Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Stakeholder dialogue is an effective way for a company to enhance its sensitivity to the operational environment and to increase stakeholders’ understandings of the dilemmas facing the company. An open and transparent dialogue process can create fertile ground for solving tensions in stakeholder relations. However, the process is not always straightforward. This article presents a case where a Finnish forest industry company’s decision to build a pulp mill in Uruguay raised both opposing and supporting views among the local interest groups. The company faced the challenge of how to engage with the hostile, opposing groups in order to ensure their operations in Uruguay. By engaging in this case, students will deepen their understanding of the multitude of stakeholder interests and learn to facilitate a dialogue that seeks to find solutions and avoid conflict in a situation of a stakeholder dispute.

Keywords

Stakeholder relationships stakeholder dialogue multinational business foreign investment conflict

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burchell

Cook

(2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 154–170.

Burchell

Cook

(2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 35–46.

Calvano

(2008). Multinational corporations and local communities: A critical analysis of conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 793–805.

Crane

Livesey

(2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In Andriof

Waddock

Husted

Rahman

S. Sutherland

(Eds), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 39–52). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.

Freeman

R.E.

Evan

W.M.

(1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.

Freeman

R.E.

Harrison

Wicks

(2007). Managing for stakeholders. Survival, reputation, and success. London: Yale University Press.

Ghemawat

(2007). Redefining global strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hart

Sharma

(2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.

Iivonen

(2005a, 22 May). Fray Bentosin pikkukaupunki toivottaa sellutehtaan työpaikat tervetulleeksi. [The small town of Fray Bentos welcomes pulp mill jobs]. Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 6 March 2012, from http://www.hs.fi

10.

Iivonen

(2005b, 11 August). Argentiina vaatii Botnian selluhankkeen keskeyttämistä. [Argentina demands Botnia’s pulp mill project to be suspended]. Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 6 March 2012, from http://www.hs.fi

11.

Iivonen

(2007, 6 October). Argentiinalainen ympäristöjärjestö väärensi Botnian nettisivut. [Argentine environmental organization forged Botnia’s website]. Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 6 March 2012, from http://www.hs.fi

12.

Jones

T.M.

Wicks

A.C.

(1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

13.

Kaptein

van Tulder

(2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.

14.

Meyer

K.E.

Mudambi

Narula

(2011). Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2), 235–252.

15.

Mitchell

R.K.

Agle

B.R.

Wood

D.J.

(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

16.

O’Riordan

Fairbrass

(2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.

17.

Pedersen

E.R.

(2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163.

18.

Pohjola

(2005, 8 December). Botnian sellutehtaan vastustajat osoittivat mieltään Argentiinassa. [The opposers of Botnia’s pulp mill demonstrated in Argentina]. Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 6 March 2012, from http://www.hs.fi

19.

Oy Metsä-Botnia Ab (2006). Botnia willing to suspend installation [Press Release]. Retrieved 28 October 2011, from http://www.botnia.fi

20.

Oy Metsä-Botnia Ab (2007). Botnia’s pulp mill project in Uruguay [Press Release]. Retrieved 28 October 2011, from http://www.botnia.fi

21.

Rowley

T.J.

(1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

22.

Savage

G.T.

Nix

T.W.

Whitehead

C.J.

Blair

J.D.

(1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.

23.

van de Kerkhof

(2006). Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39(3), 279–299.

24.

Width

(2006, 6 May). Argentiinan valtio vei sellutehdaskiistan Haagiin [The Argentine government took the pulp mill dispute to The Hague]. Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 6 March 2012, from http://www.hs.fi

Managing Stakeholder Dialogue: The Case of Botnia in Uruguay

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References