This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 05 October 2012, At: 19:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing CommunicationsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Towards a Categorization ofStakeholder Groups: An EmpiricalVerification of a Three‐Level ModelKlement Podnar a & Zlatko Jancic aa Marketing Communication and Public Relations Department,Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,Slovenia

Version of record first published: 30 Nov 2006.

To cite this article: Klement Podnar & Zlatko Jancic (2006): Towards a Categorization ofStakeholder Groups: An Empirical Verification of a Three‐Level Model, Journal of MarketingCommunications, 12:4, 297-308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260600720376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Towards a Categorization of StakeholderGroups: An Empirical Verification of aThree-Level Model

KLEMENT PODNAR & ZLATKO JANCIC

Marketing Communication and Public Relations Department, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of

Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT This study focuses on a categorization of different stakeholder groups, specificallyon their power in relation to a company. Stakeholder theory argues that the company must beseen throughout numerous interactions with its stakeholders. Within the marketingcommunications field, the theory draws attention to communication (dialogue) with differentstakeholders, not only consumers. An empirical verification of a three-level stakeholder model ispresented in the study. The results, based on a sample of employees in marketing communicationsand public relations agencies, show that three different levels of exchange and communication –inevitable, necessary and desirous levels – can be expected. Authors argue that such a result hasimportant implications for marketing communications. A company can achieve optimal effectswith a rational management of communication resources, according to different stakeholders’importance to the company and their power.

KEY WORDS: Stakeholders, stakeholder theory, marketing communications, exchange,corporate communications

Introduction

The stakeholder theory can be understood as an alternative view to the neo-classical

economic theory of the firm (Hendry, 2001). It brings the perception that in a

monopolistic-competition environment, those operations that supply nothing more

than a company’s selfish interests can have a negative or even harmful influence on

society (Cassidy and Pustay, 2003). The stakeholder theory argues that the company

must be seen throughout numerous interactions with its stakeholders. It embraces the

view of the company as a group or a chain of implicit and/or explicit contractions

between individuals and groups (Jensen and Meekling, 1976). According to the

Correspondence Address: Marketing Communication and Public Relations Department, Faculty of

Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email:

klement.podnar@fdv.uni-lj.si

Journal of Marketing Communications

Vol. 12, No. 4, 297–308, December 2006

1352-7266 Print/1466-4445 Online/06/040297–12 # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13527260600720376

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

stakeholder theory, companies are involved in the social system and are forced to enter

exchange episodes with different social subjects (Jancic, 1999). Companies are

compelled to the ‘new social contract’ (Carroll, 1999; Podnar and Golob, 2002), which

presents a mix of reciprocal expectations of the role and responsibilities of each of the

involved parties in a corporate and social environment. In addition to economic and

legal rights or duties, the contract (which is not necessarily formalized as is the case in

an economic theory) demands that companies perform social, ethical and environ-

mental responsibilities as well (see for instance, European Commission, 2001).

Therefore, the company’s management has to balance different stakeholders’ interests.

Within the marketing communications field, the stakeholder theory draws

attention to communication (dialogue) with different stakeholders, not only

consumers. It is important to identify who they are and what kind of concerns or

interests they have regarding the company (Cooper, 2003, p. 232). We argue that

communication is the only way to accomplish understanding, balance and reception

of different company and stakeholder interests. Just as stakeholder theory has

burgeoned in recent years, understanding of the term ‘stakeholder’ has become

diffused (for literature review, see Pouloundi, 1999; Pesqueux and Damak-Ayadi,

2005). Sternberg (1997) demonstrated that Freeman (1984) himself used multiple

definitions of stakeholders. In his first definition, stakeholders are ‘those groups

without whose support the organisation would cease to exist’ (Sternberg, 1997,

p. 31). His second, probably the most commonly used definition, states that the term

‘stakeholder’ means ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organisation’s objectives’ (Freeman, 1984, p. 46).

This supplementary understanding of a stakeholder has important consequences

for marketing communication, especially for the question of who among different

parties has a bigger influence on whom. According to the first definition, only

stakeholders can influence the company. However, the second definition stresses that

the influence between different stakeholders and the company is a two-way process.

Just as a particular company has some power over stakeholders, stakeholders have

power over the company (Pouloudi, 1999). The consequence of the first definition

from the point of view of marketing communications is that a company has to be

very selective when entering into communication with stakeholders, usually with

limited resources (time, money, etc.). This is in contrast with the second definition,

where relations between the company and its stakeholders are very broad. The

company can influence almost anyone and anyone can affect the company (Mitchell

et al., 1997).

Different understanding of the term ‘stakeholder’ also has some consequences

concerning the question of differentiation among different types of stakeholders

according to the power they have in relation to the company (and vice versa). It also

influences the level of opposition between stakeholder and company interests as well

as the differences among stakeholders concerns. Greenwood (2001) ascertains two

main issues of modern stakeholder management:

N The issue of stakeholders’ identification regarding who they are and regarding

what differentiates them.

N The issue of the nature of the relations among the organization and stakeholders

and between various stakeholders.

298 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Despite the fact that a broader definition is indeed much closer to the reality of the

environments in which companies operate daily, companies and their managers do

not and cannot treat all stakeholders equally or communicate with them with the

same intensity. Managers must set priorities according to their time, allocation of

resources and the importance placed upon various issues. They must prioritise some

groups or individuals and some issues over others. Thus, this study set out to explore

whether marketing communication practitioners assess stakeholders according to

their relative importance to the organization or feel that the organization is equally

accountable to all stakeholders.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows. The second section introduces

a short literature review. The review is followed by an outline of our research

questions and methodology. In the next section, the results of the study are

interpreted and the last section concludes this study.

Literature Review

Stakeholder Classifications

Various authors argue that many different stakeholder groups should be taken into

account by an organization in its communication plans. Groups mentioned most

often are employees, consumers, shareholders, media, business partners, competi-

tors, the government, the local community, NGOs, etc. There have been numerous

attempts to produce suitable criteria to classify relevant stakeholders. Many argue

there is considerable difference between primary and secondary stakeholders

(Clarkson, 1995). Primary stakeholders are those individuals or groups whose

continuous support is needed if the company wants to avoid serious (reputation)

damage. Clarkson (1995) suggests a distinction between voluntary and involuntary

stakeholders. The main difference between these is that involuntary stakeholders do

not choose to enter into a relationship, nor can they withdraw the stake they have in

a company.

Wheeler and Sillanpaa (1997, pp. 167–168) classified stakeholders according to

two dimensions: primary – secondary and social – non-social. Accordingly, they

suggest four groups of stakeholders:

N Primary social stakeholders (shareholders, investors, employees and managers,

customers, local communities, suppliers and partners).

N Secondary social stakeholders (government, social pressure groups, trade bodies,

civic institutions, media and academic commentators, competitors).

N Primary non-social stakeholders (natural environment, future generations, non-

human species).

N Secondary non-social stakeholders (environmental pressure groups, animal

welfare organizations).

Friedman and Miles (2002) distinguish four types of structural configuration

between a company and its stakeholders. According to their model, relations

between them can be necessary or contingent and at the same time compatible or

incompatible. When a relationship is compatible, necessary and explicit or implicit,

contractual forms are recognized among stakeholders and companies. Stakeholders

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

and the company are involved in defensive relations. When relations are compatible

but contingent and contractual forms are implicitly unrecognized, an opportunistic

relationship exists. When a relationship is incompatible but necessary, and

contractual forms are recognized explicitly or implicitly, compromise between the

parties is necessary. Finally, when there is a case of incompatible and contingent

relationship with no contract among parties, elimination occurs (Friedman andMiles, 2002, p. 7).

This particular model provides a framework that enables us to analyse how and

why organization/stakeholder relations change over time. Changes in relations

between a company and its stakeholders can occur in any direction because of

different predictable or unpredictable, internal or external factors such as an

ecological accident, changes in opinion on either side, downsizing, etc.

Manktelow (2003) suggests another useful framework for understanding mutable

relations between the company and its various stakeholders. Similarly, shedistinguishes among four groups of stakeholders. Her categorization criteria are

power and interest of particular stakeholders towards a particular company. The

same categorization can also be found in Johnson et al. (2005).

In addition to stakeholders’ power and interest, Mitchell et al. (1997) suggest

legitimacy and necessity of claims as additional criteria for classifying stakeholders.

Similarly, Jancic (1996) introduces the idea that not all stakeholders are equally

important for the company and its communications. A company’s public can be

active or passive, or just latently active. Following Kotler’s idea of differentcompany publics, Jancic adduces that companies have three main levels of exchange

and communication with numerous stakeholders (the author listed 24 different

stakeholders). A company’s primary stakeholders or key relationships are those with

whom exchange and communication is inevitable. The second level presents

stakeholders with whom exchange is necessary, and the final level represents those

stakeholders with whom communication is desirable (Jancic, 1999, pp. 77–78; see

Figure 1).

His model is in a way similar to the model suggested by Friedman and Miles(2002). The most significant difference is that Jancic’s origins are in a marketing

relationship model. His main emphasis is on the breadth of relationships in which

companies must be involved and be managed (Jancic, 1999, p. 78). According to

different levels of exchange, the organization must properly accommodate its

communication activities in order to sustain good relations with its numerous

stakeholders. ‘The strength of current (or anticipated) relationships between key

stakeholders and the degree of fit with corporate and competitive strategies will

impact the form, nature, strength and desired effectiveness of the marketingcommunications between the members’ (Fill, 2002, p. 127). Fill (2002), therefore,

suggests four different types of communication links: heavy impact communication

links, important communication links, moderate communication links, and light

communication links.

To sum up, this literature review indicates that the nature of relationships

between a company and its different and numerous stakeholders is dynamic.

Stakeholder groups are liable to change and their power towards the company

varies in time, context and environment. The literature suggests that stakeholderscan be classified according to how ‘important’ they are to the company. In other

300 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

words, stakeholders are not all equally important and hence a company categorizes

them differently.

Research Questions

This study empirically complements the theoretical postulate that not all

stakeholders are equally important for an organization by investigating whether or

not communication managers categorize stakeholders into three groups with

different levels of influence and power. Thus, the following questions will be

addressed:

1. Are some stakeholders more important than others are for the successfuleconomic performance of a company?

2. If so, which are more important than others?

For our empirical test of these questions, we employ Jancic’s (1996) model. It

suggests three levels of exchange (with respect to their importance to a company’s

economic performance and the power that different stakeholders have towards the

company) exist between a company and its stakeholders: inevitable, necessary anddesirous levels.

Figure 1. Three main levels of exchange and communication with company stakeholders

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Methodology

Data for our study were gathered within a broader research study entitled ‘FDV

Marketing Korpus 2002’ (Podnar et al., 2003). The data were collected from

employees in Slovene marketing communications and public relations agencies.

Twelve of 40 entities were selected randomly from a list of agencies, all members

of the Slovenian Advertising Chamber. The sample of employees was chosen

because this survey was a part of a broader research project dealing with Slovene

marketing communications agencies. The sampling of employees in a particular

agency was undertaken randomly by the authors. One hundred and forty-five

completed questionnaires were obtained resulting in a response rate of 72%.

Thirty-eight per cent of the questionnaires were returned by male respondents,

62% by female.

The question for our research purpose was as follows: ‘On a five-point scale (1 –

not important, 5 – very important) evaluate which stakeholders will be crucial for

successful economic performance of your or any other company in the future.’

Respondents evaluated 24 different stakeholders defined by Jancic (1999).

In our analysis, we used descriptive statistical methods as well as Ward’s

multivariate method in order to identify the groups and test our hypothesis.

Results and Discussion

The results of the study show that respondents’ evaluations of the importance of

different stakeholders were quite different (Table 1).

Respondents identified five important stakeholder groups: employees, consumers,

competitors, media and suppliers (average score above 3.6), followed by professional

organizations, financial publics, opinion makers, state officials (regulation), schools

and universities, economic associations, etc. (with an average score between 3.0 and

3.5). The least important for successful economic performance of the company were

sports and religious organizations (average score below 2.0). From different average

scores, which measure importance, we can identify existing differences among

stakeholder groups.

Further, as seen from the dendrogram, we compiled three basic groups of

stakeholders according to Ward’s method (the measures were quadrates of Euclidian

distance).

The dendrogram analysis suggested that the first group consisted of suppliers,

shareholders, consumers, media, employees and competitors. These were previously

evaluated by respondents as the most important group of stakeholders. Theory and

analysis suggest that this group may be called ‘essential’ and is labelled ‘inevitable

exchange’ in Jancic’s (1999) stakeholder model. It is argued that the stakeholders in

this particular group have the most powerful relationship with a company and vice

versa. Thus, this group is crucial for successful economic performance of the

company.

The next group equals the second level with ‘required exchange’ among

stakeholders and the company. These stakeholders have less power but it is still

recognizable: economic associations, financial publics, opinion makers, professional

organizations, schools and universities, pressure groups and political parties.

302 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

The third group is the largest one. It consists of families of employees, other

companies, the natural environment, job seekers, trade unions, local community,

cultural organizations, charity foundations, as well as sports and religious

organizations. These groups of stakeholders fall under ‘desirable exchange’ and

have less power to influence a company.

Summing up, the results indicate that respondents from our survey saw three

different levels of exchange between stakeholders and a particular company. The

levels of exchange differ on the basis of the stakeholders’ relative power. This implies

the importance of a particular stakeholder group for the economic performance of a

company.

The three-cluster solution of various stakeholder groups suggested by the

dendrogram corresponds closely with the proposed arbitrary model introduced in

the theoretical part. However, a few discrepancies are worth mentioning. First, the

respondents recognized the higher importance of the media and considered them as

part of the necessary exchange. This can be explained through the interdependence

between the media and advertising agencies as very important partners in media

planning and buying.

Figure 2. Three basic groups of stakeholders (cluster analysis-Ward’s method)

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Second, a heightened importance of (leading) political parties can be explained by

the fact that the Slovenian economy is at the end of a transition phase with still a

relatively large share of state-owned companies, which sometimes has certain

consequences for the process of fair competition. Third, there is the low importance

of the local community. Advertising agencies are small service companies working

predominantly in the metropolitan area with relatively small impact on the local

community. Fourthly, respondents saw trade unions as relatively unimportant. This

can be understood in the context of the traditionally low interest of Slovenian

advertising agency employees becoming members of trade unions. Therefore, we

should point out that the characteristics of the sample show a distorted image of the

actual role of trade unions in Slovenian society. We assume that this can be easily

proved by extending the research sample to the broader population of Slovenian

companies.

In the light of the results of this study, we can conclude that different stakeholder

groups play different roles in relation to a company. Since an individual company

has numerous stakeholders, it is not possible to meet the needs and demands of

everyone, especially because interests and ‘stakes’ of various stakeholders are often

very different and have competing goals. Thus, it makes sense to identify the

most important and relevant groups of stakeholders. In this study, we have

empirically tested Jancic’s (1999) model, which distinguished between three main

levels of exchange with stakeholders visualized as a set of inner and outer circles. The

Table 1. Respondents’ evaluations of the importance of different stakeholders

Stakeholder groups n Mean Standard deviation

Employees 134 4.54 0.810Consumers 135 4.41 0.884Competitors 134 4.33 0.783Media 134 4.17 0.897Shareholders 134 4.11 1.031Suppliers 134 3.69 1.125Trade organizations 134 3.58 1.006Financial public 134 3.51 1.002Opinion leaders 134 3.37 1.108State (regulation) 134 3.28 1.159Schools and universities 134 3.22 1.153Trade associations 134 3.22 1.057Nature 134 2.89 1.180Pressure groups 132 2.79 1.126Political parties 134 2.67 1.122Families of employees 134 2.63 1.080Local community 134 2.56 1.141Unemployed 132 2.51 1.115Cultural organizations 134 2.39 1.069Trade unions 134 2.31 1.014Non-competitive companies 132 2.26 1.046Foundations 134 2.25 1.058Sport organizations 134 1.84 0.916Religious organizations 129 1.60 0.833

304 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

inner circles stand for the most important stakeholders who have the highest

influence.

The three level model of stakeholders obtained in this study is consistent with

Waddock et al. (2002), who proposed three main groups of stakeholders as well:

primary stakeholders, such as owners, employees and customers; secondary

stakeholders, including governments, NGOs; and broader institutional and societalpressures. Recently, Waddock (2005) wrote about different types of company

involvement concerning primary stakeholders, secondary stakeholders and non-

stakeholders. She thoroughly explains the role and characteristics of primary and

secondary stakeholders, which are accordance with our first and second levels. The

third level of our model is comparable with Waddock’s group of ‘non-

stakeholders’. Her arguement is similar to our findings about the dynamic view

when identifying the most important stakeholders. A scanning process is needed,

since many of them could convert into stakeholders, due to emerging issues andconcerns.

In addition, Clarkson’s (1995) distinction between primary and secondary

stakeholders fits well with our model. Our first group of stakeholders, exactly as

Clarkson’s primary group, is essential for the survival of an organization, which is

not the case for other stakeholders.

In the light of Clarkham’s (1992) distinction between contractual and community

stakeholders it is clear from our model that in the first, most important group, we

can find contractual (shareholders, suppliers, employees) as well as communitystakeholders (consumers, media and competitors) (Clark, 1998). However, the other

two levels of stakeholders are primarily consistent with community stakeholders.

Therefore, when determining which are the relevant and the most important

stakeholder groups, it is not sufficient to focus on the formal structure of the

organization but it is important for companies to consider both internal and external

groups (Polonsky, 1995).

Conclusions, Implications and Further Research

Our study aims to emphasize the important role of stakeholders in a service business

environment. Although the importance of stakeholder relationships seems unques-

tionable, the focus should be directed to differences in the stakes that different

groups hold towards a company. Our conclusion about a company’s relationships

with various stakeholders shows their dynamic nature. The research clearly indicates

that different stakeholder groups play different roles in relation to a company and

they can be classified according to their importance to the company.Such a result also has important implications for marketing communications.

From a company’s standpoint, marketing communications are sometimes seen as

(unnecessary) costs. When the company finds itself in a situation of limited

resources, marketing communication programmes need to be duly restricted.

Therefore, the company can choose its ‘stakeholder target groups’ and omit the

others according to their levels of importance or their potential power. Thus, the

company can achieve optimal effects out of limited communication resources and

has the chance to avoid costly and ineffective dissipation of resources through theirstrategic relocation.

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

However, the company must be aware of the changing nature of stakeholder

power and has to be careful in selecting and reallocating resources. It also has to

monitor any changes constantly. More specifically, our empirical result has

important implications for the practice of corporate communications and public

relations.

1. For lack of resources, corporate communications and public relations (PR)

should primarily focus on those stakeholders that have a direct effect on the

success of a firm. With them, the exchange is inevitable. Therefore,

companies should develop direct and indirect public relations programmesto establish and develop long-term relationships with stakeholders. The key

to success is in constant monitoring of what is going on with these

stakeholders and communicate with them on a regular basis to ensure a

stream of information in both directions.

2. The second group of stakeholders must also be carefully monitored. The

company should watch their activities, especially in those areas that can

have negative or positive influences on the company and its interests.

Communications still need careful strategic consideration. However,in contrast to the first group, there is no need for constant communica-

tion. Ad hoc communication programmes should be developed and

implemented.

3. The third group of stakeholders has no direct impact on the success of a

company. However, carefully selected communication activities and

corporate social responsibility programmes directed towards this group

should be used to gain competitive advantage and reputation. In addition,

they can be used with the aim of influencing or channelling messages moreeffectively to stakeholders from the first and the second group when

necessary.

To sum up, our empirical study shows that not all stakeholders are equally

important for a firm’s success so there is no need for organizations to be accountableto all their stakeholders equally. It means it is necessary to think about the

relationships and communications with important stakeholders and to allocate their

communications resources accordingly.

Our study has several limitations. The research was conducted in a business-to-

business and services marketing context. The respondents were employees of

Slovenian advertising agencies. It can easily be assumed that the ranking of

stakeholders would be different in a different context. According to this, it can also

be assumed that the power distribution would be different in other industries. Evenamong companies in a particular industry, we should fairly expect differences

depending on size, international orientation, etc.

Therefore, our conclusion is that each company has a unique network of

stakeholders, with different distributions of power, and that common rules cannot

apply. This argument, however, was not fully covered by our research. That is why

the biggest limitation of our research is that several questions related to the

nature and content of stakeholder relationships were not included. Here lies the

opportunity and the need for further research. In addition, future research shouldaddress the question of how stakeholder power changes in time and space and what

306 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

happens if companies fail to consider the factual power of its stakeholders. Further

research should also investigate different forms of communication with variousstakeholders.

References

Carroll, A. B. (1999) Corporate social responsibility, Business & Society, 38(3), pp. 268–295.

Casidy, C. (2003) in: M. Pustay (Ed.) Economic stakeholder theory: working study (Texas: A&M

University).

Clark, T. (1998) The stakeholder corporation: a business philosophy for the information age, Long Range

Planning, 31(2), pp. 182–194.

Clarkham, J. (1992) Corporate governance: lessons form abroad, European Business Journal, 4(2), pp.

8–16.

Clarkson, M. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance,

Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp. 92–117.

Cooper, S. M. (2003) Stakeholder communication and the internet in UK electricity companies,

Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(3), pp. 232–243.

European Commission (2001) Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, Green

Study (Brussels: European Commission).

Fill, C. (2002) Marketing Communications. Contexts, Strategies and Applications, 3rd edn (Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (Boston MA: Pittman).

Friedman, A. L. & Miles, S. (2002) Developing stakeholder theory, Journal of Management Studies, 39(1),

pp. 1–21.

Greenwood, M. R. (2001) Community as a stakeholder in corporate social and environmental reporting,

Working study series (Victoria: Monash University).

Hendry, J. (2001) Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative

stakeholder theory, Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3), pp. 223–232.

Jancic, Z. (1996) Celostni marketing (Ljubljana: FDV).

Jancic, Z. (1999) Celostni marketing, 2nd revised edn (Ljubljana: FDV).

Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976) Theory of the firm. Managerial behavior: agency cost and

ownership structure, Journal of financial economics, 3(4), pp. 305–360.

Johnson, G. et al. (2005) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edn (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited).

Manktelow, R. (2003) Stakeholder mangement – wining suport for your projects. Available at http://

www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm (accessed 1 October 2003).

Mitchell, R. K. et al. (1997) Toward a stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle who

really counts, The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853–886.

Pesqueux, Y. & Damak-Ayadi, S. D. (2005) Stakeholder theory in perspective, Corporate Governance,

5(2), pp. 5–21.

Podnar, K. & Golob, U. (2002) Socialna ekonomija in druzbena odgovornost: alternativi globalni anarhiji

neoliberalizma, Teorija in Praksa, 39(6), pp. 952–969.

Podnar, K. et al. (2003) Integrirano trzno komuniciranje v slovenskih oglasevalskih agencijah: [research

report 1/2: FDV – Marketing korpus 2002], MM, Media Mark, 23(6), pp. 21–25.

Polonsky, M. J. (1995) A stakeholder theory approach to designing environmental marketing strategy,

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 10(3), pp. 29–46.

Pouloudi, A. (1999) Aspects of the stakeholder concept and their implications for information systems

development, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp. 1–17.

Sternberg, E. (1997) The defects of stakeholder theory, Corporate Governance: An International Review,

5(1), pp. 3–10.

Waddock, S. A. et al. (2002) Responsibility: the New Business Imperative, Academy of Management

Executive, 16(2), pp. 132–148.

Waddock, Sandra (2005) Leading Corporate Citizens. Vision, Values, Value Added, 2nd edn (New York,

McGraw-Hill, Irwin).

Wheeler, D. & Sillanpaa, M. (1997) The stakeholder corporation: A blueprint for maximising stakeholder

value (London: Pitman Publishing).

Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012

Notes on Contributors

Klement Podnar is a fellow at the Marketing Communication and Public Relations

Department, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. Currently he gives

lectures in Marketing and Visual Communications. His research interests lie in

corporate identity, marketing and corporate communications. He has published

several studies in this area in such journals as the Corporate Reputation Review and

Corporate Communications: An International Journal.

Zlatko Jancic is the head of Communication Department at the Faculty of SocialSciences, University of Ljubljana. Until 2005, he held the position of associate dean

of graduate and doctoral studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences. He teaches

Strategic Marketing and Advertising. His main research interests lie in relationship

marketing, corporate social responsibility and advertising. He has published books

and articles in such journals such as Journal of Advertising Research and Journal of

Marketing Management.

308 K. Podnar & Z. Jancic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

52 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

012