect8
Lecture 7 Stakeholder engagement.pptx
Chapter 3
Final ugbs 207 lecture3
Stakeholders.ppt
Business & its stakeholders
Managing stakeholders from the disengaged to the difficult
Unregulated Corporate Reporting Decisions : Considerations of Systems-orient...
Stakeholders
ITNetwork BACon agile spring. Мария Попова - Стейкхолдер менеджмент: что это...
CHP - STAKEHOLDERS grade 10 icse .pptx
CHP - STAKEHOLDERS .pptx
Fundamentals core Topic 3 Stakeholders.pptx
Stakeholder engagement and management
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis

CSR Presentation by Group 3 - Stakeholder theory

  • 1. A THEORY OF STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND SALIENCE PRESENTED BY: GROUP 3 SEC B ANKIT AGGARWAL GAUTAM MAHESH 13P081 MONIKA KHETAN 13P088 GOPESH NAKRA 13P104 SATYAJIT TRIPATHY 13P109 SUYASH NIGOTIA 13P116 13P063
  • 2. Stakeholder Theory Overview  This article of Stakeholder theory deals with two prominent concepts:    Identifying who the stakeholders are Salience of the various Stakeholder classes and their claims to the organization Who is a Stakeholder? “Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization‟s objectives” ~ Freeman
  • 4. Defining Stakeholders - Broad Vs Narrow View  Narrow view Concerned with only the risk factor and includes:   Voluntary Stakeholders & Involuntary Stakeholders Broad View Takes into account all those groups who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the organization‟s objectives.   who can affect the organization – Influencers who are affected by the organization – Claimants
  • 5. Stakeholder Attributes 1. Power A relationship among social actors, in which A can get B to do something which B would not have otherwise done Categorization of power – Coercive, Utilitarian & Normative 2. Legitimacy Socially accepted and expected structures or behavior under a socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and LEGITIMACY definitions INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONAL SOCEITAL
  • 6. Stakeholder Attributes 3. Urgency Exists when 2 conditions are met –  When a relationship or claim is of a time-sensitive nature  When it is critical to the stakeholder
  • 8. Stakeholder Classes  Class 1 - Latent Stakeholders • • •  Powe r One Attribute & Low Salience Dormant Managers may choose to do nothing Consists of – Dormant, Legitimacy Urgency Demanding and Deman Discreti onary Discretionary shareholders ding Dormant Stakeholders • Possess power to impose their will but little or no interaction as they lack legitimacy or urgency • Examples – Those who have a loaded gun, those who can spend a lot of money
  • 9. Class 1 - Latent Stakeholders (Continued)  • • Discretionary Stakeholders Powe Likely to be recipients of corporate r philanthropy Dormant Examples – Beneficiaries of charity, Non-profit organizations Legitimacy such as schools & hospitals Deman Discreti ding onary Urgency  • • • Demanding Stakeholders Those with urgent claims but no legitimacy or power Irritants for management but not worth considering Examples – People with unjustified grudges, serial complainers
  • 10. Class 2 - Expectant Stakeholders • • •  2 Attributes & Moderate Salience Active rather than Passive Consists of – Dominant, Dependent and Dangerous Stakeholders Dominant Stakeholders  Many theories position them as the only stakeholders of an organisation  Possess Power + Legitimacy  Examples – Board of Directors, Public relations
  • 11. Class 2 - Expectant Stakeholders (Continued)  Dangerous • Stakeholders Those with powerful and urgent claims and can be coercive and possibly violent  Dependent • • Stakeholders Stakeholders who are dependent on other bodies to carry out their will, because they lack the power to enforce their stake Examples – Residents & animals impacted by incidents like Oil Spill, Mining etc.
  • 12. Class 3 - Definitive Stakeholders • • • Often dominant stakeholders with an urgent issue Dependent groups with powerful legal support Examples – Democratic legitimacy achieved by a „Dangerous‟ nationalist party by winning national elections
  • 13. DYNAMISM in RELATIONS  A stakeholder can increase/decrease their salience by acquiring or losing one of the attributes: power, legitimacy or urgency Nonstakeholder  Latent Expectant Definitive Example: When SEBI/IRDA receives a complaint, it moves from being a expectant to a definitive stakeholder
  • 14. POWER-DYNAMISM MATRIX  Stakeholders in groups A & B: Are the easiest to deal with Dynamism  Stakeholders in group C: Are important because they are powerful. But low dynamism means their reaction is predictable and expectations can be managed Stakeholders in group D: Are important because thy are powerful. But low dynamism means their reaction is High Low  Power Low Fewer Problems (A) Unpredictabl e but Manageable (B) High Powerful but Predictable (C) Greatest Danger or Opportunitie s (D)
  • 15. British Petroleum  Shareholder-driven company(bottom-line)  Attempted to gain higher stock values through higher profits at the expense of safety concerns
  • 16. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Biggest hit for BP and its public relations that had a direct impact on its share prices • Killed 11 people and injured many others • Date: Environmental Disaster: ignited public antagonism • Most importantly, it was not the first disaster linked to the BP brand. • 20th April, 2010 Place: Gulf of Mexico
  • 18. Stakeholders of BP Identified        Government(federal and state) Employees(current and the ones killed) Shareholders(majority and minority) Environmentalists Businesses along the coast(Tourism, Seafood) Coastal Residents Customers
  • 19. Stakeholders and their Classes for BP Stakeholders Power Government Employees Shareholders Environmentalists Businesses along the coast Coastal Residents Customers * * * - Attributes Legitimacy Urgency * * * * * * * * * * * - Shareholder class Definitive Expectant (Dependent) Expectant (Dominant) Expectant (Dangerous) Expectant (Dependent) Expectant (Dependent) Latent (Discretionary)
  • 20. What the company did?     Undermined the extent of the damage Denied various claims made by researchers Use of unethical practices No empathy with those affected No consistency between the image it was trying to portray and what it really was!
  • 21. What BP should have done? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Be more alert to the significance of the company‟s identity in the minds of the public React quickly Be present on the ground to build an emotional connect with those affected Balance legal/economic language with emotional/empathic tones in their public statements Acknowledged the company‟s moral responsibility before dealing with legal liabilities Put the interests of the company‟s shareholders and managers after those of the environment and the communities affected by the spill

Editor's Notes

  • #2: AnkitIntroduction and that we are going to present an exhaustive example of BP at the end
  • #3: AnkitSay that this definition of stakeholder is in layman terms.Some questions answered in the article:Who is a stakeholder? What is at stake?What types of Shareholders exist?The theory explains why managers pay certain kinds of attention to certain stakeholders and why they respond to them the way they do
  • #4: AnkitVarious possible shareholders for a company in an eg. Not much time to be spent on this slide
  • #5: AnkitExplain Voluntary and Involuntary shareholdersExplain Influencers and claimantsInfluencers: Those who have the power to influence the firm’s behaviour, direction, process and outcomesClaimants: Those who have a legal, moral or presumed claim on the firm but not the ability to influence its functioning
  • #6: GautamExplain the three categorizations of power (check from booklet)Explain the three types of legitimacyAdditional points on Power - A party to a relationship has power to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship- Power is transitory – it can be acquired as well as lost
  • #7: GautamUrgency - Stakeholder attribute of urgency helps move the model from static to dynamic
  • #8: GautamNotin detail
  • #9: SatyajitLatent stakeholdersstakeholders & may not even recognize them as stakeholders
  • #10: SatyajitDiscretionary stakeholdersNo pressures on managers to engage with this group, but they may choose to do so
  • #11: SatyajitExpectant - Seen by mangers as ‘expecting something’ Dominant - Likely to have a formal mechanism in place acknowledging the relationship with the organisation
  • #12: SatyajitDangerous Stakeholders Examples – Strikes and Terrorist activities Employee Sabotage or coercive/unlawful tactics used by activists Religious or political terrorists using bombings, shootings
  • #13: SuyashDefinitive Stakeholders Possess all three attributesAn expectant stakeholder who gains the relevant missing attributeThose classified as dangerous could gain legitimacy
  • #14: Suyash
  • #15: Suyash
  • #16: GopeshIntroduce the case here
  • #17: GopeshDeepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater,  offshore oil drilling rig[6] owned by Transocean. Built in 2001 in South Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industries,[3] the rig was commissioned by R&B Falcon, which later became part ofTransocean,[8] registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands, and leased to BP from 2001 until September 2013.[9] In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m)[10] in the Tiber Oil Field at Keathley Canyon block 102, approximately 250 miles (400 km) southeast of Houston, in 4,132 feet (1,259 m) of water.[11] On 20 April 2010, while drilling at the Macondo Prospect, an explosion on the rig caused by a blowout killed 11 crewmen and ignited a fireball visible from 35 miles (56 km) away.[12] The resulting fire could not be extinguished and, on 22 April 2010, Deepwater Horizon sank, leaving the well gushing at the seabed and causing the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
  • #18: Gopesh
  • #19: Gopesh1. ResidentsCosts of repair, maintenance & replacement of anything on property damaged by oilCost of cleaning upLoss of enjoyment of their propertyDecline in property prices2.Seafood IndustryFishing in the area is suspended resulting in loss of jobsPrice of seafood to increase3.Tourism Industryhotel industry, the restaurant industry, tour operators and anyone who sells or rents boats or other watercraft are affected by the oil spill4.Employees11 workers lost their lifeWorkers who continue to work are with a company with a lost reputationDeclined value of retirement fund of employees5.Wildlife-affected for a long time6.ShareholdersLoss of reputation resulting in declining stock value
  • #20: Monika
  • #21: Monika
  • #22: MonikaRead the last page of the case for details