PRIMA

Identifying and characterising stakeholder roles in pre, on- and post-model analyses in Auvergne region

J-P.Bousset, Cemagref, June 2009

 

Introduction

 

PRIMA DOW specifies that interaction with stakeholder should follow four sequential steps:

1: Identification of stakeholders and stakeholder roles in terms of pre-model, on-model and post-model analysis

2: Pre-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of scenario design – baseline and policy options to be simulated, and formulating agent decision rules for agent-based models (of WP3)

3: On-model engagement with stakeholders mirroring agent-based models (of WP3)

4: Post-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of assessing model outputs (of WP3 and WP4)

 

This document presents the results of Step 1 (Task 2.1.1¹ and Task 2.1.2²) and a part of Step 2 (Task 2.2.1³) of the interaction process. It includes three different sections. First section presents a method for the identification of stakeholders and the definition of stakeholder roles in terms of pre-model, on-model and post-model analysis. Second section presents the results of the suggested method applied to Auvergne region (scoping study identifying the relevant stakeholders in Auvergne region). Third section presents appropriate approaches to elucidate stakeholder perspectives with regards to their roles in scenario design and formulating agent decision rules, including considerations on: logistics and resources required for stakeholder engagement; feedback from stakeholders after engagement; methods for the analysis of results.

In doing so, this document can be viewed as a tentative contribution to the writing of three deliverables: D2.1.1 "Identifying and characterising stakeholders"; D2.1.2. "Identifying stakeholder roles in pre, on- and post-model analyses"; and D2.2.1 "Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with regards to scenario design and formulating agent decision rules: Methodologies".

 

1. Methodology for the identification of stakeholders and stakeholder roles

 

1.1. Literature review

 

The identification and prioritization of stakeholders is a central question in stakeholder management (Carroll, 1996; Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; 2004).

 

Classical stakeholder literature

The origin of ‘stakeholder’ in management literature can be traced back to 1963, when the word appeared in an international memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute (cited in Freeman, 1984). Stakeholders were defined as ‘those groups without whose support the organisation would cease to exist’.The core concept, in other words was ‘survival’; without the support of these key groups, the firm will not survive.

 

During its formative stage, stakeholder theory itself had to fight for survival, when Ansoff (1965) in his classic book Corporate Strategy argued for the rejection of stakeholder theory. According to him ‘responsibilities’ and ‘objectives’ were not synonymous but were made one in stakeholder theory.

 

By the 1970s stakeholder concepts began to surface in the strategic planning literature.Taylor (1971) predicted that the importance of stockholders would diminish and that, in the 1970s, businesses would be run for the benefit of other stakeholders too. King and Cleland (1978) came up with a method of analysing stakeholders in project management. Hussey and Langham (1978) developed a model of the organisation and its environment with stakeholders and used it in the corporate planning process.

 

Systems theorists also contributed to the development of the stakeholder literature in the 1970s. Ackoff (1974) developed a methodology for stakeholder analysis of organisational systems. He argued that stakeholder participation is essential for system design and the support and interaction of stakeholders would help in solving many societal problems. Churchman (1968) also contributed by developing systems theory to address social issues in an open systems point of view.The systems model of stakeholder emphasised participation and argued that problems should not be defined by focussing or analysis, but by enlarging or synthesising.

 

Many researchers were also concerned with the social responsibility of business firms. Post (1981) categorised the main lines of research in this area, covering many ideas, concepts and techniques (e.g. Sethi, 1971; Preston, 1979). The distinguishing feature of this literature is that the concept was used to include non-traditional stakeholders who were having adversarial relationships with the firm. The subdiscipline of management called ‘business and society’ developed by researchers at the School of Management at Berkley (e.g. Epstein and Votaw, 1978) and Harvard Business School (e.g. Ackerman, 1975) argued for responsiveness instead of responsibility.

 

In the organisation theory literature, Rhenman (1968) used the term stakeholders explicitly to designate the individuals or groups which depend on the company for the realisation of their personal goals and on whom the company is dependant. Pfeff er and Salancik (1978) constructed a model of organisation– environment interaction and claimed that the effectiveness of an organisation derives from the management of demands, particularly the demands of interest groups.

 

Thus, classic stakeholder theory originated on the concept of survival, falls into four groups namely, corporate planning, systems theory, corporate social responsibility and organisational theory (Freeman, 1984)

 

Stakeholders in strategic management

Researchers in the stakeholder field differ in their world-view on stakeholder concepts, but most of them acknowledge Freeman’s (1984) book Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach as a landmark in the stakeholder literature. In his book, Freeman defines stakeholders as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives’.

 

He proposed a framework, which fits three levels of stakeholder analysis – rational, process and transactional. At the rational level, an understanding of ‘who are the stakeholders of the organisation’ and ‘what are their perceived stakes’ is necessary. As a technique, Freeman uses a generic stakeholder map as a starting point. It is also possible to prepare a stakeholder map around one major strategic issue. As the next step, a stakeholder chart is prepared by identifying specific stakeholders based on the stakeholder map. Further, the stakes of the specific stakeholder groups are identified and analysed. He also uses a two dimensional grid as an analytical device to depict an organisation’s stakeholders. The first dimension categorises stakeholders by interest or stake and the second dimension is in terms of power. He makes the grid more realistic by improving on the classical stakeholder grid to prepare a real world stakeholder grid.

 

At the process level, it is necessary to understand how the organisation either implicitly or explicitly manages its relationships with its stakeholders, and whether these processes fit with the rational stakeholder map of the organisation. Accor ding to Freeman, existing strategic processes that work reasonably well could be enriched with a concern for multiple stakeholders. For this purpose, he uses a revised version of Lorange’s (1980) schema for strategic management processes.

 

The transactional level involves, understanding the set of transactions or bargains among the organisation and its stakeholders, and deducing whether these negotiations fit with the stakeholder map and the organisational processes for stakeholders. According to Freeman, successful transactions with stakeholders are built on understanding the legitimacy of the stakeholder and having processes to routinely surface their concerns.

 

Broadly, the emphasis of Freeman’s book is to construct an approach to management that takes the external environment into account in a systematic way. He provides a solid theoretical basis for the understanding of the stakeholder concept and paved the way for extensive future research in the field.

 

Another notable work on this concept was by Mitchell et al.(1997). Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a theory of stakeholder identification and salience by bringing together three important social science concepts to characterize stakeholders: power, legitimacy, and urgency, which they labeled stakeholder attributes. They defined stakeholder salience as ‘‘the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims’’ (1997, p. 854). Power is the (potential) ability of stakeholders to impose their will on a given relationship through coercive, utilitarian, or normative means (Etzioni, 1964). A legitimate stakeholder is one whose actions and claims are seen as appropriate, proper, and desirable in the context of the social system (Suchman, 1995). Urgency is the degree to which a stakeholder believes its claims are time sensitive or critical. Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a typology of eight types based on whether or not a stakeholder has power, legitimacy, and/or urgency. The central relationship in their theory was that the more attributes a stakeholder had, the greater its salience would be.

 

According to their typology (Figure 1), if a stakeholder possesses only one of the three attributes, they are termed latent stakeholders and have low stakeholder salience.If the only attribute present is power, such stakeholders re- called dormant stakeholders; if it is only legitimacy, they are called discretionary stakeholders and if only urgency, they are called demanding stakeholders. Stakeholder salience will be moderate, if two attributes are present and such stakeholders are called expectant stakeholders. Among the expectant stakeholders, those having power and legitimacy only are called dominant stakeholders; those having legitimacy and urgency only are called dependent stakeholders and those having power and urgency only are called dangerous stakeholders. Stakeholder salience will be high where all the three attributes are perceived by managers to be present in a stakeholder and they are called definitive stakeholders. Agle et al.(1999) confirmed the model by empirically testing Mitchell et al.’s (1997) theoretical model.

 

 

Figure 1.Stakeholder typology.Source: Mitchell et al.1997, Figure 2, p.874.

 

 

1. 2. A Method for the identification and characterization of stakeholders

 

The methodology we propose for the identification and characterization of stakeholder for pre-modelling, modelling and post-modelling analysis is based on the literature discussed in the previous sections. Mostly, the literature focuses on organisations, while discussing stakeholder analysis. In this section, we suggest a way to adapt the above concepts and methods from the field of management science (Freeman, 1984) to policy domain. We suggest that stakeholders should be defined as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the objectives of a given prolicy programe’. Stakeholder analysis is viewed as 'an approach and procedure for gaining and understanding of a policy-driven socio-economic system by means of identifying the key actors in the system, and assessing their respective interests in that system' (adapted from Grimble and Chan, 1995).

 

The suggested approach consists of the seven following steps, which can be grouped in two stages. First stage consists of analysing the rational of the socio-economic system. It includes five steps:

Step 1. Define the specific issue(s) of interactions with the stakeholders (what is to be discussed)

Step 2. Develop a policy-makers map with regards to the issues of interactions (who are the policy-makers)

Step 3. Prepare a chart of specific stakeholders (who are the stakeholders affecting/ are affected by the policy)

Step 4. Identify the degree of stake of stakeholders for the issues to be addressed by the policy (involvement)

Step 5. Prepare a degree of influence (power) versus degree of stake grid (two dimentional grid)

 

Second stage of the methodology consists of analysing the policy process at stake. It includes three steps:

Step 6. Conduct a process analysis (how policy measures are designed (structure of the designing process))

Step 7. Conduct a transactional analysis (how stakeholders interact in the designing & implementation processes)

 

Specifying the issue(s) of interactions with the stakeholders (what is to be discussed).

In our methodology, stakeholders are people and groups which have a concrete "stake" in a specific issue of a policy programe. A policy programe being a social construct, which includes an ultimate goal (issue) and a set of measures to address this issue⁴, the issue of interactions with stakeholder can be either the policy problem at stake – i.e. the relevance of policy issues, or the solution of the problem, i.e. the effectiveness and efficiency of means to be used and financial resources and risks to be allocated. The stakeholder identification process must operate in respect to the specified issues of interactions

 

For issues so called "moderatly structured problems/ends", there is consensus on objectives / values but uncertainty or dissensions on the effectiveness and efficiency of means to be used and finacial resources and risks to be allocated, i.e. there is an agreement on the problem, but disagreement on the solution. An issue concerning the division of scarce financial means conform to the characteristics of this type of problem. In that case, stakeholder selection must include stakeholders agreeing with the issue but with divergent perceptions on the way to be used to solve the problem.

For other issues – so called "moderatly structured problems/means", there is consensus on what kind of knowledge is relevant to solve them, but ongoing dissensions in regard to the values at stake and objectives. In other words: there is consensus on the solution, but there is disagreement on the problem. In that case, stakeholder selection must include as many as possible divergent perceptions of stakeholders on the values and facts, which are at stake. The key argument for this is that excluding relevant information on problems (facts and values) may lead to so-called ‘type III’ errors: solving the wrong problem by employing a method that does not apply to the type of problem at hand (see also Raiffa, 1968).

Develop a policy-makers map with regards to the issues of interactions (who are the policy-makers).

The map puts together policy-makers in the design of the policy programe at stake, i.e. organisations which have contributed to define the ultimate goal of the policy programe at stake and the measures to be used for the achievement of this goal. They are organisations which have information, knowledge and expertise about the issues to be addressed by the measures. Most of them also control or influence implementation instruments relevant to the issues, i.e. have access to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means.

 

Prepare a chart of stakeholders which affect / are affected by the policy programe (who are the policy targets)

Stakeholders who positively affect a given issue -- i.e. actors which contribute to address the issue, are policy targets which adopted at least one policy measure. Stakeholders who negatively affect a given issue are policy targets which didn't adopt the measures. Stakeholders affected by a given issue are policy targets which adopted at least of the measures (beneficiaries), i.e. actors which accepted to change their behaviour as asked by policy makers.

 

Identify the degree of stake of stakeholders for the issues of the policy (how high are stakeholder interests)

We suggest that degree of stake of a given stakeholder for the the issue to be addressed by the policy programe should be computed as distance between their overall aims of the stakeholder and the issues to be addressed by the policy programe. Such a distance can be viewed as indication on the interest of stakeholder for the issue and the salience of the policy issue for the stakeholder.

 

Prepare a degree of influence of stakeholders versus degree of stake grid (power vs interest)

Degree of influence (power) of a given stakeholder – also called level of investment capability of the stakeholder to address the issues, can be estimated from the available working force and means of the stakeholder (information, expertise, collective decision). Construction of a two dimensional grid with power and interest of stakeholder, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, provides analysts with interesting indications

 

Table 2: Degree of interest vs. degree of influence of stakeholders

 

	Low Interest	High Interest
High Influence	useful stakeholders for opinion formulation, brokering	most critical stakeholder group
Low Influence	least Priority Stakeholder Group	important stakeholder group for empowerment

 

Figure 2: Degree of interest vs. degree of influence of stakeholders (fictive example)

 

 

After the rational level of analysis (see above), it is necessary to understand how the policy-makers implicitly or explicitly managed their relationships with other stakeholders (Step 6). It is also important to know what in the policy programme was subject for bargaining between policy-makers (Step 7). Analysis of the policy process at stake – steps 6, 7 and 8, will be illustrated by using the Auvergne case study (see section below).

 

2. The methodology applied to Auvergne region

 

This section presents the methodology applied to Auvergne region. It suggests a list of key stakeholders to be involved in the design of policy scenarios and to be asked for the formulatiion of agent decision rules regarding the stakeholder behaviours facing to given policies.

 

2.1 Iissue(s) of interactions with the stakeholders (what is to be discussed)

 

PRIMA project aims at developping a method for scaling down the analysis of policy impacts on multifunctional land uses and on the economic activities. PRIMA DOW indicates that we shall consider policies related to use of Structural Funds (SFs), Cohesion Fund (CF), Preaccession funds (PAFs) and EAFRD (respectively CAP).

 

In Auvergne region, we suggest that we should focus on one policy programe related to use of Structural Funds, so-called "EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND (EAGGF)". EAGGF – FEADER in French langage -- is a policy programe designed to contribute to the structural reform of the agriculture sector and to the development of rural areas. For each region concerned, a document ("Document Régional de Développement Rural" in French langage) describes the development strategy retained.

 

In Auvergne region, the regional contribution to EAGGF measures is 124.43 Millions d'€. EAGGF programe includes 3 different sets of measures (Axis), motivated by a specific ultimate goal (policy objective):

Axis 1: Measures to improve competitiveness of agriculture and forestry (22 measures, 70 M €)

Axis 2: Measures to improve rural environment and landscapes (13 measures, 22 M €)

Axis 3: Measures to improve quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of activities (12 measures, 31 M €)

 

To achieve this ultimate goal, each measure of a given Axis uses a specific set of actions and funds to influence the behavior of a specific set of actors (policy targets), which are considered as means for the achievement of intermediate goals. This goal-based approach provides us with indicators on the goals the policy makers want to achieve. Details on measures of the EAGGF programe in Auvergne (ultimate goals, intermediate goals, targets, scope, eligibility criteria of actions, implementation agencies …) can be found in

https://www.paysdesaintflourhauteauvergne.eu/documents/axe-1.pdf

https://www.paysdesaintflourhauteauvergne.eu/documents/axe-2-auv-drdr-v2.pdf

https://www.paysdesaintflourhauteauvergne.eu/documents/axe-3.pdf

 

In itinere evaluation of EAGGF programe in Auvergne shows that the actual use of funds is different to the planed one (see Annexe A.). For example, funds planed to improve rural environment and rural landscape (Axis 2), funds planed to support cooperative actions for the development of new products and funds supporting forest fuel production (Axis 1), habe been very few used until now.

 

So, we suggest that management of EAGGF programe should be considered as a moderatly structured problem/ends – i.e. there is consensus on ultimate goals of the programme but dissensions on the means and financial resources allocated to the achievement of each of the 3 Axes of the programe.

 

Such a choice has several consequences for PRIMA project:

1. Current EAGGF progame -- 'as it' -- should be viewed as "baseline scenario".

2. Stakehloder selection should include stakeholders with divergent perceptions and suggestions on the way to be used to achieve each of the 3 utilmate goals of EAGGF programe -- especially on the way to be used to improve rural environment and rural landscape (Axis 2) and to improve competitiveness of agriculture and forestry (Axis 1).

3. Stakeholder suggestions on changes among measures from axis 2 will contribute to define "alternative environmental policy scenarios".

4. Stakeholder suggestions on changes among measures from axis 1 will contribute to define "alternative policy scenarios for the improving of the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry".

5. Stakeholder suggestions on changes among measures from axes 3 will contribute to the definition of "alternative policy scenarios for new rural development".

 

2.2 Policy-makers involved in the design of the policy programe at stake

 

DRDR provides us with indications on:

- Stakeholders which are affected by EAGGF measures

- Stakeholders which might affect the issue of EAGGF programe

- Stakeholders which have information, knowledge and expertise about the issue

- Stakeholders which control or influence implementation instruments relevant to the issue.

 

Information, control and implementation depend on a few numbers of organisations. DDAF ("Direction Départemental de l'Agriculture et de la Forêt") distributes and controls most of EAGGF funds at regional level. This public implementation agency is also accountable for failure to deliver the funds, to disseminate information, to measure performance, to monitor compliance and to define success. Exceptions are Measure 323-A and Measure 323-B (related to Natura 2000), for which DIREN ("DIrection Régionale de l'Environnement") distributes and controls funds at regional level.

 

Expertise on the ways which can be used to address the issues depends on public-private organisations and interest groups which have been involved in the designing of DRDR and are involved in the management of EAAGF programe in Auvergne. They have skills and knowledge about the issues, and influence implementation instruments relevant to the issue". Individual programing decisions depend on CRPF ("Comité Régional de Programmation FEADER") and general programing decisions depend on CREAMR ("Commission Régionale de l’Economie Agricole et du Monde Rural") for all the measures. Such expert panels include experts from different domains: agriculture, environment and economics (tourism). They are representative people from regional implementation agencies (local governance) or interest groups in Auvergne region.

 

Table 3 presents expertise domains and relevant experts to be involved in PRIMA project

 

Table 3: Organisation involved in participatory process as experts in DRDR design and implementation

 

Domain	Expert	Representative for …	Organisation	Name
Agriculture	A1	Interest group	CA63	Bouleau
	A2	Implementation agency	DRAF	Verilhac
Environnement	E1	Interest group	CEPA	Saillard
	E2	Interest group	CAUE	Mr X
	E3	Implementation agency	DIREN	Tillard
	E4	Interest group	CRPF	Henon
	E5	Interest group	FRANE	Dulphy
Economics (Tourism)	P1	Local policy makers	Communauté de Commune	Fournet
	P2	Local policy makers	SMADC	Villatte
	P3	Regional policy makers	Conseil General	Batut

 

The above expert panel can be used as "root-stakeholders" in a snowball sampling process, for the identification of other regional actors which have an influence on the impact of policy measures⁵.

 

2.3 Stakeholders which affect / are affected by the policy programe at stake

 

Impact of EAGGF depends on the number and individual characteristics of the adopters of the measures. DRDR indicates the maximum number of adopters for each measure, which is called "Bénéficiaires", but doesn' indicate the number of adopters -- i.e. neither the stakeholders which are actually "affected by the issue" and "positively affect the issue", nor the policy targets which have rejected the measures – i.e. the stakeholders which "negatively affect the issue". Measures related to Axis 1 and Axis 2 mostly depend on farmer behaviours. Exceptions are: measures 111-A; 111-B … for which policy targets are training organisations (FAFSEA, VIVEA, Chambre d'Agriculture, Fédération des CIVAM); measures 122-A 122-B 226-A 226-B for which policy targets are forest owners; measure 123-A … for which policy targets are non agriculture SME; measure 123-B … for which policy targets are forest businesses (sawmills…); measure 124 for which policy targets are food-building businesses. Impact of measures related to Axis 3 mostly depends on non agriculture oriented SMEs (tourism businesses, craftermans…).

 

Auvergne region includes about 27 000 farmers and many thousands forest owners and SMEs. It is not easy – aven perhaps not possible -- to include all the stakeholders which impact on the issues of EAGGF programe in a participatory process. So, we suggest that only some of them, selected by using a snowball sampling method among those which are located in one of the municipalities playing both as 'pôles de services intermédiaires (⁶)' and as 'relevant spatial corridors to address EAGGF Programe (⁷) in Auvergne region, should be put on the list of stakeholder.

 

Municipalities playing both as 'pôles de services intermédiaires' and as 'relevant spatial corridors to address EAGGF Programe in Auvergne region have been pointed out by using a clustering process referring both to dynamics indicators (change in total population between 1990 and 1999; natural balance in total population between 1990 and 1999; change in yougness index between 1990 and 1999; and change in unemplyement rate between 1990 and 1999) and description of the current renvironmental, demographic and economic situation of municipalities. Environmental indicators include altitude and biodiversity. Demographic indicators include population density and youngness rate. Socio-economic indicators include: unemployment rate, access time to municipalities, distances between municipalities, number of secondary houses, and number of marketed beds for tourism. Details on this methodology can be found in "Selecting municipalities for the construction of prototypical cases, Jean-Paul Bousset, Cemagref, March 2009. 

https://webnode.fr/statistiquement/applications/prototypical-cases/

Such a methodology demonstrated that 'PONTAUMUR Communauté de Communes' can be viewed as relevant candidate municipality for this study. PONTAUMUR CC includes 17 "Communes", with 447 farmers among which we suggest to select those which are representatives for specific farming systems (bovine-milk production, bovine-meat production, home-made product ion…).

 

A snowball sampling process⁸ – starting with indications from organisations in Table 3, provided us with the list of relevant individual and representative stakeholders we were looking for (see Table 4).

 

Table 4: Individual stakeholders involved in the participatory process as policy targets (fictive example)

 

Domain	Stakeholder	Representative for …	Name
Agriculture	A1	Produits de Terroir des Combrailles	Goutequillet
	A3	Producteurs de lait	?
	A4	Producteurs de viande	Garde
	A5	Syndicat (Right Party	Lamirand
	A6	Syndica t (Left Party)	Favodon
SMEs	SME1	Artisanat
	SME2	Tourisme
	SME3	Batiments	Faure
	SME4	Scieries
	SME5
	SME6

2.4. Degree of stake of stakeholders for the issues of policy programe (stakeholder interests)

 

Table 5 describes the relations to issues, interests and roles of the above stakeholders.

 

Table 5: relations to issues, interests and roles of the above stakeholders

 

 

2.5 Degree of influence (power) versus degree of stake grid

 

 

 

3. Methodology to elucidate stakeholder perspectives with regards to their roles

 

3.1 Strategies for mobilising and sustaining effective participation of stakeholders.

 

The strategy for insuring effective participation of the above stakeholders varies with their role and perspectives. In all case, it will include the two following stages: i) phone contacts to present the aims and methodology of the PRIMA participatory process and to get a date for a face to face interview; ii) face to face interviews with a structured questionnaire (see Appendix …).

 

However, questionnaire will vary with the perspectives (scenario formulation, decision rules elicitation, scenario analysis (resulmts of simulations)). In addition, the strategies for scenario formulation and scenario analysis will include group discussion. For scenario formulation, discussion will aim at building consensual alternative scenarios to be simulated, from stakeholder suggestions. For scenario analysis, discussion will aim at mapping simiraties and differences among stakeholder on the impact of the simulated scenarios.

 

In summary, we suggest that we should have three sequential interaction phases:

 

PHASE 1. des interactions de type "démocratie participative" (face à face + focus groupe) visant à co-construire des scenarios de politiques alternatives à la formulation actuelle du FEADER -- un des programmes utilisant les fonds structurels, que je propose voir comme le baseline scenario; ces interactions doivent impliquer les organisations régionales et départementales qui ont participé à la conception des des volets régionaux du FEADER en Auvergne (une douzaine maxi; faisable si les Com Comm de la phase 2 sont toutes dans le Puy de Dome).

 

PHASE 2. des interactions de type "introspection d'acteurs" (face à face) visant à formuler les règles qui président aux comportements des acteurs qui conditionnent la réussite/ echec des mesures du FEADER ; ces interactions doivent impliquer les (certains des) acteurs cibles des mesures régionales actuelles (baseline scenario) et hypothétiques (alternative scenarios) ; comme ces acteurs sont très nombreux (plus de 50 000 en Auvergne), je propose de ne mobiliser que certains d'entre eux (une ou deux douzaines ?) choisis dans 2 ou 3 des communautés de communes pointées comme particulièrement pertinentes pour étudier les effets des politiques basées sur les fonds structurels (ex. PONTAUMUR et CHAMPEIX ; cf. doc de la réiunion précédente)

 

PHASE 3. des interactions de type "consultations d'experts" (focus group) visant à valider les résultats des simulations ; ces interactions doivent impliquer les organisation impliquées dans la phase de construction des scénarios + des représentants des communautés de communes où se trouvent les acteurs cibles des politiques (soit une vingtaine est un maximum pour un focus groupe).

 

 

3.2 Logistics and resources required for stakeholder engagement; feedback from stakeholders after engagement; methods for the analysis of results

 

En 2009, je crois que nous ne pouvons envisager que les 2 premiers types d'interactions :

PHASE 1 : Aout - Septembre : définition des scénarios avec la doouzaine d'organisations qui ont participé à la conception des des volets régionaux du FEADER en Auvergne

 

PHASE 2 : Oct--Nov: formulation des règles qui président aux comportements des acteurs qui conditionnent la réussite/ echec des mesures du FEADER définies dans la phase 1, avec les 2 douzaines d'acteurs identifiés comme pertinents pour faire cela dans la com com de PONTAUMUR (com com test) On répète l'opération en 2010 dans une ou 2 autres com com

 

PHASE 3 : fin 2010 après les simulations et l'élaboration d'un document de présentation des résultats aux experts

 

 

References

Ackerman, R.(1975) The Social Challenge to Business. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Ackoff, R.(1974) Redesigning the Future.New York: Wiley.

Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfield, J.A. (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation into stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 5, 507–525.

Ansoff, I.(1965) Corporate Strategy.New York: McGraw Hill.

Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach.New York: Dell.

Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 20, 92–117.

Donaldson, T.and Preston, L.(1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 1, 65–91.

Epstein, E.M. and Votaw, D. (1978) Rationality, Legitimacy, Responsibility: the Search for New Directions in Business and Society.Santa Monica CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

Etzioni, A.: 1964, Modern Organizations (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston, MA).

Grimble R. and Chan M.-K., Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries : somme practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 19, N°2, 1995, 113-124.

Hussey, D.and Langham, M.(1978) Corporate Planning: the Human Factor.Oxford: Pergamon.

King, W.and Cleland, D.(1978) Strategic Planning and Policy.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Klimstra, P.D. and Potts, J. (1988) What we’ve learned managing R&D projects. Research Technology Management, 31, 3, 23–39.

Lorange, P.(1980) Corporate Planning: an Executive Viewpoint. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, W.L. (1995) A broader mission of R&D. Research Technology Management, 38, 6, 24–36.

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, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, n° 4, pp. 853-886.

Patton, M (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California

Carroll, A. B.: 1996, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd Edition (South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH).

Pfeffer, J.and Salancik, G. (1978) The External Control of Organizations, New York: Harper and Row

Post, J.(1981) Research in business and society: current issues and approaches.Presented at AACSB Conference on Business Environment=Public Policy and the Business School of the 1980s, Berkeley CA.

Preston, L.(1979) Research in Corporate Responsibility and Social Policy, Volume 1.Greenwich: JAI Press.

Reijs, J.(1994) Foresight studies undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands. R&D Management, 24, 2, 167–174.

Rhenman, E.(1968) Organisationsplanering.Stockholm: PA Norstedt & Soner.

Sethi, P.(1971) Up Against the Corporate Wall.Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Suchman, M.C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, 571–610.

Taylor, B.(1971) The future development of corporate strategy. The Journal of Business Policy, 2, 2, 22–38.