Management Research ReviewStakeholder identification and classification: a sustainability marketingperspectiveVinod Kumar, Zillur Rahman, A. A. Kazmi,

Article information:To cite this document:Vinod Kumar, Zillur Rahman, A. A. Kazmi, (2016) "Stakeholder identification and classification: asustainability marketing perspective", Management Research Review, Vol. 39 Issue: 1, pp.35-61,https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2013-0224Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2013-0224

Downloaded on: 12 October 2017, At: 09:56 (PT)References: this document contains references to 99 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1315 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2012),"A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships", Management Decision,Vol. 50 Iss 10 pp. 1861-1879 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648">https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648</a>(2008),"Marketing and sustainability", Marketing Intelligence &amp; Planning, Vol.26 Iss 2 pp. 123-130 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810860584">https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810860584</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Stakeholder identification andclassification: a sustainability

marketing perspectiveVinod Kumar

Department of Marketing, Institute of Management Technology,Nagpur, India

Zillur RahmanDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,

Roorkee, India, and

A.A. KazmiDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,

Roorkee, India

AbstractPurpose – This paper aims to review the literature on stakeholder identification and classificationrelated to sustainability marketing from 1998 to 2012 and provides a generalized approach tostakeholder identification and classification in the field of sustainability marketing.Design/methodology/approach – Beginning with brief introductions of the key concepts, theresearch discusses landmark studies on the subject in detail. The review process then begins byidentifying and selecting relevant research papers from various online databases. Finally, 60 researchpapers are found suitable for the review and are examined to theoretically analyze the stakeholderidentification and classification schemes used in sustainability marketing literature.Findings – This study identifies trends of growth in stakeholder identification and classificationliterature. In addition, there are two major findings. First, stakeholder identification can be done withthe help of previous studies, with support from managers or via a combination of both. Second, futureresearch can adopt generic stakeholder classification schemes or relative classification schemes basedon dimensions of sustainability to classify stakeholders in relation to sustainability marketing. Inrelative stakeholder classification, regulatory stakeholders may be considered separately.Research limitations/implications – While the literature review may be incomplete, as it uses onlya title-based advanced search, researchers and practitioners can still benefit from this simplifiedapproach to manage stakeholders.Originality/value – The study introduces a generalized approach to stakeholder identification andclassification related to sustainability marketing and provides a bibliography from 1998 to 2012 thatcan be used by academics and managers.

Keywords Social marketing, Sustainability marketing, Environmental or green marketing,Stakeholder identification and classification

Paper type Literature review

1. IntroductionThe term “stakeholder”, which was heard for the first time at Stanford ResearchInstitute in 1963, has been used in place of the term “stockholder” to draw the attention

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

35

Received 20 September 2013Revised 21 April 2014

20 November 201412 January 2015

Accepted 14 January 2015

Management Research ReviewVol. 39 No. 1, 2016

pp. 35-61© Emerald Group Publishing Limited

2040-8269DOI 10.1108/MRR-09-2013-0224

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

of organizations toward non-stockholding groups (cf: Parmar et al., 2010). Later,Freeman (1984) introduced his important “stakeholder theory” and defined astakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievementof a corporation’s purpose”. It is clear from this definition that a stakeholder can be asingle person or a group, who can influence, or is influenced by, the achievement oforganizations’ goals and objectives. This definition also broadens the vision oforganizations regarding stakeholders, and extends the responsibilities of organizationsto encompass non-stockholding groups.

The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) entitled “Our Common Future” was the first touse the concept of sustainability, and supported the idea of extending organizationalresponsibilities to include stakeholders, which gained the attention of researchers andbusinesses. This report defined the term “sustainable development” as, “developmentthat meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 24). Here, sustainability isconsidered as a development roadmap that can save resources for future generations.This concept proposes a change in the role of business in society by drawing theattention of companies not only toward economic growth but also towardenvironmental and societal development.

With the introduction of the concept of sustainability in 1987, the scope of themarketing discipline, which was previously limited to traditional economic analysis,has been broadened to include environmental and social contexts. Hult et al. (2011)asserted that stakeholder theory expanded and broadened the field of marketing. Theyalso added that although the subject of stakeholder marketing has been studied for thepast 40 years, research in the field of sustainability marketing (in relation tostakeholders) has just begun. However, some studies have advanced stakeholder theoryby addressing ecological, ethical and social dimensions, although the broader area ofsustainable development has remained virtually untouched (Kolk and Pinkse, 2007;Laplume et al., 2008; Rueda-Manzanares et al., 2008; Raghubir et al., 2010). Therefore, avariety of studies can be conducted on this research subject, and there is a need toexplore stakeholder theory in relation to sustainability marketing efforts byorganizations (Hult et al., 2011).

Mitchell et al. (1997) argued that managers who do not prioritize and classifystakeholders according to their interests do not realize the importance of stakeholders.Therefore, an interesting point is how managers classify their stakeholders in relation tosustainability marketing strategies in different business environments andorganizational settings (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Rivera-Camino, 2007). Althoughseveral generic and relative stakeholder classification schemes exist, there is still noconsensus on the most suitable one to use (Mainardes et al., 2012). In addition,stakeholder identification and classification schemes need to be updated to incorporatethe area of sustainability (Garvare and Johansson, 2010), particularly, as several regularindustrial and institutional pressures have come into play with respect to managingstakeholder relationships in light of sustainability (Henriques and Sharma, 2005;Sharma and Henriques, 2005). Most researchers agree that a new approach tostakeholder identification and classification needs to be developed in the areaof sustainability marketing (Banerjee et al., 2003; Cordano et al., 2004; Maignan et al.,2005; Rivera-Camino, 2007; Belz and Schmidt-Riediger, 2009). Therefore, differentconceptual and empirical models need to be integrated to arrive at a generalized

MRR39,1

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

stakeholder identification and classification scheme (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999),such as a macro-level model that incorporates stakeholders with in-group homogeneityand cross-group heterogeneity (Cordano et al., 2004; Kassinis and Vafeas, 2006).

In light of this new approach, the present study reviews the literature on stakeholderidentification and classification in the area of sustainability marketing. After definingthe key concepts and reviewing landmark studies on the subject area, the selectedresearch papers are analyzed and discussed using a content-analysis-based approach,and the results of past studies are presented. Finally, the study concludes with adiscussion of these results, a suggested future course of action and the implications andlimitations.

2. Definition of key concepts2.1 Stakeholder identification and classificationIt is not easy to identify key stakeholders, and stakeholder identification andclassification remains a challenging task for researchers (Kaler, 2002). Previous studieshave created confusion in the minds of researchers, who have used the concepts ofstakeholder identification and stakeholder classification interchangeably, or haveapplied stakeholder identification and stakeholder prioritization in place of stakeholderclassification. However, the present research uses stakeholder identification andstakeholder classification as two separate concepts.

This paper considers stakeholder identification as the means by which to recognizekey stakeholders of the organization who affect, or are affected during, the achievementof organizational objectives (Freeman, 1984). However, stakeholder classification dealswith assigning stakeholders to different categories according to their common interestsor influence (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003). Broadly speaking, there are two types ofstakeholder classification schemes: generic and relative. Stakeholder classificationschemes that are inspired by past studies and are based on the assumption that theparticular stakeholder classification is universally accepted in all areas are known asgeneric classifications. However, some researchers have introduced their ownstakeholder classification schemes based on their specific study area; these are calledrelative stakeholder classification schemes. These classification schemes assume thatstakeholders are not common in all study areas (Rivera-Camino, 2007).

2.2 Sustainability marketingThe concept of sustainability marketing is not new to researchers, and has evolved fromsocial and societal marketing, and ecological marketing. Over time, these aspects havemerged into a single concept of sustainability marketing (Kumar et al., 2013). Kotler andZaltman (1971) laid down the foundations of social and societal marketing, while Fisk(1974) introduced the concept of ecological marketing. Over time, the concept of socialand societal marketing was further developed by Kotler and Lee (2005) and divided intosix categories: corporate social marketing, cause marketing, cause-related marketing,corporate philanthropy, community volunteering and socially responsible businesspractices.

Ecological marketing was also further developed by Henion and Kinnear (1976), andlater broadened to green or environmental marketing with the inclusion of climatechange activities. Afterwards, Charter (1992) coined the concept of greener marketingby bringing together environmental and social dimensions of marketing. With further

37

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

research advancements in this field, Dam and Apeldoorn (1996) introduced the conceptof sustainable marketing, which came to be known as sustainability marketing.According to Belz and Peattie (2009), “Sustainability marketing may be defined asbuilding and maintaining sustainable relationships with customers, the social and thenatural environment”. The concept of sustainability marketing is broader than pastconcepts, as it includes all three dimensions: i.e. economic, social and environmental(Elkington, 1998). In addition, Peattie (2001) called this comprehensive concept ofsustainability marketing the “Third Age of Green Marketing”, as the concept wasdeveloped after ecological, social and green marketing (Belz and Peattie, 2009; Kumaret al., 2012).

3. Landmark studies on stakeholder identification and classificationSeveral landmark studies have been carried out on the subject of stakeholderidentification and classification. The first is that of Freeman (1984), who classifiedstakeholders into two categories: internal and external. This approach was based purelyon the managerial view of internal and external change in a business environment.Stakeholders responsible for internal change are called internal stakeholders, whilethose responsible for external change are external stakeholders. Clarkson (1995) refinedthis approach by conducting a rigorous longitudinal study to analyze corporate socialperformance in relation to stakeholders. He identified and classified stakeholders into awidely accepted framework of primary and secondary stakeholders, and defined thesestakeholders as follows:

A primary stakeholder group is one without whose continuing participation the corporationcannot survive as a going concern.

Secondary stakeholder groups are defined as those who influence or affect, or are influenced oraffected by, the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation andare not essential for its survival.

This approach is an extension of Freeman’s classification, and is based on the formaland informal relationships stakeholders have with an organization. According to thisapproach, the organization has a higher dependence on primary stakeholders incomparison to secondary stakeholders, as primary stakeholders are crucial to anorganization’s existence. They are involved in various transactions, and theircontinuous involvement is necessary for organizations’ survival. However, theinvolvement of secondary stakeholders is limited, and they can affect, or by affected by,various activities of the organizations, but are not essential for the organizations’survival.

Savage et al. (1991) used the case of Eastern Airlines to develop strategies formanaging various stakeholders in a changing business environment. Based onstakeholders’ potential to threaten or cooperate with organizations, Savage et al.introduced strategies to manage stakeholders and classified them into four categories:supportive, marginal, non-supportive and mixed blessing. Supporting stakeholdershave a high potential to cooperate and low potential to threaten the organization;marginal stakeholders have low potential to cooperate and threaten; non-supportivestakeholders have a high potential to threaten but a low potential to cooperate; andmixed-blessing stakeholders have a high potential to both cooperate and threaten.Savage et al.’s (1991) study developed four strategies to manage these four stakeholder

MRR39,1

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

groups – involve, monitor, defend and collaborate – inspired by a framework suggestedby Miles and Snow (1978). Goodpaster (1991) also developed a unique stakeholderidentification and classification scheme. He assumed two conditions to studystakeholders in relation to ethics – “business without ethics” and “ethics withoutbusiness” – and talked about strategic and moral stakeholders of the organization. Heclassified stakeholders into two categories: fiduciary and non-fiduciary. Thisstakeholder classification scheme also indicated the economic and regulatorystakeholders of organizations.

Later, Rowley (1997) classified stakeholders in relation to their influence, andintroduced a stakeholder influence matrix using the centrality of the organizationalfocus and social network density. Based on these criteria, he developed four types ofstakeholder categories: compromiser, solitarian, subordinate and commander.Afterwards, Mitchell et al. (1997) introduced a stakeholder saliency model of stakeholderidentification and classification using a descriptive stakeholder theory approach basedon three attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency. This dynamic model studiedstakeholders’ relationships with organizations with respect to understanding themanagerial perception of stakeholder prioritization in different situations. According tothis approach, stakeholders are classified according to the possession of one, two or allthree of the above attributes. If stakeholders possess a single attribute, they areconsidered latent stakeholders; these can be broken down further into dormant,discretionary and demanding. Stakeholders that possess two attributes are known asexpectant stakeholders, and can be dominant, dangerous or dependent. Finally,stakeholders that possess all three attributes are called definitive stakeholders. Groupsthat do not possess any of the above attributes are in fact non-stakeholders, as they donot receive any priority from managers. This classification scheme is summarized inTable I.

According to this stakeholder identification and classification scheme, managersassign high priority to stakeholders that possess all three attributes, and comparativelyless priority to those who possess two attributes – with the least priority assigned

Table I.Classification scheme

given byMitchell et al. (1997)

Type of stakeholders Classification scheme

Latent stakeholders (possessing singleattribute)

Dormant stakeholder: Possess power and lackslegitimacy and urgencyDiscretionary stakeholder: Possess legitimacy and lackspower and urgencyDemanding stakeholder: Possess urgency and lackspower and legitimacy

Expectant stakeholders (possessing twoattributes)

Dominant stakeholder: Possess power and legitimacybut lacks urgencyDangerous stakeholder: Possess power and urgency butlacks legitimacyDependent stakeholder: Possess legitimacy and urgencybut lacks power

Definitive stakeholder (possessing threeattributes)

Possess all three attributes, i.e. power, legitimacy andurgency

Non-stakeholder Possess none of three attributes, i.e. power, legitimacyand urgency

39

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

to those with a single attribute. Moreover, managers do not assign any priority tostakeholders who do not possess any attribute. However, it is not easy for managers toprioritize stakeholders based on these attributes because this approach does not actuallyidentify stakeholders (Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001). However, the approach iscomprehensive, and it triggers the idea of identifying and prioritizing stakeholders. Inaddition, stakeholder salience has proven to be a widely accepted framework ofstakeholder identification and prioritization, despite the existence of other studies onstakeholder identification and classification (Figure 1).

4. Approach to the literature reviewTo develop a better understanding of stakeholder identification and classification insustainability marketing, we reviewed literature published between 1998 and 2012. Weselected 1998 as the base year, as it follows the breakthrough research by Mitchell et al.(1997), which identified and classified stakeholders using the stakeholder salienceapproach. Although other classifications schemes exist, stakeholder salience is the mostaccepted and comprehensive framework: according to Web of Science, this study wascited 622 times up to January, 2011 (cf: Neville et al., 2011). Parent and Deephouse (2007)also reported that the stakeholder salience framework can be used as a tool to carry outfuture research.

To collect research papers on the subject, a title-based advanced search was carriedout in the following online databases using keywords related to sustainability andstakeholders:

• EBSCO;• Emerald Full Text;• Elsevier;

Figure 1.Generic stakeholderclassificationschemes

MRR39,1

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

• Google Scholar;• JSTOR;• John Wiley Publications;• Palgrave Macmillan;• Proquest;• Sage Publications;• Springer-Verlag; and• Taylor and Francis

This search yielded few papers; therefore, sustainability-strategy-based literature wasalso included in the study. In addition, studies based on green or environmentalmarketing and social marketing were included. The economic dimension of marketingwas not considered in the review because it is assumed to be connected to each conceptof sustainability marketing (Seuring and Muller, 2008). After applying this criterion,more than 150 research papers were found on the subject.

Several unrelated studies were also excluded from the results. First, studies that usedthe business environment in place of the natural environment were excluded. Second,Smith et al. (2010), in their discussion of “new marketing myopia”, argued that most paststudies have paid attention to a single stakeholder group and, in most of the cases, havefocused only on customers (Rivera-Camino, 2007; Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2008).However, the changing scope of marketing and strategy literature must include multiplestakeholders in the studies (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Maignan and Ferrell, 2004;Henriques and Sharma, 2005; Maignan et al., 2005; Sharma and Henriques, 2005;Rivera-Camino, 2007; Peloza and Papania, 2008; Belz and Schmidt-Riediger, 2009;Ferrell et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2010; Cronin et al., 2011; Hult, 2011; Maignan et al., 2011).Therefore, studies based on a single stakeholder were not included in the literaturereview. Last, the environment is a dimension of sustainability, and many studies relatedto social and CSR marketing have considered the natural environment as a stakeholder,according to the approach followed by Starik (1994). These studies were not excludedfrom the present review because they consider other stakeholder groups, along with thenatural environment (Johnson and Macy, 2001; Uhlaner et al., 2004; Knox et al., 2005;Kolk and Pinkse, 2007; Jamali, 2008; Laan et al., 2008; Mishra and Suar, 2010; Raghubiret al., 2010). After applying the study criteria, 60 research papers were chosen by authorsrelated to the field of stakeholder identification and classification from the sustainabilitymarketing perspective.

5. Descriptive statisticsThe selected research papers were analyzed using a content analysis-based approach(Krippendorff, 2004). First, the studies were segregated according to the area coveredand classified into three groups: environmental, social (corporate social responsibility,i.e. CSR) and sustainability. It must be noted that the studies were not only classifiedbased on study area but also according to the nature of the study, i.e. conceptual orempirical. According to Seuring and Muller (2008), the economic dimension cannot beisolated from any concept of sustainability, as the economic dimension is an integralpart of studies based on sustainability, along with the environmental and social

41

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

dimensions. Therefore, the economic dimension is given highest priority among alldimensions of sustainability (Singh et al., 2007).

First, the studies were segregated according to their nature and study area(Table II). It was found that 35 per cent of the studies were conceptual in nature, andthe remaining 65 per cent empirical. Moreover, the studies were classified into threeareas: environmental, social and sustainability. The highest number of studies, i.e.45 per cent, was found in the area of environmental marketing and strategy inrelation to stakeholders. The remaining 35 and 20 per cent of studies were carriedout in the areas of social and sustainability marketing and strategy, respectively.Moreover, 22 per cent of the environmental marketing and strategy studies wereconceptual, and 78 per cent empirical in nature. In the case of social marketing andstrategy, 52 per cent of the studies were conceptual and 48 per cent empirical.Concerning sustainability marketing and strategy, 33 studies were conceptual and67 per cent empirical.

The studies were further classified according to their approach to stakeholderidentification and classification, as shown in Table III. Overall, 47 per cent of the studies

Table II.Study area covered

Study area covered Conceptual Empirical

Environment Delmas and Toffel (2004), Kolk andPinkse (2007), Paloviita andLuoma-aho (2010), Cronin et al.(2011), Kirchoff et al. (2011), Nairand Ndubisi (2011)

Cardskadden and Lober (1998), Polonskyet al. (1998), Polonsky and Ottman(1998a, 1998b), Henriques and Sadorsky(1999), Harvey and Schaefer (2001),Banerjee et al. (2003), Buysse andVerbeke (2003); Cespedes-Lorente et al.(2003), Cordano et al. (2004), Gago andAntolin (2004), Kassinis and Vafeas(2006), Bremmers et al. (2007), Rivera-Camino (2007), Murillo-Luna et al. (2008),Rueda-Manzanares et al. (2008), Studeret al. (2008), Darnall et al. (2010),Vazquez-Brust et al. (2010), Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2011), Sprengel and Busch(2011)

CSR (Social) Whysall (2000), Johnson and Macy(2001), Kaler (2002), Vos (2003),Maignan and Ferrell (2004),Maignan et al., (2005), Peloza andPapania (2008), Yang and Rivers(2009), Raghubir et al. (2010), Craneand Ruebottom (2011),Sedereviciute and Valentini (2011)

Uhlaner et al. (2004), Knox et al. (2005),Jamali (2008), Laan et al. (2008), Mishraand Suar (2010), Alniacik et al. (2011),Girard and Sobczak (2012), Tang andTang (2012), Torres et al. (2012), Weberand Marley (2012)

Sustainability Boer (2003), Perrini and Tencati(2006), Garvare and Johansson(2010), Clifton and Amran (2011)

Seuring et al. (2003), Henriques andSharma (2005), Sharma and Henriques(2005), Belz and Schmidt-Riediger (2009),Gabzdylova et al. (2009), Banerjee andBonnefous (2011), Reuter et al. (2012),Theyel and Hofmann (2012)

MRR39,1

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

were based on stakeholder identification only, and the remaining 53 per cent covered thearea of stakeholder identification and classification. In the area of environmentmarketing and strategy, 41 per cent of the studies were based on stakeholderidentification only and 59 per cent on stakeholder identification and classification. In thecase of social marketing and strategy, 52 per cent covered stakeholder identification andthe remaining 48 per cent were based on stakeholder identification and classification.Finally, in the area of sustainability marketing and strategy, 50 per cent of the studieswere based on stakeholder identification and 50 per cent on both stakeholderidentification and classification.

The studies were further classified into generic and relative stakeholderclassifications, as shown in Table IV. It should be noted that due to the lack of studies onthe subject of stakeholder classification, they were not segregated according toenvironment, social and sustainability, but rather according to their conceptual orempirical nature. It was found that 34 per cent of the studies were conceptual in natureand remaining 66 per cent empirical. As far as the type of classification scheme isconcerned, again 34 per cent of the studies were based on generic classification and theremaining 66 per cent on relative classification. Moreover, for studies based on genericclassification of stakeholders, 45 per cent of the studies were conceptual and 55 per centempirical. For relative classification of stakeholders, 29 per cent were conceptual and 71per cent empirical.

Table III.Stakeholder

identification andclassification

literature

Study areacovered Stakeholder identification

Stakeholder identification andclassification

Environment Cardskadden and Lober (1998), Polonskyet al. (1998), Polonsky and Ottman(1998a, 1998b), Delmas and Toffel (2004),Gago and Antolin (2004), Kolk andPinkse (2007), Rueda-Manzanares et al.(2008), Studer et al. (2008), Cronin et al.(2011), Sprengel and Busch (2011)

Henriques and Sadorsky (1999), Harveyand Schaefer (2001), Banerjee et al.(2003), Buysse and Verbeke (2003),Cespedes-Lorente et al. (2003), Cordanoet al. (2004), Kassinis and Vafeas (2006),Bremmers et al. (2007), Rivera-Camino(2007), Murillo-Luna et al. (2008),Darnall et al. (2010), Paloviita andLuoma-aho (2010), Vazquez-Brust et al.(2010), Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2011),Nair and Ndubisi (2011), Kirchoff et al.(2011)

CSR (Social) Whysall (2000), Johnson and Macy(2001), Maignan and Ferrell (2004), Knoxet al. (2005), Maignan et al., (2005), Jamali(2008), Mishra and Suar (2010), Alniaciket al. (2011), Crane and Ruebottom (2011),Tang and Tang (2012), Torres et al.(2012)

Kaler (2002), Vos (2003), Uhlaner et al.(2004), Laan et al. (2008), Peloza andPapania (2008), Yang and Rivers (2009),Raghubir et al. (2010), Sedereviciuteand Valentini (2011), Girard andSobczak (2012), Weber and Marley(2012)

Sustainability Boer (2003), Seuring et al. (2003), Perriniand Tencati (2006), Belz and Schmidt-Riediger (2009), Gabzdylova et al. (2009),Reuter et al. (2012)

Henriques and Sharma (2005), Sharmaand Henriques (2005), Garvare andJohansson (2010), Banerjee andBonnefous (2011), Clifton and Amran(2011), Theyel and Hofmann (2012)

43

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

6. Stakeholder identification and classification in sustainabilitymarketing6.1 Stakeholder identificationThe literature has paid significant attention to the area in question. In most of thestudies, stakeholder identification was based on past literature or theories based on thesubject. However, some studies diverted from a reliance on past theories and used adifferent approach to identify stakeholders, by asking managers about their keystakeholders. There are four studies that relied on managers for choosing stakeholders.Polonsky et al. (1998) and Polonsky and Ottman (1998a, 1998b) asked managers tochoose key stakeholders in the field of green new product development.Rueda-Manzanares et al. (2008) also consulted managers about their key stakeholdersby studying the managers’ perceptions of stakeholder influence regarding theenvironmental strategies of resorts in 12 countries. Here, it should be noted that all fourstudies are in the area of environmental marketing and studies based on socialmarketing and sustainability marketing depended on past literature to identify their keystakeholders. Vos (2003) discussed the boundaries of stakeholder identification inrelation to CSR literature, but did not actually identify stakeholders. Henriques andSharma (2005) also attempted to identify and classify stakeholders based on thestakeholders’ dependence on resources.

6.2 Stakeholder classificationMany researchers have developed different stakeholder classification schemes in thefield of sustainability marketing and strategy. This section discusses studies based ongeneric and relative classifications of stakeholders. Studies related to the field ofsustainability are segregated and discussed in the three areas, i.e. environment, socialand sustainability. Moreover, some studies are based on generic classifications and

Table IV.Type of stakeholderclassification

Study/stakeholderclassification Conceptual Empirical

Generic Vos (2003), Peloza and Papania (2008),Paloviita and Luoma-aho (2010),Clifton and Amran (2011), Kirchoffet al. (2011)

Harvey and Schaefer (2001), Banerjeeet al. (2003), Cespedes-Lorente et al.(2003), Laan et al. (2008), Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2011), Weber andMarley (2012)

Relative Kaler (2002), Yang and Rivers (2009),Garvare and Johansson (2010),Raghubir et al. (2010), Nair andNdubisi (2011), Sedereviciute andValentini (2011)

Henriques and Sadorsky (1999),Buysse and Verbeke (2003), Cordanoet al. (2004), Uhlaner et al. (2004),Henriques and Sharma (2005),Sharma and Henriques (2005),Kassinis and Vafeas (2006),Bremmers et al. (2007), Rivera-Camino (2007), Murillo-Luna et al.(2008), Darnall et al. (2010), Vazquez-Brust et al. (2010), Banerjee andBonnefous (2011), Girard andSobczak (2012), Theyel and Hofmann(2012)

MRR39,1

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

others on relative classifications of stakeholders. However, if any study used a pastclassification, then it is considered to use a generic classification. For example, Banerjeeet al. (2003) relied on the classification scheme given by Henriques and Sadorsky (1999);therefore, the former study is considered generic and the latter relative.

6.2.1 Stakeholder classification in environmental marketing and strategy. Beginningwith classification schemes in the area of environmental marketing and strategy, Croninet al. (2011) reviewed literature on three green marketing strategies from the stakeholderperspective – i.e. green innovation, greening the organization and green alliances – andendorsed the primary- and secondary-stakeholder-based classification given byClarkson (1995). Kirchoff et al. (2011) placed the utmost importance on customers ingreen marketing and emphasized a need to consider primary and secondarystakeholders to study demand and supply integration in relation to green marketing.Bremmers et al. (2007) extended primary and secondary stakeholders into commercialand non-commercial stakeholders based on relative classification to investigatestakeholder influence on the implementation of environmental practices in the agro-foodindustry.

Harvey and Schaefer (2001) and Paloviitaand Luoma-aho (2010) studied stakeholdermanagement in relation to corporate environmental strategy using a genericclassification given by Mitchell et al. (1997), and classified stakeholders on the basis ofthree criteria: power, legitimacy and urgency. Cespedes-Lorente et al. (2003) also usedthe stakeholder saliency approach and extended the legitimacy attribute to social andeconomic legitimacy. All of these studies used generic classifications of stakeholders,but some studies introduced a relative classification of stakeholders. As far as therelative classifications are concerned, Henriques and Sadorsky (1999), in the process ofevaluating stakeholder pressure on environmental commitment, gave a relativeclassification of stakeholders by dividing then into four groups: regulatorystakeholders, organizational stakeholders, community stakeholders and the media.Henriques and Sadorsky’s (1999) scheme was further implemented by Banerjee et al.(2003) to study the antecedents of corporate environmental strategy by considering theinfluence of different industrial sectors.

Also Buysse and Verbeke (2003) studied the relationship between corporateenvironmental strategy and stakeholder management, and introduced fourcategories of stakeholders: external primary, secondary, internal primary andregulatory. This classification was based on studies conducted by Freeman (1984)and Clarkson (1995), although Buysse and Verbeke paid separate attention toregulatory stakeholders and insisted that other researchers also consider thesestakeholders separately. Cordano et al. (2004) also worked in the same direction;they introduced a classification scheme to study stakeholders’ attitudes towardenvironmental issues, and classified stakeholders as business stakeholders,regulatory stakeholders and environmentalist stakeholders. However, this studybrought in environmental stakeholders along with regulatory and businessstakeholders. Kassinis and Vafeas (2006) also paid separate attention to regulatorystakeholders, along with community-based stakeholders, to examine their influenceon environmental performance. Rivera-Camino (2007) classified stakeholders inrelation to green marketing strategies and divided them into four categories: marketstakeholders, social pressure groups, immediate providers and legal stakeholders.Subsequently, Darnall et al. (2010) and Vazquez-Brust and Liston-Heyesb (2010)

45

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

introduced identical classification schemes to those of Rivera-Camino (2007) tostudy the proactive adoption of environmental practices. Darnall et al. (2010)classified stakeholders into four categories – value chain stakeholders, internalstakeholders, societal stakeholders and regulatory stakeholders – whereasVazquez-Brust and Liston-Heyesb (2010) named these four categories institutional,internal, social and other stakeholders. These studies not only considered legal orregulatory stakeholders but also introduced societal stakeholders while studyinggreen issues (Figure 2).

Murillo-Luna et al. (2008) kept in mind the classification schemes provided byHenriques and Sadorsky (1999) and Buysse and Verbeke (2003), and took the

Figure 2.Stakeholderclassificationschemes inenvironmentalmarketing andstrategy

MRR39,1

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

environmental-strategy-based research to an advanced level by classifyingstakeholders into five categories: external social, corporate government, internaleconomic, external economic and regulatory stakeholders. This research took a broaderview of stakeholders, and introduced economic stakeholders along with societal andregulatory stakeholders. Finally, Nair and Ndubisi (2011) developed a theoreticalclassification of stakeholders to assess their influence on environmental marketingpractices, and classified them into three categories: core influencers, intermediateinfluencers and moderate influencers. This stakeholder classification scheme wasintroduced after taking into account the influence of stakeholders, but did not actuallyclassify stakeholders.

6.2.2 Stakeholder classification in social (CSR) marketing and strategy. Instakeholders literature based on social (CSR) marketing and strategy, many researchershave relied on the stakeholder identification given by Freeman (1984) and considered allstakeholders simultaneously. Raghubir et al. (2010) tried to broaden the internal- andexternal-stakeholder-based classification scheme outlined by Freeman (1984), andclassified stakeholders into three categories – classic strategic marketing stakeholders,other internal stakeholders and external stakeholders – to design a CSR marketingmetric framework using multiple stakeholders. However, Vos (2003) introduced adifferent approach, and classified stakeholders into two groups to explore the field ofstakeholder identification and classification in CSR literature – that is, involved andaffected – based on a critical systems heuristics approach suggested by Ulrich (1983).According to this approach, the involved stakeholders can affect, and include clients,decision-makers and planners, whereas affected stakeholders are those who are affectedand witnesses.

Later, Laan et al. (2008) explored the link between corporate social and financialperformance by extending stakeholder theory to decision theory and resourcedependence theory using the primary- and secondary-stakeholder-basedclassification proposed by Clarkson (1995). Peloza and Papania (2008) also studiedthe relationship between corporate social and financial performance using thestakeholder theory approach, and developed a model of corporate social andfinancial performance based on reward and punishment, with the help of thestakeholder saliency approach given by Mitchell et al. (1997). Mishra and Suar(2010) also relied on the stakeholder saliency approach to study the effect of not onlymanagement strategy and stakeholder saliency on CSR adoption but onlyconsidered primary stakeholders. Sedereviciute and Valentini (2011) extended theframework proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997) in the field of social media, anddeveloped stakeholder mapping based on power and legitimacy and urgency toclassify stakeholders into four categories: unconcerned influencers, concernedinfluencers, concerned lurkers and unconcerned lurkers.

Girard and Sobczak (2012) also introduced a new classification scheme for corporateand social engagement in the banking sector, and used stakeholder mapping to classifythese into four categories: allied, engaged, militant and passive. In addition, Kaler (2002)proposed a different idea for classifying stakeholders and suggested three groups:claimant, influencer and combinatory. Uhlaner et al. (2004) also suggested an interestingstakeholder classification while exploring CSR from a stakeholder perspective in familybusinesses, assigning stakeholders to two groups according to different CSRdimensions, that is, economic and social stakeholders. In addition, Yang and Rivers

47

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

(2009) provided a similar classification scheme by categorizing stakeholders into twogroups – organizational and social – while analyzing the drivers of CSR through the lensof institutional and stakeholder theories (Figure 3).

6.2.3 Stakeholder classification in sustainability marketing and strategy. Some studieshave also introduced the stakeholder classification schemes in sustainability marketingand strategy literature. Henriques and Sharma (2005) researched sustainability inrelation to stakeholders and examined managerial perceptions of stakeholder influenceon corporate sustainability to classify stakeholders into two categories on the basis ofresourced dependence; that is, resource-independent stakeholders and resource-dependent stakeholders. Sharma and Henriques (2005) again came up with a differentclassification scheme and suggested classifying stakeholders as either social-ecologicalor economic. However, this classification resulted from discussions, and no formalclassification scheme was developed in this study.

Theyel and Hofmann (2012) classified stakeholder into three categories – socialstakeholders, environmental stakeholders and media – while studying relationshipsbetween stakeholder interactions and adoption of sustainability practices. Later,Garvare and Johansson (2010) also elaborated the classification scheme outlined byClarkson (1995), and developed a stakeholder management model in the light ofcorporate and global sustainability using five categories – interested parties, andprimary, secondary, latent and overt stakeholders – by taking the business environmentinto consideration. Clifton and Amran (2011) used a generic stakeholder approach givenby Johnson et al. (2005) and Mitchell et al. (1997) to critically analyze the sustainabilityprogress of companies. Moreover, Banerjee and Bonnefous (2011) introduced a nuclearindustry-oriented relative classification scheme to study the strategies by which tomanage various stakeholders, and classified stakeholders into three categories:supportive, obstructive and passive (Figure 4).

Figure 3.Stakeholderclassificationschemes in socialmarketing andstrategy

MRR39,1

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

7. Results and findingsIn the present study, stakeholder identification and stakeholder classification arediscussed separately and taken as two different approaches because several previousstudies have considered stakeholder identification and stakeholder classification assynonyms. Here, stakeholder identification refers to the identification of keystakeholders in relation to the subject, and stakeholder classification categorizesstakeholder groups according to their interests.

To build a sound marketing framework, it is important to identify stakeholders whoare interested in the marketing decisions of the organization (Miller and Lewis, 1991).Only four studies, carried out by Polonsky et al. (1998), Polonsky and Ottman (1998a,(1998b), and Rueda-Manzanares et al. (2008), identified that all stakeholders related tothe literature based on environmental marketing and strategy. However, the first threestudies, carried out by Polonsky et al., can be considered as a single study because eachof these studies resulted from different facets or perspectives of a single study.Therefore, only two studies have been found on the subject of stakeholder identification.In these studies, managers were asked to choose key stakeholders. The simplicity of thisapproach is quite appealing. Vos (2003) also attempted to identify stakeholders inrelation to CSR using the approach adopted by Ulrich (1983); however, his effort waslimited to specifying the boundaries of stakeholders in terms of involved and affectedstakeholders. Vos’s (2003) study thus assisted other researchers to identifystakeholders, but did not actually identify stakeholders.

In literature based on sustainability marketing and strategy, Henriques and Sharma(2005) used the resource-dependence theory. Many studies used either stakeholdertheory (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998; Whysall, 2000; Studer et al., 2008; Garvare andJohansson, 2010; Cronin et al., 2011; Sprengel and Busch, 2011) or the stakeholdersalience approach (Gago and Antolin, 2004; Mishra and Suar, 2010; Clifton and Amran,2011) to identify stakeholders in relation to sustainability marketing. In addition to theseresearch efforts, some studies have also relied on past literature to identify stakeholder.While many studies have relied on managerial perception of stakeholder influence on

Figure 4.Stakeholder

classificationschemes in

sustainabilitymarketing and

strategy

49

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

environmental, social or sustainability strategies, the authors did not consult managersto identify stakeholders; therefore, managers should be asked to identify keystakeholders because they recognize their stakeholders from working, and developingstrategies, with them (Yang and Rivers, 2009).

This discussion leads to the fact that research should begin with stakeholderidentification to develop a theory in a particular field (Kaler, 2002). Once thestakeholders have been identified, they can be classified into various groups accordingto their dynamic relationships (Mitchell et al., 1997). However, while stakeholders can beclassified into different groups according to the scope of study, it is not easy to identifyand classify stakeholders because they have multiple relationships and conflictinginterests in different situations (Winn, 2001; Cordano et al., 2004). Nevertheless, effortshave been made by various researchers to identify and classify stakeholders either onthe basis of generic or relative stakeholder classification schemes.

In generic classifications, researchers have either relied on previous classifications ortried to extend generic classifications. Most studies based on generic stakeholderclassification schemes have used the approaches suggested by Ulrich (1983), Freeman(1984), Clarkson (1995) and Mitchell et al. (1997). As discussed above, Vos (2003) reliedon Ulrich’s (1983) approach to studying CSR literature in relation to stakeholders.Similarly, Raghubir et al. (2010) drew from Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder classificationand tried to extend this approach. These authors developed a theoretical classificationand chose classic strategic marketing stakeholders, along with other internal andexternal stakeholders, to extend the classification scheme outlined by Freeman (1984).Cronin et al. (2011) and Kirchoff et al. (2011) recommended Clarkson’s (1995) primary-and secondary-stakeholder-based approach to carry out further studies, while Laan et al.(2008) used this approach to study the link between corporate social and financialperformance. However, Bremmers et al. (2007) extended this approach to studystakeholder influence on environmental strategy implementation, and introduced astakeholder-positioning matrix comprising five categories: intermediaries, commercialprimary stakeholders, non-commercial primary stakeholders, commercial secondarystakeholders and non-commercial secondary stakeholders.

Similarly, Garvare and Johansson (2010) expanded Clarkson’s (1995) stakeholderclassification scheme while developing a stakeholder management model in the light ofcorporate and global sustainability, and suggested five stakeholder categories:interested parties, and primary, secondary, latent and overt stakeholders. However,Buysse and Verbeke (2003) mixed the two approaches given by Freeman (1984) andClarkson (1995) to develop a new classification scheme by assigning stakeholders tofour categories: external primary, secondary, internal primary and regulatory. Thisapproach paid separate attention to regulatory stakeholders.

Several studies have also relied on Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder saliencyframework, such as Harvey and Schaefer (2001), Cespedes-Lorente et al. (2003), Pelozaand Papania (2008), Mishra and Suar (2010), Paloviita and Luoma-aho (2010) and Cliftonand Amran (2011). However, Mishra and Suar (2010) slightly diverted from Mitchellet al.’s (1997) stakeholder classification scheme by taking only primary stakeholdersinto consideration. Sedereviciute and Valentini (2011) also outlined a relativeclassification using Mitchell et al.’s (1997) approach and classified stakeholders into fourcategories – unconcerned influencers, concerned influencers, concerned lurkers andunconcerned lurkers, who are equivalent to dormant stakeholders, definitive

MRR39,1

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

stakeholders, dependent stakeholders and non-stakeholders, respectively. Moreover,Cespedes-Lorente et al. (2003) modified Mitchell et al.’s (1997) approach to classifystakeholders according to attributes of power, use of power, social and economiclegitimacy in place of power, legitimacy and urgency.

As mentioned above, researchers are more inclined toward relative classifications ofstakeholders than generic classifications in sustainability marketing and strategyliterature, and more emphasis has been placed on studies based on relativeclassifications in the past. In the case of relative classifications, Kaler (2002) relied ondefinitions, whereas Henriques and Sharma (2005) used the resource-dependence theoryto classify stakeholders. Kaler (2002) split stakeholders into three categories – that is,claimant, influencer and combinatory stakeholders – based on various definitions ofstakeholders in the morality and strategy literature. Henriques and Sharma (2005)classified stakeholders based on resource-dependence theory into two categories:resource-independent and resource-dependent stakeholders. However, Banerjee andBonnefous (2011) classified stakeholders using stakeholder reaction, and theoreticallyclassified stakeholders on the basis of their reactions to sustainability strategies assupportive, obstructive and passive stakeholders. Similarly, Girard and Sobczak (2012)provided a new classification scheme on the basis of stakeholders’ corporate and socialengagement in organizations, and classified them into allied, engaged, militant andpassive stakeholders.

Nair and Ndubisi (2011) used stakeholder influence on sustainability strategies topropose their conceptual scheme of stakeholder classification, and suggested threecategories: core influencers, intermediate influencers and moderate influencers. Henriquesand Sadorsky (1999) classified stakeholders into four groups – regulatory, organizational,community and media – while analyzing pressure from stakeholders on firms’environmental commitments. Here, organizational stakeholders are economic stakeholders,while community stakeholders and the media belong to social stakeholders, and regulatorystakeholders are considered separately. In other words, Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) paidattention to economic and social stakeholders, along with regulatory stakeholders. Similarly,Cordano et al. (2004) classified stakeholders into three categories, considering economic andenvironmental stakeholders along with regulatory stakeholders. Kassinis and Vafeas (2006)classified stakeholders into community-based and regulatory, which further meant that theyconsidered social and regulatory stakeholders in their study.

It has been further observed that some researchers have directly used dimensions ofsustainability to classify stakeholders. Uhlaner et al. (2004) classified stakeholders usingtwo dimensions of sustainability: economic and social stakeholders. Yang and Rivers(2009) also worked in a similar direction by taking the social and economic dimensionsof sustainability into consideration, and classified stakeholders into two categories:organizational and social stakeholders. It should be noted here that both studies comeunder the area of social (CSR) marketing and strategy-based literature; therefore, thescope of these two studies is limited to the economic and social dimensions ofsustainability. Sharma and Henriques (2005) discussed the theoretical classification ofstakeholders while assessing the influence of stakeholders on sustainability practices,and classified stakeholders into two categories using all three dimensions ofsustainability, i.e. social-ecological stakeholders and economic stakeholders. They didnot actually classify stakeholders themselves, however, but only discussed thedimensions of sustainability to classify them.

51

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Theyel and Hofmann (2012) used the environmental and social dimensions ofsustainability to classify stakeholders into three categories – i.e. social stakeholders,environmental stakeholders and the media – yet they did not consider economicstakeholders. Murillo-Luna et al. (2008) combined Freeman’s (1984) internal- andexternal-based stakeholder classification scheme with dimensions of sustainability toclassify stakeholders into five categories using structural equation modeling, i.e.external social, corporate government, internal economic, external economic andregulatory stakeholders. They considered economic, social and regulatory stakeholders,but segregated economic stakeholders into three categories: corporate government,internal economic and external economic stakeholders.

Rivera-Camino (2007) used a different approach to analyze stakeholder influence ongreen marketing strategies, and classified stakeholders into four categories: marketstakeholders, social pressure groups, immediate providers and legal stakeholders. Heconsidered economic, social and regulatory stakeholders, but segregated economicstakeholders into market stakeholders and immediate providers. Darnall et al. (2010)outlined a similar classification of stakeholders with four categories: value-chainstakeholders, internal stakeholders, societal stakeholders and regulatory stakeholders.They took social and regulatory stakeholders into consideration, but changed “marketstakeholders” to “value-chain stakeholders”. Moreover, there is a further differencebetween these classification schemes: Rivera-Camino (2007) took immediate providersinto consideration, whereas Darnall et al. (2010) paid attention to internal stakeholders.Vazquez-Brust and Liston-Heyesb (2010) also worked in a similar direction and mixedthe above two approaches. They classified stakeholders into four categories:institutional, internal, social and other stakeholders. They changed the name of themarket/value-chain stakeholders to “institutional stakeholders”, and included socialand regulatory stakeholders in the categories of social and other stakeholders. Almostall these studies have taken economic stakeholders with environmental or socialstakeholders into consideration while studying sustainability marketing and strategy.In addition, some studies have paid separate attention to regulatory stakeholders.

8. Proposed stakeholder classification schemeInterestingly, past researchers have used three approaches to classify key stakeholders:a generic stakeholder classification scheme; an existing classification scheme modifiedor improved according to their own framework; and an entirely new classificationscheme. However, there have been more empirical studies than conceptual studies,which means a higher number of studies have tried to validate different stakeholderclassification schemes. For this reason, there are a higher number of studies based onrelative stakeholder classification schemes compared with those on generic schemes.However, these schemes are not widely accepted among researchers, and have rarelybeen adopted in other studies. In fact, almost all of the conceptual stakeholderclassification schemes have yet to be validated. Therefore, it is evident that pastresearchers have focused most of their efforts on extending generic classificationschemes or introducing their own relative classification schemes.

Based on these findings, this study proposes classifying stakeholders into fourcategories: economic, social, environmental and regulatory (as shown in Figure 5).Economic stakeholders are those who may affect, or be affected during, the achievementof economic and financial objectives and goals; environmental stakeholders may affect,

MRR39,1

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

or be affected during, the achievement of natural environment-related objectives andgoals; social stakeholders may affect, or be affected during, the achievement of societalresponsibility-related objectives and goals; and regulatory stakeholders may affect, orbe affected during, the achievement of overall sustainability objectives and goals.

Several researchers have used different dimensions of sustainability to classifystakeholders, but they have used only one or two dimensions of sustainability, withoutmuch clarity. However, some studies have attempted to classify stakeholders usingdimensions of sustainability but, the stakeholder categories have been given differentnames in similar situations. Ultimately, past researchers have failed to introduce ageneralized stakeholder classification scheme in the area of sustainability marketing,when there is a need for a macro-level stakeholder classification scheme that could takeinto consideration various conceptual and empirical models. Therefore, it is clear thatthere has been a lack of clarity and consensus among researchers with regard tostakeholder classification schemes in the area of sustainability marketing.

However, the proposed model seems to entail within-group homogeneity andacross-group heterogeneity. This stakeholder model also seems to be quite acceptableand applicable to multiple situations. Because stakeholder relationships are dynamic innature, they must be addressed separately and cannot be considered simultaneously.Therefore, this model places different stakeholders in different categories with theirvarying relationships over a period of time, and will help managers to make adjustmentswithin changing stakeholder relationships. Hence, this model introduces a simple andcoherent approach to stakeholder classification in the area of sustainability marketing.

9. ConclusionThis study considered the literature on stakeholder identification and classification inthe field of sustainability marketing. In this process, 60 studies were reviewed andsubjected to content analysis. These studies were then thoroughly analyzed and

Figure 5.Proposed stakeholder

classification

53

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

segregated according to various criteria. The findings of study not only highlight theneed for a rational approach to stakeholder identification but also propose a newstakeholder classification scheme in the area of sustainability marketing. Finally, thestudy gives a clear direction to researchers with respect to conducting further studies onthe subject, and provides direction for mangers and practitioners in terms of managingstakeholders in the light of sustainability marketing.

9.1 Agenda for future researchWhile sufficient amount of work has been carried out on the topic of stakeholderidentification and classification in the field of sustainability marketing, there is stillscope for future studies. As previously mentioned, there are two options for carrying outstakeholder identification in the field of sustainability marketing: first, past literaturecan be used for identifying stakeholders; and second, managers can be asked to identifykey stakeholders. However, one cannot ignore the fact that most past studies have reliedon extant literature or theories to identify stakeholders; therefore, to develop a standardmethodology, both approaches can be mixed to identify stakeholders in future studies.

In addition, although many stakeholder classification schemes have been proposedand utilized by researchers in sustainability marketing and strategy literature, few arebased on a generic classification of stakeholders. Therefore, future studies could bebased on generic classification schemes. In the area of sustainability marketing andstrategy, only a single study, carried out by Clifton and Amran (2011), has discussed thestakeholder identification and classification scheme outlined by Mitchell et al. (1997).Because Mitchell et al.’s (1997) framework is most widely accepted (Neville et al., 2011),it can also be applied to sustainability marketing literature. As far as relativestakeholder classification is concerned, it is clear from the discussion that a consensushas not been reached among researchers, and several relative stakeholder classificationschemes have been introduced in the past. Researchers have also suggested that a newstakeholder classification scheme should be introduced in the field of sustainabilitymarketing (Banerjee et al., 2003; Cordano et al., 2004; Maignan et al., 2005;Rivera-Camino, 2007; Belz and Schmidt-Riediger, 2009). Hence, a macro-levelstakeholder classification scheme is needed that offers homogeneity within groups andheterogeneity across groups.

The findings of the present study also reveal that researchers have used differentdimensions of sustainability in classifying and categorizing stakeholders. However,none of the studies has used all dimensions of sustainability together to identify andclassify stakeholders; therefore, future research can be based on classifyingstakeholders on the basis of all dimensions of sustainability, including economic, socialand environmental. Furthermore, because regulatory stakeholders have also beenconsidered among the dimensions of sustainability in past studies, they can be givenseparate attention. Hence, a stakeholder identification and classification scheme hasbeen proposed here in relation to sustainability marketing, and this can be validated infuture.

The proposed stakeholder identification and classification scheme can be empiricallytested in different countries and industries (manufacturing and service). Moreover, thisscheme can be generalized not only for developed and developing countries but alsofor small, medium and large companies. It will also be interesting to assess thestakeholders’ interests and influences on companies with proactive or reactive

MRR39,1

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

strategies toward sustainability marketing strategy with the help of the proposedstakeholder identification and classification scheme.

9.2 ImplicationsThis literature review not only helps to advance sustainability literature, stakeholdertheory and resource-based theory but also provides significant practical implications.From the discussion on stakeholder identification and classification in the field ofsustainability marketing, a proposed framework for practitioners has been developedthat improves understanding of stakeholder interests and pressures regarding theireffective management in different environments. The study has taken multiplestakeholders into consideration, which will help managers to consider the broad rangeof stakeholders when formulating sustainability marketing strategies.

The study also reveals that managers play a vital role in identifying and managingkey stakeholders. This study will help managers formulate effective sustainabilitymarketing strategies by identifying and classifying key stakeholders according to theirvarying interests. The study will also provide managers with a suitable approachtoward identifying and classifying key stakeholders in relation to sustainabilitymarketing. The identification and classification of influential stakeholders will help infinding ways to improve the performance of the company with respect to sustainabilitymarketing strategies.

The proposed stakeholder classification scheme will make researchers aware of theenvironmental, social and economic interests of stakeholders, and will help to identifywhether stakeholder expectations are being met. Therefore, the research may also helpmanagers meet the expectations of multiple stakeholders more effectively compared tocompetitors, by helping them identify the sustainability needs of various stakeholdersand meet those needs profitably.

The bibliography of literature provides detailed information of studies conducted inthis field that will help academics and practitioners understand the limitations of paststudies. Research gaps have also been identified, which will help researchers to furtherexplore the field.

9.3 LimitationsWhile efforts have been made to thoroughly study the present topic, there are severallimitations. First, only a few studies were found on the topic of stakeholder identificationand classification in relation to sustainability marketing. Second, the title-basedadvance search was carried out to identify studies on the topic; therefore, some relevantstudies may have been left out during this process. Finally, the proposed stakeholderclassification scheme does not address the situation of multiple interests thatstakeholders may have, such as socio-economic, socio-ecological, etc.; this could beaddressed in future studies.

ReferencesAlniacik, U., Alniacik, E. and Genc, N. (2011), “How corporate social responsibility information

influences stakeholders’ intentions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 234-245.

Banerjee, S.B. and Bonnefous, A. (2011), “Stakeholder management and sustainability strategiesin the French nuclear industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 124-140.

55

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate environmentalism: antecedents andinfluence of industry type”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-122.

Belz, F.M. and Peattie, K. (2009), Sustainable Marketing: A Global Perspective, Wiley, Chichester.

Belz, F.M. and Schmidt-Riediger, B. (2009), “Marketing strategies in the age of sustainabledevelopment: evidence from the food industry”, Business Strategy and the Environment,Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 401-416.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2008), “Stakeholder marketing: beyond the four Ps and thecustomer”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 113-116.

Boer, J. (2003), “Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions forstakeholders”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 254-264.

Bremmers, H., Omta, O., Kemp, R. and Haverkamp, D. (2007), “Do stakeholder groups influenceenvironmental management system development in the Dutch agri-food sector?”, BusinessStrategy and the Environment, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 214-231.

Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A. (2003), “Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholdermanagement perspective”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 453-470.

Cardskadden, H. and Lober, D.J. (1998), “Environmental stakeholder management as businessstrategy: the case of the corporate wildlife habitat enhancement programme”, Journal ofEnvironmental Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 183-202.

Cespedes-Lorente, J., Burgos-Jimenez, J.D. and Alvarez-Gil, M.J. (2003), “Stakeholders’environmental influence: an empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry”,Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 333-358.

Charter, M. (1992), Greener Marketing: A Responsible Approach to Business, Greenleaf Publishing,Sheffield.

Clarkson, M. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate socialperformance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.

Clifton, D. and Amran, A. (2011), “The stakeholder approach: a sustainability perspective”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 121-136.

Cordano, M., Frieze, I. and Ellis, K. (2004), “Entangled affiliations and attitudes: an analysis of theinfluences on environmental policy stakeholders’ behavioral intentions”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 27-40.

Crane, A. and Ruebottom, T. (2011), “Stakeholder theory and social identity: rethinkingstakeholder identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 77-87.

Cronin, J.J., Smith, J.S., Gleim, M.R., Ramirez, E. and Martinez, J.D. (2011), “Green marketingstrategies: an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present”, Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 158-174.

Dam, K.Y. and Apeldoorn, P.A.C. (1996), “Sustainable marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 45-56.

Darnall, N., Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (2010), “Adopting proactive environmental strategy:the influence of stakeholders and firm size”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6,pp. 1072-1094.

Delmas, M. and Toffel, M.W. (2004), “Stakeholders and environmental management practices: aninstitutional framework”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 209-222.

Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, NewSociety Publishers, Stoney Creek, CT.

MRR39,1

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Ferrell, O.C., Gonzalez-Padron, T.G., Hult, T.M. and Maignan, I. (2010), “From marketorientation to stakeholder orientation”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 29No. 1, pp. 93-96.

Fisk, G. (1974), Marketing and the Ecological Crisis, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Toronto, ON.

Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F. and Castka, P. (2009), “Sustainability in the New Zealand wineindustry: drivers, stakeholders and practices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 11,pp. 992-998.

Gago, R.F. and Antolin, M.N. (2004), “Stakeholder salience in corporate environmental strategy”,Corporate Governance, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 65-76.

Garvare, R. and Johansson, P. (2010), “Management for sustainability – a stakeholder theory”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 737-744.

Girard, C. and Sobczak, A. (2012), “Towards a model of corporate and social stakeholderengagement: analyzing the relations between a French mutual bank and its members”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 215-225.

Gonzalez-Benito, J., Lannelongue, G. and Queiruga, D. (2011), “Stakeholders and environmentalmanagement systems: a synergistic influence on environmental imbalance”, Journal ofCleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 14, pp. 1622-1630.

Goodpaster, K. (1991), “Business ethics and stakeholder analysis”, Business Ethics Quarterly,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 53-73.

Harvey, B. and Schaefer, A. (2001), “Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: astudy of UK water and electricity utilities”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 243-260.

Henion, K.E. and Kinnear, T.C. (1976), Ecological Marketing, American Marketing Association,Chicago, IL.

Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1999), “The relationship between environmental commitment andmanagerial perceptions of stakeholder importance”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 87-99.

Henriques, I. and Sharma, S. (2005), “Pathways of stakeholder influence in the Canadian forestryindustry”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 384-398.

Hult, G.T.M. (2011), “Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Hult, G.T.M., Mena, J.A., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2011), “Stakeholder marketing: a definitionand conceptual framework”, AMS Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 44-65.

Jamali, D. (2008), “A Stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspectiveinto theory and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 213-231.

Jawahar, I.M. and McLaughlin, G.L. (2001), “Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: anorganizational life cycle approach”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 397-414.

Johnson, D.B. and Macy, G. (2001), “Using environmental paradigms to understand and change anorganization’s response to stakeholders”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 314-335.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Pearson, Essex.

Kaler, J. (2002), “Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 91-100.

57

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. (2006), “Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 145-159.

Kirchoff, J.F., Koch, C. and Nichols, B.S. (2011), “Stakeholder perceptions of green marketing: theeffect of demand and supply integration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution andLogistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 684-696.

Knox, S., Maklan, S. and French, P. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility: exploring stakeholderrelationships and program reporting across leading FTSE companies”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2007), “Towards strategic stakeholder management? Integratingperspectives on sustainability challenges such as corporate responses to climate change”,Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, Vol. 7No. 4, pp. 370-378.

Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2005), “Worth repeating”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4,pp. 91-103.

Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), “Social marketing: an approach to planned social change”, TheJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-12.

Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage Publications,Beverly Hills.

Kumar, V., Rahman, Z. and Kazmi, A.A. (2013), “Sustainability marketing strategy: an analysis ofrecent literature”, Global Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 601-625.

Kumar, V., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A.A. and Goyal, P. (2012), “Evolution of Sustainability asmarketing strategy: beginning of new era”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,Vol. 37, pp. 482-489.

Laan, G.V.D., Ees, H.V. and Witteloostuijn, A.V. (2008), “Corporate social and financialperformance: an extended stakeholder theory and empirical test with accountingmeasures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 299-310.

Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008), “Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory thatmoves us”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1152-1189.

Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrativeframework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-19.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), “A stakeholder model for implementing socialresponsibility in marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10,pp. 956-977.

Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., Hult, G.T.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (2011), “Stakeholder orientation:development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing”, Journal ofStrategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 313-338.

Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2012), “A model for stakeholder classification andstakeholder relationships”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 1861-1879.

Miles, R. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Structure, Strategy and Process, McGraw Hill,New York, NY.

Miller, R.L. and Lewis, W.F. (1991), “A stakeholder approach to marketing management using thevalue exchange models”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 55-68.

Mishra, S. and Suar, D. (2010), “Do stakeholder management strategy and salience influencecorporate social responsibility in Indian companies?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6No. 2, pp. 306-327.

MRR39,1

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identificationand salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-886.

Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C. and Rivera-Torres, P. (2008), “Why do patterns ofenvironmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach”, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 1225-1240.

Nair, S.R. and Ndubisi, N.O. (2011), “Stakeholder influences on environmental marketing”, Journalof Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-76.

Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Whitwell, G.J. (2011), “Stakeholder salience revisited: refining,redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool”, Journal of Business Ethics,Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 357-378.

Paloviita, A. and Luoma-aho, V. (2010), “Recognizing definitive stakeholders in corporateenvironmental management”, Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 306-316.

Parent, M.M. and Deephouse, D.L. (2007), “A case study of stakeholder identification andprioritization by managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Parmar, B.L., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Purnell, L. and Colle, S.D. (2010),“Stakeholder theory: the state of the art”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4No. 1, pp. 403-445.

Peattie, K. (2001), “Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing”, The MarketingReview, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 129-146.

Peloza, J. and Papania, L. (2008), “The missing link between corporate social responsibility andfinancial performance: stakeholder salience and identification”, Corporate ReputationReview Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 169-181.

Perrini, F. and Tencati, A. (2006), “Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for newcorporate performance evaluation and reporting systems”, Business Strategy and theEnvironment, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 296-308.

Polonsky, M.J. and Ottman, J.A. (1998a), “Exploratory examination of whether marketers includestakeholders in the green new product development process”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 269-275.

Polonsky, M.J. and Ottman, J.A. (1998b), “Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new productdevelopment process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 533-557.

Polonsky, M.J., Rosenberger, P.J. III and Ottman, J.A. (1998), “Developing green products:learning from stakeholders”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 10No. 1, pp. 22-43.

Raghubir, P., Roberts, J., Lemon, K.N. and Winer, R.S. (2010), “Why, when, and how shouldthe effect of marketing be measured? A stakeholder perspective for corporatesocial responsibility metrics”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 66-77.

Reuter, C., Goebel, P. and Foerstl, K. (2012), “The impact of stakeholder orientation onsustainability and cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions”, Journal of Purchasingand Supply Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 270-281.

Rivera-Camino, J. (2007), “Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: a stakeholder perspective”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1328-1358.

Rowley, T. (1997), “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.

Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragon-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2008), “The influence ofstakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: the moderating effects of

59

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

complexity, uncertainty and munificence”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 185-203.

Savage, G., Nix, T., Whitehead, C. and Blair, J. (1991), “Strategies for assessing and managingorganizational stakeholders”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 61-75.

Sedereviciute, K. and Valentini, C. (2011), “Towards a more holistic stakeholder analysisapproach: mapping known and undiscovered stakeholders from social media”,International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 221-239.

Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework forsustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,pp. 1699-1710.

Seuring, S.A., Koplin, J., Behrens, T. and Schneidewind, U. (2003), “Sustainability assessment inthe German detergent industry: from stakeholder involvement to sustainability indicators”,Sustainable Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 199-212.

Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005), “Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in theCanadian forest services industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 159-180.

Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. and Dikshit, A.K. (2007), “Development of compositesustainability performance index for steel industry”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 7 No. 3,pp. 565-588.

Smith, N.C., Drumwright, M.E. and Gentile, M.C. (2010), “The new marketing myopia”, Journal ofPublic Policy & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4-11.

Sprengel, D.C. and Busch, T. (2011), “Stakeholder engagement and environmental strategy:the case of climate change”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 6,pp. 351-364.

Starik, M. (1994), “What is a stakeholder?”, Business & Society, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 89-95.

Studer, S., Tsang, S., Welford, R. and Hills, P. (2008), “SMEs and voluntary environmentalinitiatives: a study of stakeholders’ perspectives in Hong Kong”, Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 285-301.

Tang, Z. and Tang, J. (2012), “Stakeholder – firm power difference, stakeholders’ CSR orientation,and SMEs’ environmental performance in China”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 436-455.

Theyel, G. and Hofmann, K. (2012), “Stakeholder relations and sustainability practices of US smalland medium-sized manufacturers”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 12,pp. 1110-1133.

Torres, A., Bijmolt, T.H.A., Tribo, J.A. and Verhoef, P. (2012), “Generating global brand equitythrough corporate social responsibility to key stakeholders”, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 13-24.

Uhlaner, L.M., van Goor-Balk, H.A. and Masurel, E. (2004), “Family business and corporate socialresponsibility in a sample of Dutch firms”, Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 186-194.

Ulrich, W. (1983), Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy,Wiley, Chichester.

Vazquez-Brust, D.A. and Liston-Heyesb, C. (2010), “Environmental management intentions: anempirical investigation of Argentina’s polluting firms”, Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1111-1122.

MRR39,1

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Vos, J.F.J. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 141-152.

Weber, J. and Marley, K.A. (2012), “In search of stakeholder salience exploring corporate socialand sustainability reports”, Business and Society, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 626-649.

Whysall, P. (2000), “Addressing ethical issues in retailing: a stakeholder perspective”, TheInternational Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 305-318.

Winn, M.I. (2001), “Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology”, Businessand Society, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 133-166.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), “Our common future:Brundtland Report”, available at: www.worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987-brundtland.php (accessed 1 December, 2010).

Yang, X. and Rivers, C. (2009), “Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs’ subsidiaries: a stakeholderand institutional perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 155-169.

About the authorsVinod Kumar completed his BTech (Mechanical) and MBA in 2004 and 2008, respectively.Starting his career with sales and marketing, he also has work experience in teaching. He hascompleted his PhD from the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,Roorkee, and joined as an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Management Technology,Nagpur. His current interests include Marketing, Strategy and Sustainability. Vinod Kumar is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: vkmehta.iitr@gmail.com

Zillur Rahman has received his MBA and PhD in Business Administration. Currently he isworking as an Associate Professor at the Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute ofTechnology, Roorkee. His research interests are business strategy and international marketing,and he has several publications in reputed national and international journals. He was therecipient of the Emerald Literati Club Highly Commended Award in 2004, and Emerald/AIMAResearch Fund Award in 2009.

A.A. Kazmi has received his ME Degree in Environmental Engineering from Asian Institute ofTechnology, Bangkok. He got his Doctorate (Environmental Engineering) from the University ofTokyo. Currently he is working as an Associate Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering,Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. His major fields of interest are sustainability, water andwastewater treatment and solid waste management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

61

Stakeholderidentification

andclassification

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Ynte K. van Dam. Sustainable Marketing . [Crossref]2. Vinod Kumar, Zillur Rahman, A. A. Kazmi. 2016. Assessing the Influence of Stakeholders on

Sustainability Marketing Strategy of Indian Companies. SAGE Open 6:3, 215824401666799.[Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 0

9:56

12

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)