Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade

Abstract

Stakeholder relations that are available through networks of various sorts are one benefit from social capital. According to the stakeholder approach to organisations, those relationships that contain most of the important attributes - such as power, legitimacy, frequency of contact and urgency - hypothetically dominate the business environment. This has caused modern corporations to view chiefly the dominant stakeholders as important. This study tests the importance of these attributes in early modern international trade; in other words, which attributes played a major role in the relations between Finnish tradesmen and their foreign contacts? The archives of two major Finnish trading houses from 1781 to 1852 provide sources for studying these stakeholder relations. The results of the study seem to confirm the importance of legitimacy and power in stakeholder relations, but they particularly emphasise the significance of frequency and urgency. Furthermore, dealings repeated over time between the parties created a resource dependency, thus further underlining frequency and power as important stakeholder attributes.social capital, stakeholder relations, early modern business,

Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?

“…affects (Freeman 1984); benefits (Ojala and Luoma-aho 2008), continuing participation (Clarkson 1995), gives meaning and definition to (Wicks et al 1994), harms (Ojala and Luoma-aho 2008); helps (Miller and Lewis 1991), hurts (Miller and Lewis 1991); impacts (Post 1989), influences (Starik 1994); interacts (Näsi 1995), supports (SRI 1963) and threatens (Polonsky 1996). • How the organisation impacts the stakeholder?…”

The Social Investment Capital and the Cargo Volume Transported by Sea: A VAR Approach for Vietnam

“…However, most of the papers relate to their country's social capital; for example, José Ramon Montero and Mariano Torcal in the paper "Political Dissatisfaction in Contemporary Democracies: Social capital, institutions, and politics" (2012) [4]; "The Otavalo trade diasporas: social capital and transnational entrepreneurship" of David Kyle (2011) [5]; "Social capital and the transition to democracy" of Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner"(2003) [6]; "Stakeholder relations as social capital in early modern international trade" by Jari Ojala and Vilma Lounma-aho (2008) [7]; and "Social capital, institutional innovation and Atlantic trade before 1800" by Robin Pearson and David Richardson [8]. In Vietnam, there are also some papers which are listed hereby: "Enhancing the effects of social capital allocation in farming industry of Thua Thien-Hue Province" (2015, Tran Viet Nguyen) [9]; "The fact of the public social capital" (2013, Trinh Mai Van, Nguyen Van Dai) [10]; "Administrating the social capital for infrastructure" (2014, Ho Thi Mai Huong) [11].…”

Ethical Hateholders and Negative Engagement. A Challenge for Organisational Communication

“…Especially of interest for negative engagement is the formation of negative emotions, which could lead to stakeholder anger and result in losses for the organisation (Coombs & Holladay, 2007;. We call stakeholders of negative experiences and emotions hateholders (Luoma-aho, 2008(Luoma-aho, , 2010, due to their ability to harm the organisation and its reputation. Stakeholders become hateholders once their negative engagement is public.…”