Sara Sara Sara Sara MoggiMoggiMoggiMoggiPhD, Research FellowBusiness DepartmentUniversity of Verona

Bergamo, 4Bergamo, 4Bergamo, 4Bergamo, 4thththth December 2014December 2014December 2014December 2014

1

Università degli Studi di Verona

“anyanyanyany group or individual who cancancancan affect or is

affected by the achievement of the organizationorganizationorganizationorganization’s

objectiveobjectiveobjectiveobjectives” (Freeman 184:46)

“Persons, groups, neighborhoods, organizations,

institutions and even the natural environment are

generally thought as potential stakeholders”

(Mitchell et al. 1997, p.855)

2

3

POLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORY

Political, Economical, Social System

LEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORY

Common Values of the hosting system

Stakeholders

STAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORY

Stakeholder salienceStakeholder salienceStakeholder salienceStakeholder salience is the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims

It goes beyond the question of stakeholder identification, because thedynamics inherent in each relationship involve complex considerations that are not readily explained by the stakeholder framework as it currently stands.

4

-actual-potential-involountary

1) Stakeholder POWERPOWERPOWERPOWER to influence the organization

2) The LEGITIMACYLEGITIMACYLEGITIMACYLEGITIMACY of the stakeholder’s relationship with the organization

3) The URGENCYURGENCYURGENCYURGENCY of the stakeholder’s claim on the organization

5

>>> DYNAMIC MODEL<<<>>> DYNAMIC MODEL<<<>>> DYNAMIC MODEL<<<>>> DYNAMIC MODEL<<<

1)1)1)1) POWERPOWERPOWERPOWER

2) LEGITIMACY

3) URGENCY

6

The powerpowerpowerpower is "the probability that one actor within a social relationship would be in a position

to carry out his own will despite resistance" (Weber, 1947).

'[it is] the ability of those who possess power to bring about the outcomes they desire' " (Salancik

& Pfeffer, 1974: 3)

- Coercive powerCoercive powerCoercive powerCoercive power = based on the physical resources of force

- Utilitarian powerUtilitarian powerUtilitarian powerUtilitarian power = based on material or financial resources

- Normative powerNormative powerNormative powerNormative power = based on symbolic resources

1) POWER

2)2)2)2) LEGITIMACYLEGITIMACYLEGITIMACYLEGITIMACY

3) URGENCY

7

LegitimacyLegitimacyLegitimacyLegitimacy is "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are

desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions" (Suchman,1995: 574).

Legitimacy is a desirable social goodLegitimacy is a desirable social goodLegitimacy is a desirable social goodLegitimacy is a desirable social good

1) POWER

2) LEGITIMACY

3)3)3)3) URGENCY URGENCY URGENCY URGENCY

8

Urgency Urgency Urgency Urgency is "a call for immediate attention"

Urgency exists only when two conditions are met:

(1) when a relationship or claim is of a time-sensitive nature;

(2) when that relationship or claim is important or critical to the stakeholder.

Urgency is based on the following two attributes: (1) TTTTime sensitivityime sensitivityime sensitivityime sensitivity = the degree to which managerial delay in attending to the claim or relationship is unacceptable to the stakeholder

(2) CriticalityCriticalityCriticalityCriticality = the importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder.

9

Model based on 3 assumptions:1. Managers that want to

achieve a defined goal, consider the different stakeholder classes

2. Managers’ perception dictate stakeholders salience

3. Stakeholder are classified on the evaluation of the three attributes

10

POLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORYPOLITICAL ECONOMY THEORY

Political, Economical, Social System

LEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORYLEGITIMACY THEORY

Common Values of the hosting system

Stakeholders

STAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORYSTAKEHOLDER THEORY

11

� AIM: AIM: AIM: AIM: Study on the role of social and environmental reporting in at universities

� CONTEXTCONTEXTCONTEXTCONTEXT: This study is a part of wider research - National Group of interest on Social Accounting in Universities

12

13

Among 96 Universities, 26 have a SER ( 27% )Among 96 Universities, 26 have a SER ( 27% )Among 96 Universities, 26 have a SER ( 27% )Among 96 Universities, 26 have a SER ( 27% )

� KIND OF REPORTSKIND OF REPORTSKIND OF REPORTSKIND OF REPORTS

14

YEAR

University 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Libera Università di BOLZANO 2010

Scuola Normale Superiore di PISA 2004/2006

Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e Perf. S.Anna di PISA 2002/2003 2003/2004

Università Cà Foscari VENEZIA 2010 2011

Università degli Studi del MOLISE 2011

Università degli Studi del SALENTO 2009/2010

Università degli Studi del SANNIO di BENEVENTO 2006 2008 2010

Università degli Studi di BARI ALDO MORO 2006 2009

Università degli Studi di CAGLIARI 2006 2007 2008

Università degli Studi di CASSINO e del LAZIO MERID. 2009

Università degli Studi di FERRARA 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Università degli Studi di FIRENZE 2006

Università degli Studi di MACERATA 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Università degli Studi di PAVIA 2010

Università degli Studi di Roma la Sapienza 2010

Università degli Studi di SALERNO 2009-2010 2010-2011

Università degli Studi di TRIESTE 2008 2009

Università degli Studi INSUBRIA Varese-Como 2007

15

SER SER SER SER presencepresencepresencepresence

YESYESYESYES NONONONO

Att

enti

on

Att

enti

on

Att

enti

on

Att

enti

on

to U

SR

to U

SR

to U

SR

to U

SR

YES

YES

YES

YES University D

University EUniversity CUniversity H

NO

NO

NO

NO University F

University GUniversity AUniversity B

16 semi-structured interviews and

1 focus group

key informants: rectors/vice-

chancellors, students representative

and employees involved in the

process

8 Universities 8 Universities 8 Universities 8 Universities

(1private)

� Multiple case studies Multiple case studies Multiple case studies Multiple case studies

� Best practice in term

of SER and

sustainable practices

� Polar cases

� The managementmanagementmanagementmanagement could used SER to gain legitimacy, in terms of the social contract (Shocker and Sethi, 1973) between students – local community (main stakeholders declared during the interviews) and Universities. SER emerged to reach or support this legitimacylegitimacylegitimacylegitimacy(Deegan and Blomquist, 2006), but legitimacy in not enoughbut legitimacy in not enoughbut legitimacy in not enoughbut legitimacy in not enough

� In fact the influence of the other attributes change underlined how different stakeholders can changechangechangechange the role of SERSERSERSER

16

� After the first period of introduction (usually after the first year) the SER change its rolechange its rolechange its rolechange its role!

� The role depends on the real usersreal usersreal usersreal users of the tool that are the real salience of stakeholders’ in university

� The SER assumes different roles different roles different roles different roles driven by the powerful stakeholder needs (various social contracts) (Neuet al., 1998), that are the real users of the tool.

� On the contrary, if it is notnotnotnot perceived as something usefulusefulusefuluseful, the process is no longer implemented or another another another another tool is usedtool is usedtool is usedtool is used

17

� If the powerful stakeholders are employeesemployeesemployeesemployees, SER become an important tool for the organization identityorganization identityorganization identityorganization identity; that could be hampered by this subject if the process increases the red tape

� If the powerful stakeholder is the boardboardboardboard (board of directors or senate), SER becomes the central instrument for the measurement system measurement system measurement system measurement system and also for planning and control. Important tool for the definition of the long term strategies.

� If the powerful stakeholders is the main funds supportersupportersupportersupporter(e.g. in a private university), this requires this kind of reportingreportingreportingreporting for obtaining a clearer idea of the resources used.

18

19

� SER in universities assume different roles in different roles in different roles in different roles in different periods different periods different periods different periods and it depends on the stakeholders’ salience.

� So…Universities starting this path may to take into consideration the three dimensions of salience for each stakeholder

� Also the definition of a new standardstandardstandardstandard for SER in higher education should permit the flexible role of this tool.

� Future researchFuture researchFuture researchFuture research: how the environment and the context influence the kind of powerful stakeholder and consequently the role of SER?; what would happen in other organizations that have also a social utility?

20

� Map the stakeholder groups

� Consider the dimension of salience

� Identify the tool for a dialog with stakeholders

21

Sara Moggi, PhD, Research FellowDepartment of Business AdministrationUniversity of Verona – Italy

sara.moggi@univr.itMobile: +39 3393347931

Università degli Studi di Verona

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences� Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. "Toward a theory of

stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts." Academy of management review 22.4 (1997): 853-886.

� Suchman, Mark C. "Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches." Academy of management review 20.3 (1995): 571-610.