You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Stakeholders in Managing a Safe City
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14010244

Contemporary cities are complex systems in which there are many interactions and dependencies in relation to the environment. Currently, the development of cities and their safety are among the most important international socio-economic processes. The movement of people to larger agglomerations from smaller towns creates a variety of relationships between actors and often leads to very complicated lives in urban space. Features of contemporary cities include urbanization, personal development opportunities, labor markets, and infrastructure, as well as technological and cybernetic networks that optimize all the processes taking place in agglomerations. It should be emphasized that the main goal of public management in urban space is to create various solutions in the field of safety and thus to improve the quality of. In this respect, the role and influence of stakeholders on the processes of smart and safe city development are important. At each stage of activity, the City Council, local communities, economic entities, scientific institutions, and municipal enterprises are important for a city’s safety. 

stakeholders safe and smart city public management security of inhabitants

1. Definitions of a Safe City

Today, urban planning and safety work have become closely intertwined [1]. The concept of the safe city appears in the literature; however, this concept is not analyzed as often as the smart city concept. In some publications, the concept of the safe city is treated as one of the systems that make up the smart city [2][3]. However, some researchers have come to the conclusion that this narrows the issue and that it needs to be expanded. They argue that the safe city should be treated as equivalent to the smart city, with the two concepts being intertwined.
While the subjects of research interest on smart cities include using modern technologies to improve residents’ quality of life, increasing the efficiency of city management, improving the quality of provided urban services, and increasing the city’s competitiveness [4][5][6][7], the safe city concept covers issues related to the provision of civil protection, property, the environment, and infrastructure. It should be noted, however, that actions to create safe urban space not only use modern technologies but also older solutions that may prove useful [8].
Often, most works on safe cities only refers to crime reduction issues, e.g., reduction in murder or rape [9][10][11]. One of the most reliable indicator of a safe city is the number of murders per 100,000 inhabitants (for example lists drawn up by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Meanwhile, today, urban safety is a result of many complex factors. These include a lack of opportunities, widening inequity, territorial segregation, economic polarization, poor urban planning, and social exclusion, as well as drugs, guns, organized crime, and poor crime prevention [12].
As Gaspar Viega points out, a senior director at Alcatel-Lucent specializing in public safety: “If you think about safety only in terms of reducing crime, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the city will be kept safe. For example, you can look at casualties from poor traffic management and auto accidents. It’s also about the level of pollution in a city. This is how a safe city should be analyzed” [13]. Concepts of the safe city include a wide range of aspects and activities linked to public spaces, from crime prevention to physical protection of the environment, to accessibility, and to institutional and organizational aspects [14]. Ristvej, Lacinák, and Ondrejka (2020) propose that the concept of the safe city should include the following components: intelligent safety technologies for surveillance, search, detection, and identification; healthcare; relevant data and centers for data processing to administer the city’s cloud; methodology of activities; informational and cybernetic safety; design; intelligent technologies of crisis management to support decision making, provide early warnings, and to monitor and forecast emergencies and environmental situations; security components of individual systems in the safe city; and centrally managed technologies for police and integrated rescue systems [8].
The complexity of urban safety issues can also be seen in the number of factors that are taken into account when creating an index of safe cities. The list is based on 57 indicators grouped into four blocks: digital security, infrastructure security, health security, and personal security. Tokyo, Singapore, Osaka, Amsterdam, and Sydney [15] were considered the safest cities in 2019. This situation changed in 2021 [16]. Table 1 presents a list of the safest cities by block.
Table 1. The safest cities in 2019 and 2021.
Table
Overall Score Digital
Security		 Health
Security		 Infrastructure Security Personal
Security
2019
  • Tokyo
  • Singapore
  • Osaka
  • Amsterdam
  • Sydney
  • Tokyo
  • Singapore
  • Chicago
  • Washington, DC
  • Los Angeles/San Francisco
  • Osaka
  • Tokyo
  • Seoul
  • Amsterdam/Stockholm
  • Singapore
  • Osaka
  • Barcelona
  • Tokyo
  • Madrid
  • Singapore
  • Copenhagen
  • Hong Kong
  • Tokyo
  • Wellington
2021
  • Copenhagen
  • Toronto
  • Singapore
  • Sydney
  • Tokyo
  • Sydney
  • Singapore
  • Copenhagen
  • Los Angeles/San Francisco
  • Tokyo
  • Singapore
  • Hong Kong
  • Melbourne
  • Osaka
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
  • Copenhagen
  • Toronto
  • Tokyo
  • Copenhagen
  • Amsterdam
  • Frankfurt
  • Stockholm
  • Brussels 1
1 Source: based on Safe Cities Index 2019 and Safe Cities Index 2021.
Ensuring a safe urban space is a condition for the life and work of a city’s inhabitants, the protection of their rights and freedoms, and the effective functioning of the economy, urban space, transport, and communications. All the key stakeholders in cities (police, fire/medical emergency services, city government, homeland security, transit, and utilities) should provide an effective safety or security response to any situation affecting their citizens or organizations [17].
To sum up, in this article, the concept of a safe city should be understood as a city that is focused on increasing the level of security and improving the quality of life of its inhabitants, using both innovative and traditional tools and cooperation with stakeholders, especially in the areas of digital security, infrastructure security, health, security, and personal security. According to the authors safe city stakeholders are all entities (people, communities, institutions, organizations, offices) that can influence this city or a specific project implemented in it through their rights, obligations or interests.

2. Stakeholders—A Description and Roles

The term stakeholder comes from the English word stake, which is often translated as input, participation in an interest, or involvement in an aspect of an activity. The term also refers to the risk incurred, but also to cooperation, need and claim, demand, requirement, knowledge, expectation, or the legitimacy of demanding a certain commitment [18][19].
One can find references from the 1950s in the literature on the subject. The concept of the stakeholder theory can be understood as the fact that companies are responsible not only for the interests of shareholders, but also for their employees, customers, and society [20]. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary presents a definition from the 19th century which defines a stakeholder as a person who holds the stakes in bets on various games, while the use of the word stakeholder in financial literature began in the middle of the 20th century [21][22].
However, it is accepted that the contemporary concept of stakeholders was first used in 1963 by the Stanford Research Institute (now called SRI International), which defined stakeholders as “groups without whose support an organization could not exist”.
Referring to an internal SRI memo, Ansoff (1965) [23] highlighted the issue of corporate responsibility towards stakeholders, defining the concept of stakeholder management as a method of balancing claims by different stakeholder groups. Moreover, Ansoff recognized Abrams’ (1954) [20], as well as Cyert and March’s (1963) [24], views on stakeholders and their goals, but rejected the theory in favor of a view that divided goals into the “economic” and “social”. A “stakeholder” refers to one who has an interest and, according to Freeman and Reed (1983) [25] and Argandoña (1998) [26], the term refers to “all those who have an interest in the organization (so that the company, in turn, can have an interest in satisfying their satisfaction and requirements)”. However, it also includes those who have an interest, according to Rhenman (1968) and Frederick (1998) [27][28]: “all those who belong to an environment that is interested in what the organization does”.
In the literature, other researchers indicate additional characteristics of stakeholders; e.g., they should be treated as strictly external groups to the organization, which is part of an environment to which specific risk weights are assigned [19][29][30][31]. Moreover, Slatter underlines in his research that all stakeholder groups generate both risks and benefits, so it is important to identify risks [29][31]. Table 2 presents a chronological list of stakeholder definitions presented in the literature. The table catalogues the best-known stakeholder terms, including the 1984 Freeman [32] definition, which has been adopted by many other scientists. Different authors adopt different definitions to create an interdisciplinary debate and encourage others to perform their own research.
Table 2. Chronological list of stakeholder definitions presented in the literature on the subject in business and public sector.
Table
No. Date Author Definition
1. 1951 Abrams The basic responsibilities of management derive from general obligations to maintain a fair and workable balance between the claims of the various groups concerned [20].
2. 1952 Silbert First use of the word stakeholder in the context of finance and factoring [21].
       
3. 1959 Penrose Defining the nature of the organization in the form of human collections and contacts between participants and stakeholders [22].
4. 1963 Stanford Research Institute Groups without whose support the organization could not exist (Stanford Research Institute 1963).
5. 1965 Ansoff The organization’s objectives should be determined by balancing the conflicting claims of the various “stakeholders” of the company. The organization has obligations to all these actors and must configure its objectives in this way to give everyone a degree of satisfaction [23].
6. 1983 Freeman and Reed In the broad sense: they can influence the achievement of the organization’s objectives for those affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives; in the narrow sense: those on which the organization’s continued existence depends [25].
7. 1984 Freeman They may influence or be influenced by the achievement of the organization’s goals [32].
8. 1991 Miller and Lewis Stakeholders are people who can help or harm the organization [33].
9. 1993 Brenner Entities with a legitimate, relevant relationship with the organization, such as exchange transactions and influence on activities and moral responsibility [34]
10. Starik Naturally occurring entities that are influenced or influenced by the organization’s performance [35]
12. 1994 Clarkson They carry some form of risk as a result of investing some kind of capital, human, or financial or bear the risk as a result of the company’s actions [36].
13. Mahoney Passive stakeholders who have moral claims against the organization relating to non-violation and non-infringement and active stakeholders whose claims are more social [37].
14. 1995 Blair All parties who have contributed to the company and who, as a result, have risky investments and are highly specialized in the company [38].
15. Donaldson and Preston Persons having direct or implied contracts with the company. Identified by actual or potential damages and benefits they experience or expect to experience as a result of the company’s actions or their own interactions with the company [39].
16. Mitchell, Agle, and Wood Legitimate or urgent claim against the company or authority to influence the company, voluntary members of the cooperation scheme for mutual benefit, […] partners seeking a mutual advantage. A claim (standard) can only be justified if it can be approved by all those affected by the standard [40].
17. 1998 Argandofńia All those who have an interest in the company (so that the company in turn may have an interest in meeting their requirements) [26].
18. Frederick All members of a community that are interested in what the organization does [28].
19. 1999 Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics Interested parties: they bear certain risks and may therefore gain or lose something as a result of the company’s activities [41].
20. 2000 Gibson Groups and persons, with whom the organization has relations or interdependencies, and any person or group that may influence or be influenced by actions or decisions, a politician, and the organization’s practices or objectives [42].
21. 2001 Hendry Entities in relationships based on moral considerations […] Relationships that cannot be reduced to contractual or economic relationships alone. They include social features such as interdependence [43].
22. Orts and Strudler Business participants with some kind of economic contribution that is subject to risk [44].
23. 2003 Phillips Normative stakeholders: those for whose benefit the company should be managed. Torch Stakeholders: they can potentially influence the organization and its normative stakeholders [45].
24. 2004 Boddy and Paton Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or institutions with an interest in the project and who may influence its outcome [46].
25. 2005 Andersen Person or group of persons affected or likely to be affected by the project [47].
26. 2006 Bourne and Walker Stakeholders are individuals or groups who have an interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in a project and can contribute to or influence the results of the project [48].
27. 2007 Olander A person or group of persons who are interested in the success of the project and the environment in which the project operates [49].
28. 2008 Walker, Bourne and Rowlinson Stakeholders are individuals or groups who have an interest, ownership, or some kind of rights towards the project and may contribute to or be influenced by the project [50].
29. 2009 Couillard, Garon and Riznic Entities or persons who are or will be influenced directly or indirectly by the organization [51].
30. Bourne Individuals or groups that are or that may be affected by the work or its results at this particular point in the organization’s life cycle [18].
31. 2013 Bogdanienko and Piotrowski The organization’s stakeholders are significant individuals, interest (pressure) groups, coalitions, or organizations that have their own interests in the functioning of a particular organization and can influence it [52].
32. 2016 Szwajca The author defines stakeholders as individuals or groups that may influence or be influenced by various activities that affect the reputation of the organization [53].
33. 2017 Project Management Institute People, groups, and organizations that may influence or be influenced by the decision, action, or outcome of the project [54]
Source: based on the aforementioned literature.
It should be noted that there is a consensus in the literature on the definition of the concept of stakeholders [39], but there is still an ongoing discussion among management theorists and practitioners about who is and who is not a stakeholder, about their actual or potential impact on the organization, and their devision [55]. Traditionally, internal stakeholders (e.g., staff, management) are most often differentiated from external stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers), thereby representing conflicting objectives [56]. Different studies and interpretations have evidenced the many divisions and categories of stakeholders.
Various approaches are used in the process of developing the division and description of stakeholders:
  • Classification of stakeholders based on the strength of influence, legitimacy, and legitimacy of the relationship with the organization and urgency of the request [40][53];
  • Systematization of stakeholders’ expectations based on the hierarchy of values and Key Performance Areas (KPA) [57];
  • Distribution of stakeholders according to potential threat or willingness to cooperate [58];
  • Assessment of the awareness, support, and influence of leading stakeholders on communication strategy and evaluation of stakeholder satisfaction [59];
  • Stakeholder analysis as an assessment of the actual rather than the formal power arrangement, related to the management of the company or to the management of the project and its environment [60][61];
  • Determining stakeholder identification, evaluation, and engagement [19][62];
  • Stakeholder Circle method, which is a multi-dimensional map showing stakeholder proximity to the project, degree of impact strength, scale and scope of impact, or a three-dimensional stakeholder cube defining the profile of involvement of all groups in the project [18][63];
  • A method of stakeholder classification due to the complexity of several factors, such as the probability of response, the strength of the impact, the strength of the interest, the risks incurred, or the position of commitment taken [18][53].
Analyzing all the divisions of stakeholders present in the literature, it can be observed that the process of adaptation of organizations, such as cities, to changes in the market is one of the most important aspects of activity. Under the conditions of a crisis, it is essential to take into account the involvement and benefits of stakeholders and build loyalty relationships with them in the local environment, which can be helpful in creating security in the city. To sum up, without this cooperation, long-term development and cooperation based on safety is not possible; therefore, very often, the value of the city is determined by the proper choice of sources creating value and influence, the involvement of stakeholders, and the proper management of relations with them.
A distribution of stakeholders by their level of influence and level of involvement in the organization is presented in Table 3. It is worth noting that the level of engagement and the level of impact on security, and thus the resulting results, are different for each interest group [64].
Table 3. Characterization of the stakeholders in an organization (in terms of impact and commitment to creating a safe organization).
Table
Stakeholders with primary impact and direct involvement (key)
1. Internal and close to them (directly related to the tasks of the company) Owners, shareholders, management, authorities, employees and their families, former employees, pensioners, applicants, apprentices, members of informal groups in the company, proxies, advisors, supervisory boards, works councils/employee organizations, members in member organizations, and their democratic bodies/authorities.
2. External (more or less directly related to the tasks of the company in question) Shareholders, members of co-ownership bodies, persons with influence over co-owners, representation of members in the bodies of associations, competitors/industry and non-industry opponents (e.g., those operating in the same labor, capital, know-how, opinion, value, or idea markets), ad hoc competitors, sales representatives and/or other sales and supply intermediaries, development funds, strategic (business) partners, customers/buyers/receivers/users/consumers, cooperatives, their members and associations, banks and other financial institutions, dealers, brokers, lobbying organizations, consulting companies, consumer organizations, employee organizations, trade unions, employers’ associations, other industry and professional communities and business agreements, business associations, advertising, marketing, and public relations agencies, members of social and professional organizations.
Second-level stakeholders with indirect (supporting) involvement
Environment of the so-called “Arcade”: general authorities at various levels and regulatory institutions in the economy and social life Governmental and state bodies, their agendas and members, including members of local government bodies, members of parliament, senators and other politicians acting within the state bodies, various levels of decision-makers/state bodies in the field of social, political, economic, and cultural life and the executors of their policies and decisions among other organizations/regulatory bodies active in the labor and financial markets, ministries relevant to social policy, dialogue bodies of state institutions, financial institutions, fiduciary offices, judicial authorities, consumer/government ombudsmen with interest groups, state employment offices, tax and customs services.
Stakeholders with further degrees of impact and further involvement (marginal)
1. Opinion formers/Environmental opinions Mass media, journalists, journalists’ organizations, editorial offices, correspondents (including foreign ones), editorial offices of company (company) newspapers, press departments of institutions and companies from the local environment, universities and their authorities, students and their representations, university promotion departments, alumni associations, employers’ and alumni councils, leaders of views and opinions originating from various areas of public life, influential representatives of cultural, educational, political, and religious institutions, creative associations, the audience of influential media, guests visiting companies.
2. Citizens’ initiatives and similar Non-governmental organizations protecting the environment, civil liberties, and rights, consumer associations, other grassroots institutions of public life, societies working to solve social and health problems, environmental organizations, etc.
3. Corporate and international environment Diplomatic representations, diplomats, consular departments of embassies, representations of foreign organizations and authorities, affiliations of international organizations.1
1 Source: own work, based on: [18][19][53][65].
With reference to the key stakeholders in creating a safe city, it should be noted that several types of security for its residents should be secured—primarily digital security, infrastructure security, health security, and personal security. Therefore, it is important to know which leaders have been chosen by the citizens, whether these leaders are supported by specific political parties and city councils, whether the law is enforced by bodies that do not abuse their power, whether people working in offices are competent, whether the information technology used is safe for everyone, and what actions are taken by managers in cooperation with stakeholders in the policies for creating a safe city.

References

  1. Sjöberg, I.; Nygren, K.G. Contesting city safety—Exploring (un)safety and objects of risk from multiple viewpoints. J. Risk Res. 2020, 24, 1251–1265.
  2. Perboli, G.; Rosano, M. A Taxonomic Analysis of Smart City Projects in North America and Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7813.
  3. Lacinák, M.; Ristvej, J. Smart City, Safety and Security. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 522–527.
  4. Schaffers, H.; Komninos, N.; Palloot, M.; Trousse, B.; Nilsson, M.; Oliveira, A. Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Framework for Open Innovation. In The Future Internet. Future Internet Assembly 2011: Achievements and Technological Promises; Domingue, J., Galis, A., Gavras, A., Zahariadis, T., Lambert, D., Cleary, F., Daras, P., Krco, S., Müller, H., Li, M.-S., et al., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 431–446.
  5. Smart Cities Study. International Study on the Situation of ITC, Innovation and Knowledge in Cities; The Committee of Digital and Knowledge-Based Cities of UCLG: Bilbao, Spain, 2012; p. 21.
  6. Caragliu, A.; Nijkamp, P. Smart Cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2009, 18, 45–59.
  7. Smart Cities and Communities. Key Messages for the High-Level Group from the Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform Roadmap Group. 2013. Available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/28452233/key-messages-to-the-high-level-group-smart-cities- (accessed on 22 September 2020).
  8. Ristvej, J.; Lacinák, M.; Ondrejka, R. On Smart City and Safe City Concept. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2020, 25, 836–845.
  9. Axis Communications. A Smart City is a City, where People Feel Safe. Brochure Axis Communications. 2015. Available online: https://www.axis.com/files/brochure/bc_casestudies_safecities_en_1506_lo.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2020).
  10. Huawei Smart City Solution. Brochure Huawei Technologies; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd: Shenshen, China, 2013.
  11. Borker, G. Safety First: Perceived Risk of Street Harassment and Educational Choices of Women; Job Market Paper Department of Economics, Brown University: Providence, RI, USA, 2017; pp. 12–45.
  12. Petrella, L. Inclusive city governance––A critical tool in the fight against crime. Habitat Debate 2007, 13, 4–5.
  13. Davies, G.H. What Are the World’s Safest Cities? Available online: https://www.movehub.com/blog/worlds-safest-cities/ (accessed on 7 November 2020).
  14. Finka, M.; Ondrejička, V.; Jamečný, Ľ. Urban Safety as Spatial Quality in Smart Cities; Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2016.
  15. Safe City Index 2019. Urban Security and Resilience in an Interconnected World; The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited: London, UK; New York, NY, USA; Hong Kong, China; Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2019.
  16. Safe City Index 2021. Urban Security and Resilience in an Interconnected World; The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited: London, UK; New York, NY, USA; Hong Kong, China; Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2021.
  17. Fedorov, V.; Robnik, A.; Terekhov, A. “Safe City”––An Open and Reliable Solution for a Safe and Smart City. Elektrotehniški Vestn. 2012, 79, 262–267.
  18. Bourne, L. Stakeholder Relationship Management. In A Maturity Model for Organisational Implementation; Gower Publishing Ltd.: Burlington, VT, USA, 2009.
  19. Wereda, W. Model of building stakeholder engagement in the functioning of the organization––Trust and risk. Ann. UMCS Sec. H Oeconomia 2018, 52, 111–127.
  20. Abrams, F. Management Responsibility in a Complex World. In Business Education for Competence and Responsibility; Chapel, T.C., Ed.; Hill University of North Carolina Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1951.
  21. Silbert, T.H. Financing and factoring accounts receivable. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1952, 30.
  22. Penrose, E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1959.
  23. Ansoff, H.I. Corporate Strategy; Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, UK, 1965.
  24. Cyert, R.M.; March, J.G. A Behavioral Theory of the Frim; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1963.
  25. Freeman, R.E.; Reed, D.L. Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1983, 23, 93–104.
  26. Argandoña, A. The stakeholder theory and the common good. J. Bus. Ethics 1998, 17, 1093–1102.
  27. Rhenman, E. Företagsdemokrati Och Företagsorganisation; SAF Norstedt, Företagsekonomiska Forsknings Institutet: Stockholm, Sweden, 1964.
  28. Frederick, W.C. Creatures, corporations, communities, chaos, complexity: A naturological view of the corporate social role. Bus. Soc. 1998, 37, 358–389.
  29. Slatter, S.S. Strategic planning for public relations. Long Range Plan. 1980, 13, 57–69.
  30. Cornell, B.; Shapiro, A.C. Corporate Stakeholders and Corporate Finance. Financ. Manag. 1987, 16, 5–14.
  31. Borodako, K. Foresight W Zarządzaniu Strategicznym; C.H. Beck: Warsaw, Poland, 2009.
  32. Freeman, R.E. The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Bus. Ethics Q. 1994, 4, 409–421.
  33. Miller, R.L.; Lewis, W.F. A Stakeholder Approach to Marketing Management Using the Value Exchange Models. Eur. J. Mark. 1991, 25, 55–68.
  34. Brenner, S.N. The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm and Organizational Decision Making: Some Propositions and a Model. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, CA, USA, 19–21 March 1993; pp. 205–210.
  35. Starik, M. Is the Environment an Organizational Stakeholder? Naturally! In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–21 March 1993; pp. 921–932.
  36. Clarkson, M. A Risk-Based Model of Stakeholder Theory. In Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory; Center for Corporate Social Performance & Ethics, University of Toronto: Toronto, Canada, 1994.
  37. Mahoney, J. FOCUS: Stakeholder Responsibilities: Turning the ethical tables. In Business Ethics: A European Review; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1994; Volume 3, pp. 212–218.
  38. Blair, M.M. Whose interests should corporations serve. In Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 202–234.
  39. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implication. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91.
  40. Mitchell, R.K.; Agle, B.R.; Wood, D.J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What really Count. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 853–886.
  41. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics & Clarkson. Principles of Stakeholder Management; Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto: Toronto, Canada, 1999.
  42. Gibson, K. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 26, 245–257.
  43. Hendry, J. Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. Wiley Online Libr. 2001, 10, 223–232.
  44. Orts, E.W.; Strudler, A. The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics Q. JSTOR 2001, 12, 215–233.
  45. Phillips, R. Stakeholder legitimacy. In Business Ethics Quarterly; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; Volume 13, pp. 25–41.
  46. Boddy, D.; Paton, R. Responding to competing narratives: Lessons for project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. Elsevier 2004, 22, 225–233.
  47. Andersen, R. Results from an International Stakeholder Survey on Farmers’ Rights; Fridtj of Nansen Institute: Lysaker, Norway, 2005.
  48. Bourne, L.; Walker, D.H.T. Visualizing stakeholder influence—Two Australian examples. Proj. Manag. J. 2006, 37, 5–21.
  49. Olander, S. Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2007, 25, 277–287.
  50. Walker, D.H.T.; Bourne, L.; Rowlinson, S. Stakeholders and the supply chain. In Procurement Systems––A Cross Industry Project Management Perspective; Walker, D.H.T., Rowlinson, S., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2008; pp. 70–100.
  51. Couillard, J.; Garon, S.; Riznic, J. The logical framework approach millennium. Proj. Manag. J. 2009, 40, 31–44.
  52. Bogdanienko, J.; Piotrowski, W. Zarzadzanie. Tradycja i Nowoczesność; Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: Warsaw, Poland, 2013.
  53. Szwajca, D. Zarządzanie Reputacją Przedsiębiorstwa. Budowa i Odbudowa Zaufania Interesariuszy; CeDeWu: Warsaw, Poland, 2016.
  54. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th ed.; Project Management Institute: Newton Square, MA, USA, 2017.
  55. Łudzińska, K.; Zdziarski, M. Interesariusze w opinii prezesów zarządów polskich przedsiębiorstw. KNOB 2013, 2, 41–49.
  56. Carroll, A.B.; Buchholtz, A.K. Business & Society, Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 7th ed.; South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason, OH, USA, 2009.
  57. Fletcher, A.; Guthrie, J.; Steane, P.; Pike, S. Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. J. Intellect. Cap. 2003, 4, 505–527.
  58. Savage, G.T.; Nix, T.W.; Whithead, C.J.; Blair, J.D. Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Acad. Manag. Exec. 1991, 5, 61–75.
  59. Turner, J.R.; Kristoffer, V.; Thurloway, L. The Project Manager as Change Agent; McGraw-Hill Publishing: London, UK, 2002.
  60. Caniato, M.; Vaccari, M.; Visvanathan, C.; Zurbrügg, C. Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 938–951.
  61. Zarządzanie Projektami––Wyzwania i Wyniki Badań; Trocki, M.; Bukłaha, E. (Eds.) SGH: Warsaw, Poland, 2016.
  62. Briner, W.; Hastings, C.; Geddes, M. Project Leadership; Gower Publishing Company: Gower, UK, 1996.
  63. Stakeholder Circle. 2011. Available online: http://www.stakeholder-management.com (accessed on 14 September 2020).
  64. Ya, S.; Rui, T. The Influence of Stakeholders on Technology Innovation: A Case Study from China. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore, 21–23 June 2006.
  65. Wereda, W.; Paliszkiewicz, J.; Lopes, T.; Wozniak, J.; Szwarc, K. Intelligent Organization towards Contemporary Trends in the Process of Management—Selected Aspects; Publishing House of WAT: Warsaw, Poland, 2016.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Wioletta Wereda
View Times: 844
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 19 Jan 2022
Table of Contents
Academic Video Service
Feedback