Tag Archive for 'Stakeholders'

The Democratization of Business

by Olsson Center staff

A major U.S. bank announces new fees for checking accounts and customers revolt. Many opt to close their accounts and take their business to competitors. A popular mail movie rental service changes its strategy much to its faithful customers’ chagrin. In both instances, social media and traditional media provide a forum for customers to express their discontent. Each company decides to back down, at least in part due to the protests.

As consumers are becoming more educated they are engaging more with the companies with which they do business. This is especially true with educated millennial generation who choose to support more socially conscious companies. Consumers expect products to be tailored to their tastes and expecting companies to be accountable.

There are other places where we see changing stakeholder expectations impact how business gets done. Customers were used to the same 500 products in grocery stores for decades. With the advent of mass-produced organic foods, many consumers demanded more selection from their grocery stores. We now have more choices for food than we ever had in the past. Customers have made it clear that they do not always take what is given to them, especially if someone else is willing to provide what they want.

We are also starting to see signs of a major shift in the wireless carrier market. Consumers have grown tired of the inflexible two-year contract plans, and some companies are changing their strategy to capitalize on this discontent.

Growing stakeholder demands and technology changes appear to be driving an increase in business accountability. Review websites like Angie’s List and Yelp give consumers a voice they never had before. Transparency, driven by the Internet, is changing how businesses operate. These changes add fuel to the idea that Stakeholder Theory has come into fruition, particularly for customers.

Big Data and Ethics

by Olsson Center staff

Big Data was one of the buzzwords of 2012. It captured the imaginations of journalists, academics and the business world. Like all buzzwords, it encapsulates a phenomenon that was already in existence.

Large companies have been using big data for years to understand their customers and their market. University and non-profit organizations have used data mining to learn more about their prospective donors. After 9/11, big data blossomed in the community of federal intelligence agencies and defense contractors. Online users have been freely offering personal information on social networking sites for more than a decade.

Big data is a powerful business tool, with great potential for solving the toughest problems. However, it is the potential of ill intent that concerns many. In a January InformationWeek article, columnist Eric Lundquist says there is a growing need for big data ethics experts in modern business. How should organizations use big data responsibly?

Major concerns include privacy, consent to disclose information, transfers of information (buying and selling), security and uses of the information. Do consumers totally trust the companies to be good stewards of their information? Perhaps one of the most famous cases involved the father of a teen girl who was upset with Target after the company sent his daughter coupons for baby products. It turned out the company had deduced that the girl was pregnant based upon purchases while her father was unaware of the pregnancy.

Are all stakeholders taken into account when big data is at work? While in most of these cases the individual is the consumer stakeholder, but increasingly the individual is becoming the product. For example, Facebook packages user information to their true consumers, companies wishing to advertise on the site. Certainly the Internet has contributed to the amount and availability of big data.

In terms of enforcement, history has shown that government regulation tends to lag new technology. Have we as individuals fully grasped the power and consequences of big data in our daily lives?

The Coming Transparency of Organizations

Recently, the Motley Fool’s Tom Gardner spoke with Darden School of Business students about how technology is changing the workplace. Rather than reciting the usual clichés, Gardner offered fresh insights for the students who will soon be on the job market.

gardner at dardenFirst, he said that every company must invest in technology in some way or they will be left behind. “If you’re not a technology company, you’re in trouble,” Gardner told the students. With the rapid pace of competition and the global economy, companies must invest just to keep up.

Second, he stressed that online networks have increased transparency like never before. “You will not be able to maintain the privacy of your organization,” said Gardner. He cited the example of the website Glassdoor.com as a powerful tool for applicants and investment analysts. He explained, “No organization can hide being a nightmare place to work.” Companies that were used to concealing bad management practices will now have to be more accountable to their stakeholders. In turn poorly managed companies are less profitable and sustainable.

As part of his analysis of companies, he looks for companies that are well-run and purpose driven as keys to long-term success.

To Whom is a Corporation Responsible?

Guest post by Patricia Werhane, Olsson Center Senior Fellow and Professor at DePaul University

The evolution of stakeholder theory, from the 19th century prioritization of owners or shareholders to the late 20th century stakeholder perspective, reflects how companies affect or are affected by customers, employees, suppliers, and communities, as well as shareholders. Although concerns about the environment were evident even before the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, it was not until the 1990s that the “to whom” was further expanded in stakeholder thinking to include corporate responsibilities to the environment and the communities in which they operate. According to one commentator, “[in the 21st century, however, sustainability isn’t just about saving the planet. It’s about opportunity – reinventing business models to better compete in the global economy or building shareholder value in ways that help to solve some of the world’s most profound social, economic and environmental challenges. (Shelly Schwartz, “Sustainability Evolves from Fad to Force”). These business models include triple- bottom-line measurement, and various forms of socially entrepreneurial ventures and social investments.

Triple-bottom-line thinking is based on the assumption that global companies are responsible, not merely for their economic value-added, but also for their social and environmental impacts. Triple-bottom-line measurement applies quantitative measurements to corporate environmental footprints and community impacts, as well as to their economic bottom lines, with the goal to have comparable data analyses and similar quantitative outcomes across the three measures. Triple-bottom-line initiatives such as Unilever’s are slowly on the increase in global corporations, particularly in Europe and South Africa. The idea is to create criteria that quantitatively measure corporate impact on “people, the planet and profits,” as Shell Oil and other companies stated it, with the aim of improving performance in all those three dimensions.

A Reinterpretation of Stakeholder Theory

There has been much discussion in the business media recently about female business school deans, MBA students and ethics coursework. However, what about a feminist perspective on Stakeholder Theory?

A few years ago, “A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept” by Andrew C. Wicks, Daniel R. Gilbert Jr. and R. Edward Freeman, examined the theory in a different way.

“The metaphors of conflict and competition run rampant in business thought. They describe a world where managers must make “tough choices,” “kill or be killed,” “outgun the opposition,” and “look out for number one.” Where the masculinist thought celebrates these competitive and violent metaphors, feminist thought strives to replace them with more cooperative alternatives. Feminists recognize that adversarial approaches are often harmful to human relationships, undermining trust and the potential for cooperation.

Encouraging participation and collective action also helps validate decision-making. By giving stakeholders a voice and a measure of control with other stakeholders, it helps participants more willing to accept a “second best” result, to acknowledge the differences which both divide and hold the company together, and to make them feel as though their concerns matter. Where adversarial approaches can make certain stakeholders feel as though they are being dumped on or excluded, and thereby harming their relationship to the company, fostering participation, collective action, and empowerment builds precisely the sort of environment firms need to be successful.”

In conclusion, the feminist perspective can offer a richer appreciation of the stakeholder idea.

“We have argued that stakeholder management, understood in feminist terms, is about creating value for an entire network of stakeholders by working to develop effective forms of cooperation, decentralizing power and authority, and building consensus among stakeholders through communication to generate strategic direction.”

How Corporate Reputations Can Benefit from Stakeholder Management

What are the effects of good stakeholder management on the reputation of a business, and does a company’s reputation affect its ability to engage with its key stakeholders? It is suggested that a new narrative about business is badly needed, in light of the changes that have taken place in the last generation of business models. Momentum is building for a new interpretation that offers a more useful idea for businesses in the 21st century. This new interpretation is built on the relatively recent idea of “value-creation stakeholder management” and focuses on seeing reputation as an integral part of any viable business model.

Read more at BBVA Foundation’s OpenMind website