Stakeholder Valuing: A Process for Identifying the Interrelationships between Firm and Stakeholder Attributes

Abstract

As firms are creating and recreating themselves as stakeholder corporations, tensions mount between a firm's fiduciary duties to its shareholders and the broader responsibilities inherent in a stakeholder focus. Firms have employed several techniques to help resolve this tension with limited success. We suggest that the next step in reducing this tension is formally accounting for stakeholder value through changes in financial reporting. We contend that stakeholders have a financial value to the firm that can and should be accounted for through the firm's financial reporting system. We propose a three-step process we call stakeholder valuing (SV) to begin a conversation regarding how such a method can be created. SV begins with codifying the firm's identity as a stakeholder entity, moves to assessing stakeholder value that's consistent with that identity, and concludes with accounting for and reporting that value. What we are suggesting will be seen by some as a radical change in accounting practices but we believe it is necessary as we move toward a consistent, reliable, verifiable, transparent, and comparable means of accounting for the true value of a stakeholder corporation.

Joint Value as a Measure of Sea Trade Port Stakeholder Effect

“…The research hypothesis was that joint value created in the maritime industry may evaluate the stakeholder effect related to industry alternative development scenarios. Carlon and Downs (Carlon and Downs 2014) have suggested a stakeholder valuing process by valuing customers with tax expenses (including profit tax). They accounted for primary stakeholders, employees, and customers as intangible assets that are capitalized at historical values and amortized over expected lives (valued by staff costs, social fare, and profit).…”

The Principal-Agent Theory and its Influence on the Quality of Assurance Services

“…Auditor, je-li tlačen ze strany objednatele k určitému chování, mění svou materialitu na vyšší úroveň. Maximální velikost materiality 5 , kterou potom auditor nastaví, je na úrovni M2. Tato materialita je riziková, ale z pohledu auditora ještě teoreticky obhájitelná.…”

Illustrating Conflicts among Project Stakeholders in Sustainable Project Management

“…Having said this, such different phenomena of stakeholder-centric constructions and compositions of conflicts pose an interesting research exploration into the project management landscape and contemporary literatures laying the foundation for prototyping the potential typology of conflicts from multifaceted perspectives (Adderley & Mellor, 2014;Ayuso et al, 2014;Carlon & Downs, 2014;Chakhar & Saad, 2014;Garriga, 2014;Golob & Podnar, 2014;Hörisch et al, 2014;Moriarty, 2014;Ni et al, 2014;Oriordan & Fairbrass, 2014;Retolaza et al, 2014;Scheer et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2014). The problem formulation thus depicts the clear-cut research gap in understanding the typology, categorization and classification of conflicts relevant to the project management domain at a meso level of analysis as focused on an organization's project management context.…”

“…With this evolutionary, emerging and changing properties of conflicts in the project management context (Tukiainen et al, 2010), therefore understanding the different set-ups of conflict also becomes significant for the sustainable project management (Adderley & Mellor, 2014;Ayuso et al, 2014;Carlon & Downs, 2014;Chakhar & Saad, 2014;Garriga, 2014;Golob & Podnar, 2014;Hörisch et al, 2014;Moriarty, 2014;Ni et al, 2014;Oriordan & Fairbrass, 2014;Retolaza et al, 2014;Scheer et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2014). Okoye et al (2013) have examined the nexus of corporate disclosure of social performance on corporate stakeholder conflict management where stakeholder groups represent divergent interests in the activities of any corporation.…”

“…Ensuring high quality leader-member exchanges (Northhouse, 2013) will avoid stakeholder conflicts building effective dyads and network partnerships throughout the project life-cycle (Cobb, 2012;Tolbert & Hall, 2009). The studies of Graen and Uhl-Bien as elucidated by Northhouse (2013) are quite relevant for project management which suggests leaderships making in three progressive stages: (1) the stranger phase-with lower quality LMX exchanges and self-interested actions/performances of stakeholders, (2) the acquaintance phase-with medium quality LMX exchanges and room for more roles, responsibilities and challenges for stakeholders, and (3) the mature partnership phase-with high quality LMX exchanges and effective dependencies with the stakeholders of the project-in order to understand the progressive conflict stages amongst the project stakeholders as well (Carlon & Downs, 2014;Chakhar & Saad, 2014;Garriga, 2014).…”