Stakeholder theory may help health promoters to make changes at the organizational and policy level to promote health. A stakeholder is any individual, group, or organization that can influence an organization. The organization that is the focus for influence attempts is called the focal organization. The more salient a stakeholder is and the more central in the network, the stronger the influence. As stakeholders, health promoters may use communicative, compromise, deinstitutionalization, or coercive methods through an ally or a coalition. A hypothetical case study, involving adolescent use of harmful legal products, illustrates the process of applying stakeholder theory to strategic decision making.
AbrahamC.Graham-RoweE. (2009). Are worksite interventions effective in increasing physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 3, 108-144.
2.
BartholomewL. K.ParcelG. S.KokG.GottliebN. H.FernándezM. E. (2011). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BoonstraA.de VriesJ. (2008). Managing stakeholders around inter-organizational systems: A diagnostic approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 190-201.
4.
BrownP.LysonM.JenkinsT. (2011). From diagnosis to social diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 939-943.
5.
BrownP.Morello-FroschR.BrodyJ. G.AltmanR. G.RudelR. A.SenierL.. . . SimpsonR. (2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health, 9, 39.
6.
BrysonJ. (1995). Strategic planning for public and non-profit organizations (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
ButterfossF. D. (2007). Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
ButterfossF. D.KeglerM. C.FranciscoV. T. (2008). Mobilizing organizations for health promotion: Theories of organizational changes. In GlanzK.RimerB. K.ViswanathK. (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice (4th ed., pp. 335-362). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ClavierC.de LeeuwE. (Eds.). (2013). Health promotion and the policy process. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
11.
CourserM. W.HolderH. D.CollinsD. (2008). Evaluating retailer behavior in preventing youth access to harmful legal products: A feasibility test. Evaluation Review (2009), 33, 497-515.
12.
CrossR.BorgattiS.ParkerA. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice networkSocial Networks, 23, 215-235.
13.
CrossL. R.ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14.
de BakkerF. G. A.den HondF. (2008a). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business and Society, 47(2), 8-20.
15.
DeeganC.BlomquistC. (2006). Stakeholders influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between the world wide fund for nature and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 343-372.
16.
den HondF.de BakkerF. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901-924.
FroomanJ. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191-205.
19.
FroomanJ.MurrellA. J., (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business & Society, 44(1), 3-31.
20.
GilA.PolikinaO.KorolevaN.LeonD. A.McKeeM. (2010). Alcohol policy in a Russian region: A stakeholder analysis. European Journal of Public Health, 20, 588-594.
21.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
22.
GreenL. W.KreuterM. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
23.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
24.
HeaneyC. A.IsraelB. A. (2008). Social networks and social support. In GlanzK.RimerB. K.ViswanathK. (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 189-210). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
HeffernanJ.O’BrienD. (2010). Stakeholder influence strategies in bidding for a professional sport franchise license. Sport Management Review, 13, 255-268.
26.
HewardS.HutchinsC.KeleherH. (2007). Organizational change—Key to capacity building and effective health promotion. Health Promotion International, 22, 170-178.
27.
HoeijmakersM. J. A.De LeeuwE.KenisP.De VriesN. K. (2007). Local health policy development processes in the Netherlands: An expanded toolbox for health promotion. Health Promotion International, 22, 112-121.
28.
JohnstonL. D.O’MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G.SchulenbergJ. E. (2012). Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2011. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
29.
KnaiC.McKeeM.PuduleI. (2011). Soft drinks and obesity in Latvia: A stakeholder analysis. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 295-299.
30.
KokG.GottliebN. H.CommersM.SmerecnikC. (2008). The ecological approach in health promotion programs: A decade later. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22, 437-442.
31.
KokG.GottliebN. H.PanneR.SmerecnikC. (2012). Methods for environmental change: An exploratory study. BMC Public Health, 12, 1037.
32.
LienertJ.SchnetzerF.IngoldK. (2013). Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. Journal of Environmental Management, 125, 134-148.
33.
McCabeS. E.BoydC. J. (2005). Sources of prescription drugs for illicit use. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1342-1350.
34.
McCabeS. E.TeterC. J.BoydC. J. (2004). The use, misuse, and diversion of prescription stimulants among middle and high school students. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 1095-1116.
35.
MinklerM. (Ed.). (2008). Community organizing and building for health (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
36.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
37.
National Cancer Institute. (2007). Greater than the sum: System thinking in tobacco control. (DHHS Publication No. 06-6085, Tobacco Control Monograph No. 18). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
38.
NevilleB. A.BellS. J.WhitwellG. (2004). Stakeholder salience revisited: Toward an actionable tool for the management of stakeholders. Academy of Management Proceedings, D1-D6.
39.
NewtonL. H. (1999). Truth is the daughter of time: The real story of the Nestle case. Business and Society Review, 104, 367-395.
40.
PageC. (2002). The determinants of organization stakeholder salience in public health. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 8(5), 76-84.
41.
PrellC.HubacekK.ReedM. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 501-518.
42.
PrellC.ReedM.RacinL.HubacekK. (2010). Competing structure, competing views: The role of formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecology and Society, 15, 4. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art34/
43.
ReedM. S.GravesA.DandyN.PosthumusH.HubacekK.MorrisJ.. . . StringerL. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933-1949.
44.
RowleyT. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887-910.
45.
RowleyT.MoldoveanuM. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204-219.
46.
SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.). (2004). Blackwell companion to social movements. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
47.
ten KateS.HaverkampS.MahmoodF.FeldbergF. (2010, June). Social network influences on technology acceptance: A matter of tie strength, centrality and density. Paper presented at the 23rd Bled eConference, “eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society,”Bled, Slovenia.
48.
TenkasiR.MohrmanS. A.MohrmanA. J. (1998). Accelerated learning during transition. In MohrmanS. A.GalbraithJ. R.LawlerE. E. (Eds.), Tomorrow’s organization: Crafting winning capabilities in a dynamic world (pp. 330-361). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
49.
TillingM. V.TiltC. A. (2010). The edge of legitimacy: Voluntary social and environmental reporting in Rothmans’ 1956-1999 annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(1), 55-81.
50.
van Nieuw-AmerongenM. E.KremersS. P. J.de VriesN. K.KokG., (2011). The use of prompts, increased accessibility, visibility, and aesthetics of the stairwell to promote stair use in a university building. Environment & Behavior, 43, 131-139.
51.
WallackL. (2008). Media advocacy: A strategy for empowering people and communities. In MinklerM. (Ed.), Community organizing and community building for health (2nd ed., pp. 419-432). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
52.
WaltG. (1994). Health policy: An introduction to process and power. London, England: Zed Books.
53.
WasieleskiD. (2001). Agenda-building theory: A stakeholder salience approach for determining agenda placement. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2, 113-130.
54.
WinnM. I.KellerL. R. (2001). A modeling methodology for multiobjective multistakeholder decisions: Implications for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10, 166-182.
55.
ZietsmaC.WinnM. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business & Society, 47, 68-101.
