Stakeholder Mapping Analysis - Essay Example

Stakeholder Mapping Analysis A stakeholder mapping analysis (SMA) is deemed an important tool of corporate social responsibility. Morley (2009) maintained that conducting a stakeholder mapping exercise is a “valuable first step in assessing a corporation’s standing as a corporate citizen” (p. 185). A SMA facilitates identification of societal elements which wields some form of influence in the operation of a business. Research presents a potent tool in eliciting current perceptions of these sectors of society. Stakeholder mapping serves as an instrument of business organisations to help them identify issues of interest in the public domain which will affect brand reputation. In this part of the paper, a stakeholder mapping analysis is performed to assess the key influences in Nestlé in the area of corporate social responsibility. Phase 1: Planning Schmeer (2001) identified planning as the initial phase of stakeholder mapping. In the planning phase, the purpose of the stakeholder mapping analysis is defined. It is also in this stage where the beneficiaries of the results of the stakeholder mapping exercise are identified. In this paper, the goal of stakeholder mapping analysis is to offer guidance with respect to a participatory, consensus-building process, with respect to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of Nestlé. Obviously, information derived from the analysis will be utilized in the brainstorming and formulation of Nestlé CSR schemes for the benefit of society. The following Gantt chart identifies the steps to be taken in the conduct of the analysis and a corresponding timelines for each of these steps. Figure 1: Gantt chart of the steps involved in the stakeholder mapping analysis Phase 2: Selection of policy for analysis The policy selected for analysis focused on Nestlé’s CSR projects supporting coffee and cocoa farmers in selected locations worldwide as part of the Millennium Development Goals to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The proposed policy selected for the analysis was the possibility of extending the project to third world countries in Asia who produce coffee and/or cocoa, or possibly other products. The aforementioned policy was chosen based on three criteria as recommended in Schmeer (2001): (1) the policy is specific and definable; (2) the policy is socially and politically controversial, considering the peace and order situation in the country being considered as beneficiary of the CSR project; and (3) the policy may be a key to current reform efforts and significant enough to justify the deployment of resources. Phase 3: Identification of stakeholders Selman (2006) suggested the preparation of a long list of possible stakeholders, as comprehensive and feasible. As a general rule, nomination of stakeholders for inclusion in the long list should consider those who will be affected by, or will significantly affect the policy; are informed; possess knowledge and expertise in the issue at hand; and have the capacity to either control or influence the implementation of mechanisms which are considered relevant to the proposed policy. In this paper, the long or open list is then reviewed and deliberated to include an ideal combination of stakeholders on the basis of the above-mentioned general rule and in consideration of time constraints and the fact that this research is working alone. To simplify the analysis, the following stakeholders were limited to the following, which were identified with respect to the interests for the chosen policy for analysis: senior executives, shareholders, the government, trade associations, the press, interest groups (environmentalists), customers, the public, and the community. Four senior executives were selected, while two interviewees each were chosen for the rest of the remaining stakeholder categories. The colour, numeric and alphanumeric coding guide used for each of the 20 stakeholders are shown in Appendix A. Phase 4: Adapting the tools for the stakeholder mapping analysis Three activities were considered in this phase: (1) determination of stakeholder characteristics to be considered; (2) development of the questionnaire; and (3) pre-testing of the questionnaire. The characteristics ideally included in the definition of stakeholder characteristics are: position and organization; whether the stakeholder is internal or external; knowledge of the policy; position about the policy; interest; alliances; resources; power; and leadership. Based on the above characteristics, the interview questionnaire is developed. A total of 15 questions were on the final draft of the questionnaire. Table 1 presents the questions together with the stakeholder characteristic represented and the main classification under which each question is included for the Power/Interest Matrix. Table 1: Stakeholder characteristics represented in each of the interview questions Question Number Questions Characteristic Represented Main Classification 1 Have you heard about Nestlé’s support for coffee and cocoa farmers in selected locations as part of its corporate social responsibility measures called Creating Shared Vision? Knowledge of the policy Interest 2 If so, how did you hear about it? Knowledge of the policy Interest 3 What are your thoughts about the Nescafè Partners Blend? Interest Interest 4 What do you think are the possible benefits to you and the organization you represent if the Nescafè Partners Blend will be extended to Asian countries like the Philippines? Interest Interest 5 What do you think are the possible disadvantages to you and the organization? Interest Interest 6 What is your position on the proposed extension of your Nescafe Partners Blend to the Philippines or another third world country in Asia? Position Interest 7a In what manner would you demonstrate this support? Position Power 7b Would you take the initiative in supporting the extension, or would you wait for others to do so? Leadership Power 7c Do you have financial or human resources available to support this policy? Resources Power 7d What resources are available and how quickly can they be mobilized? Resources Power 7e Would this support be public? Position Power 7f What conditions would have to exist for you to express for support? Power Power 7g Would you ally with any other persons or organizations in these actions? Which persons/organizations? Alliances Power 8 What information would you need regarding the proposed policy? Interest Interest 9 Who influences your opinion on related policies? Power Power The interview questionnaire used in the stakeholder mapping analysis is exhibited in Appendix B was adopted from Schmeer (2001). It was pre-tested among non-priority stakeholders, consisting of those who were in the open list but were eliminated during the ensuing deliberation. One stakeholder from each of the following categories attested in pre-testing the interview questionnaire: Nestlé employees, alliance partners, suppliers, and analysts, Nestlé middle managers. Pre-testing, according to Schmeer (2001) is important in stakeholder mapping analysis to ensure that the interviewees are comfortable with the questionnaire, the responses provided will help in filling in the stakeholder mapping table, and that the interview will not take longer than two hours. The five non-priority stakeholders involved in the pre-testing did not find any problems with the final draft of the questionnaire. Phase 5: Collection and recording of information It was noted from Phase 3 that very little secondary information were available regarding the stakeholder identified. Hence, it is necessary that all the stakeholders identified be interviewed. Accordingly, scheduling of appointments for the interview was carried out on November 17 and 18, 2010. Due to time constraints, stakeholders who obliged to submit for the interview were immediately scheduled outside of the one-week allowance. The following interview protocol was adopted in the conduct of the interview: (1) Interview notes were written, not recorded to make the stakeholder as comfortable as possible in answering the questions; (2) An interview assistant helped in taking notes while the researcher lead the interview; (3) Questions were asked no more done twice; (4) The interview should be terminated at the request of the stakeholder even if there are still questions left unanswered; (5) Immediately after the interview, the interview notes were encoded in digital format to facilitate recall and capture the essence of the interview. Phase 6: Filling in the stakeholder table The interview notes collected from Phase 5 were analyzed and transformed into a systemised format in the form of the stakeholder table. To facilitate the preparation of the stakeholder table, two Likert-style interpretation and coding guides were created by the researcher. These two tables are shown in Appendix C. The resulting stakeholder table is exhibited as Table 2. Table 2: Stakeholder Table SCN Question Numbers Interest Power 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 IA 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 7f 7g 9 PA 01 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 4.3 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.5 02 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 3.7 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.5 03 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.6 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 3.4 04 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3.3 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 2.9 05 4 4 5 3 2 4 3 3.6 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 2.0 06 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 3.6 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1.9 07 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3.0 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2.0 08 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.9 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 2.3 09 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3.3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3.5 10 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 3.1 3 3 3 4 5 2 3 3 3.3 11 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 3.3 4 5 3 4 5 2 3 2 3.5 12 4 3 4 4 1 4 2 3.1 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 1 3.0 13 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 3.6 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 3 2.9 14 4 4 5 3 2 4 4 3.7 3 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 2.1 15 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1.9 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1.5 16 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1.6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1.5 17 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1.6 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1.6 18 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.7 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1.5 19 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 3.3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 2.3 20 2 3 3 4 1 4 3 2.9 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 1.9 Legend: SCN=Stakeholder code; IA=Interest average; PA=power average As shown in Table 2, the stakeholder table lists the number-coded responses to each question in the questionnaire, represents the degree of interest and power of each stakeholder. The mean of the interest-related questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) is the abscissa or x-coordinate of Mendelow’s Power/Interest Matrix in the next phase. On the other hand, the mean of the power-related questions (7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g and 9) is the ordinate or y-coordinate of Mendelow’s Power/Interest Matrix. Based on the responses for Question 6, 11 of the stakeholders (SE1, SE2, SE4, SH1, SH2, GO1, PR1, PR2, IG1, IG2 and CO1) are moderate supporters of the proposed CSR policy; whereas 9 of the stakeholders (SE3, GO2, TA1, TA2, IG2, CU1, CU2, PU1, and PU2) are neutral with respect to this policy. Phase 7: Stakeholder Mapping Analysis Figure 2 presents Mendelow’s Power/Interest Matrix derived from the stakeholder mapping analysis performed. It may be gleaned from Figure 2 that the key players in Nestlé with respect to corporate responsibility include the following stakeholders: the senior executives (represented by SE1, SE2, SE3 and SE4), trade associations (represented by TA1 and TA2), one interest group (represented by IG1) and the press (represented by PR1 and PR2). This group represents the stakeholders who are fully engaged in related CSR policies and should be afforded the greatest effort to satisfy since they are high power interested people (Mind Tools, 2010). Moreover, it is important that the key players are kept satisfied to sustain their interest and so that related CSR policies can benefit from their influence. Project Management for Development (2007) maintained that failure to keep the key players satisfied may result in the stakeholder loosing interest or even transitioning from a supporter to an opponent. This group has a tendency to lobby others to support their position. Hence, the best intervention to win this group towards a related policy is appropriate education and communication. Figure 2. Mendelow’s Power/Interest Matrix based on the stakeholder mapping analysis LEGEND: SE=senior executive; SH=shareholder; GO=government; TA=trade association; PR=the press; IG=interest group; CU=customer; PU=the public; CO=community Meanwhile, the high power-low interest stakeholder group is composed of IG2, SH1, SH2, CO1, CO2, GO1 and GO2. CSR personnel from the company should be able to build more positive interest in related projects so that the interest of this group of stakeholders stay committed. Project Management for Development (2007) suggests that relationship with the government, shareholders, the community and some interest groups, particularly environmentalists, should be closely managed. This group of stakeholder’s lack of interest would render them malleable to positive manipulation by proper direction so that they can be rallied to the cause of the policy either as strong or moderate supporters, by virtue of their high power. On the other hand, only four of the 20 or one-fifth of the stakeholders fell within the low power, less interested people. This presents a relatively good picture because occupants of this quadrant requires minimum effort to keep them satisfied, since they are believed to be a “silent majority” being composed of stakeholders from the immediate community and the society at large. At this point, Nestlé management would simply want to monitor them with minimum effort, but should be kept at least to their minimum satisfaction level to preclude them into shifting to the high interest, low power quadrant. None of the stakeholder fell into the low power – high interest quadrant. At status quo and as discussed in the previous paragraph, if Nestlé wants to utilize the immediate community and the public at large into major drivers of change, education and communication can be used to guarantee that change is inevitable. References Mind Tools., 2010. Stakeholder mapping: winning support for your projects [Online]. Available at http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/ ewPPM_07.htm [Accessed: 26 November, 2010]. Morley, M., 2009. The global corporate brand book. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Nestle Public Affairs, 2010. Nestle and the United Nations Millennium Deve-lopment Goals 2010 [Online]. Available at http://www.community.nestle.com/ SiteCollectionDocuments/Nestle_MDG_light.pdf [Accessed: 26 November, 2010]. Project Management for Development Organization, 2007. Fundamentals of project management. Raleigh (NC): LuLu. Schmeer, K., 2001. Stakeholder analysis guidelines [Online]. Available at http://www.lachsr.org/documents/policytoolkitforstrengtheninghealthsectorreformpartii-EN.pdf [Accessed: 26 November, 2010]. Selman, P., 2006. Planning at the landscape scale. Oxon: Routledge APPENDICES Appendix A Codification of Stakeholders for the Mapping Analysis Numeric Coding Stakeholder Alphanumeric Coding 01 Senior Executive 1 SE1 02 Senior Executive 2 SE2 03 Senior Executive 3 SE3 04 Senior Executive 4 SE4 05 Shareholder 1 SH1 06 Shareholder 2 SH2 07 Government 1 GO1 08 Government 2 GO2 09 Trade Association 1 TA1 10 Trade Association 2 TA2 11 The Press 1 PR1 12 The Press 2 PR2 13 Interest Group 1 IG1 14 Interest Group 2 IG2 15 Customer 1 CU1 16 Customer 2 CU2 17 The Public 1 PU1 18 The Public 2 PU2 19 Community 1 CO1 20 Community 2 CO2 Appendix B Interview Questionnaire Adopted from Schmeer (2001) 1. Have you heard about Nestlé’s support for coffee and cocoa farmers in selected locations as part of its corporate social responsibility measures called Creating Shared Vision? 2. If so, how did you hear about it? 3. What are your thoughts about the Nescafe Partners Blend? 4. What do you think are the possible benefits to you and the organization you represent if the Nescafe Partners Blend will be extended to Asian countries like the Philippines? 5. What do you think are the possible disadvantages to you and the organization? 6. What is your position on the proposed extension of your Nescafe Partners Blend to the Philippines or another third world country in Asia? Will your opinion qualify in anyone of the following: a. I strongly support it. b. I somewhat support it. c. I do not support or oppose it d. I somewhat oppose it e. I strongly oppose it 7. If you at least took the “c” position, please answer the following? f. In what manner would you demonstrate this support? g. Would you take the initiative in supporting the extension, or would you wait for others to do so? h. Do you have financial or human resources available to support this policy? i. What resources are available and how quickly can they be mobilized? j. Would this support be public? k. What conditions would have to exist for you to express for support? l. Would you ally with any other persons or organizations in these actions? Which persons/organizations? 8. What information would you need regarding the proposed policy? 9. Who influences your opinion on related policies? Appendix C Interpretation Guide for Transforming Interview Notes to Stakeholder Table Table C.1: Likert-Scale Interpretation Guide for Interest Statistical Limits Numerical Descriptor Qualitative Descriptor Abbreviation 1.00 – 1.30 1 Very Interested VI 1.31 – 2.39 2 Slightly Interested SI 2.40 – 3.60 3 Neutral N 3.61 – 4.69 4 Slightly Disinterested SD 4.70 – 5.00 5 Very Disinterested VD Table C.2: Likert-Scale Interpretation Guide for Power Statistical Limits Numerical Descriptor Qualitative Descriptor Abbreviation 1.00 – 1.30 1 No Power VI 1.31 – 2.39 2 Very Low Power SI 2.40 – 3.60 3 Moderate Power N 3.61 – 4.69 4 High Power SD 4.70 – 5.00 5 Very High Power VD Read More