Stakeholder engagement to replace traditional activities in Reputation Management System: insights from Ukrainian food processing companies
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.26
-
Article InfoVolume 16 2018, Issue #4, pp. 314-330
- Cited by
- 1140 Views
-
156 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Engaging stakeholders in reputation management processes in the digital economy, including through the use of their activity on the Internet and social networks, is a way to reduce the irrational reputation-support activity of the company’s management and staff. Given the empirical research data (sociological survey) on the Ukrainian food processing companies, the article analyzes stakeholder engagement to replace traditional activities of the company’s management and personnel in the reputation management system. As a result, the author’s hypothesis was proved that the natural development (increasing the maturity level) of the Reputation Management System (RMS) takes place towards a gradual transfer of reputation management functions from managers to enterprise stakeholders, that is, the traditional reputation activity of the company’s management and personnel is being replaced by stakeholder engagement. It is also proved that the level of development of the reputation management organizational system (organizational preconditions) should be high, but aimed not so much at ensuring the activity of the enterprise management and personnel to maintain its reputation, but rather at the involving stakeholders’ delegated to manage the company reputation.
It was found that the prioritizing stakeholder engagement over traditional reputation management activities at the Ukrainian food processing companies is in its infancy. The target state of the reputation management system, where stakeholder engagement is a priority over management activities, was found only in two enterprises out of 18 studied; in 11 of them, these two parameters are balanced, and in remaining five, traditional activity outwalks engagement. The results of the study of the organizational prerequisites for reputation management among enterprises preferring stakeholder engagement show that they have the following seven elements: 1) internal experts in filling and supporting the corporate website and the enterprise pages and brands on social networks; 2) corporate media editorial/text writers among enterprise staff members; 3) a specialized PR unit (reputation management department); 4) the reputa¬tion management business process is regulated; 5) the functional responsibilities of the reputation management participants are integrated with the job descriptions of the relevant employees; 6) a documented formalized PR strategy and operational plans for PR work in various time horizons; 7) a documented formalized plan of anti-crisis PR activities. The above elements make it possible to provide recommendations on the reputation management planning for enterprises seeking to take stakeholder engagement advantages in reputation management.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)J54, M11, M31
-
References35
-
Tables3
-
Figures5
-
- Figure 1. Components of the enterprise reputation management system
- Figure 2. Maturity degree-based distribution of RMS models of Ukrainian food processing companies depending on the stakeholder engagement in reputation management
- Figure 3. Organizational profile of the Carlsberg Ukraine RMS
- Figure 4. Organizational profile of the Vitmark Ukraine RMS
- Figure A1. Significance of reputational factors influencing consumer attitudes towards Ukrainian food processing companies, points (on the 0 to 10 scale)
-
- Table 1. Formalized description of the RMS models of the food processing companies under study
- Table A1. Classification of organizational profiles of the enterprise RMS
- Table A2. Activity of use of RM tools according to RMS stakeholder vectors of the Ukrainian enterprises, %
-
- Anbarasan, P., & Sushil, P. (2018). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Enterprise: Evolving a Conceptual Framework, and a Case Study of ITC. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 282-299.
- Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (180 p.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
- Aula, P. (2011). Meshworked reputation: Publicists’ views on the reputational impacts of online communication. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 28-36.
- Benn, S., Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2016). Reducing reputational risk: Evaluating stakeholder salience and prioritising stakeholder claims. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 34(6), 828-842.
- Blackburn, N., Hooper, V., Abratt, R., & Brown, J. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in corporate reporting: towards building a strong reputation. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 36(4), 484-497.
- Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-114.
- Cho, M., Furey, L. D., & Mohr, T. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility on social media: Strategies, stakeholders, and public engagement on corporate Facebook. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 52-69.
- Clark, A. F., Maxwell, S. P., & Anestaki, A. (2016). Bach, Beethoven, and benefactors: Facebook engagement between symphonies and their stakeholders. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(2), 96-108.
- Desai, V. M. (2018). Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of organizational legitimacy and learning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 220-244.
- Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). A stage to engage: Social media use and corporate reputation. Tourism Management, 47, 58-67.
- Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P., Buyukcan-Tetik, A., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2015). Online Conversation and Corporate Reputation: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Exposure to the Social Media Activities of a Highly Interactive Company. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 632-648.
- Fenneto, H. (2004). Интервью и опросник: формы, процедуры, результаты [Intervyu i oprosnik: formy, protsedury, rezultaty] (160 p.). St. Petersburg, Peter.
- Freeman, R. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315-327.
- Greenwood, M., & van Buren, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organization-stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425-438.
- Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations (576 p.) (1st ed.). N. Y.: Cengage Learning.
- Gyrd-Jones, R. I., & Kornum, N. (2013). Managing the co-created brand: Value and cultural complementarity in online and offline multi-stakeholder ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1484-1493.
- Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Manage¬ment Journal, 35(12), 1727-1748.
- Hosking, G. (2010). Trust: Money, Markets and Society (Manifestos for the 21st Century) (92 p.). Calcutta: Seagull Books.
- Ji, Y. G., Li, C., North, M., & Liu, J. (2017). Staking reputation on stakeholders: How does stakeholders’ Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s reputation? Public Relations Review, 43(1), 201-210.
- Johnston, K. A. (2014). Public Relations and Engagement: Theoretical Imperatives of a Multidimensional Concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 381-383.
- Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19.
- Midin, M., Joseph, C., & Mohamed, N. (2017). Promoting societal governance: Stakeholders’ engagement disclosure on Malaysian local authorities’ websites. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1672-1683.
- Noland, J., & Phillips, R., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (Guest Editors) (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews: Corporate social responsibility, 12(1), 39-49 (Special Issue).
- Reputation Institute (2018). Global RepTrak® – Annual Ranking of Most Reputable Companies Worldwide.
- Romenti, S. (2010). Reputation and stakeholder engagement: An Italian case study. Journal of Communication Management, 14(4), 306-318.
- Strand, R., Freeman, R. E. (2015). Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 65-85.
- Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s Public Relations Tactics. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 207-214.
- Reputation Institute (2014). The 2014 Reputation Leaders Study.
- Timothy, C. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2018). Activist stakeholders challenging organizations: Enkindling stakeholder-initiated engagement. In The Handbook of Communication Engagement (pp. 269-283).
- Viglia, G., Pera, R., & Bigne, E. (2018). The determinants of stakeholder engagement in digital platforms. Journal of Business Research, 89, 404- 410.
- Vracheva, V., Judge, W. Q., & Madden, T. (2016). Enterprise strategy concept, measurement, and validation: Integrating stakeholder engagement into the firm’s strategic architecture. European Management Journal, 34(4), 374-385.
- Whysall, P. (2005). Retailers’ press release activity: Market signals for stakeholder engagement? European Journal of Marketing, 39(9-10), 1118-1131.
- Yadov, V. A. (2003). Стратегия социологического исследования [Strategiya sotsiologichneskogo issledovaniya] (596 p.). Moscow: Academic book, Dobrosvet [in Russian].
- Yu, J., & Leung, M.-Y. (2018). Structural Stakeholder Model in Public Engagement for Construction Development Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6).