Stakeholders’ rank of reflexion diagnostics in a corporate social responsibility system

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 181, Issue 1-2, Pages: 92-104

Citation information:
Mints, A., Schumann, A., & Kamyshnykova, E. (2020). Stakeholders’ rank of reflexion diagnostics in a corporate social responsibility system. Economic Annals-XXI, 181(1-2), 92-104. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V181-08

Aleksey Mints
D.Sc. (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Head, Department of Finance and Banking,
Pryazovskyi State Technical University
7 Universytetska Str., Mariupol, 87500, Ukraine
mints_a_y@pstu.edu
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8032-005X

Andrew Schumann
PhD (Phylosophy),
Associate Professor,
Head, Department of Philosophy and Cognitivistics,
University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow
2 Sucharskiego Str., Rzeszow, 35-225, Poland
andrew.schumann@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9944-8627

Evelina Kamyshnykova
PhD (Economics),
Associate Professor,
Department of Economics of the Enterprises,
Pryazovskyi State Technical University
7 Universytetska Str., Mariupol, 87500, Ukraine
kamyshnykova_e_v@pstu.edu
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-9786

Stakeholders’ rank of reflexion diagnostics in a corporate social responsibility system

Abstract. The use of new methods and technologies for managing relations with stakeholders in a corporate social responsibility system, in particular the reflexive approach, forms the basis for increasing the effectiveness of socially responsible management. The category of «rank of reflexion» occupies a significant place in the methodology of reflexive management modelling. Reliable diagnostics of the stakeholders’ rank of reflexion is one of the important areas increasing the efficiency of socially responsible decisions and actions in the process of reflexive management. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate the use of the fuzzy-logic method for diagnostics of the stakeholders’ rank of reflexion and formulate types of reflexive management of corporate social responsibility depending on the rank and level of complexity. The authors substantiate that when applying methods of reflexive management in practice, in the long run, the ambiguity and variability of the stakeholders’ rank of reflexion have to be taken into account. This corresponds to the system’s properties of dynamism (B1), adaptability (B2) and structure (B3). Given that the existing apparatus of reflexive management takes into account mainly one-time influences, the article suggests using the fuzzy diagnostic method to determine the stakeholders’ rank of reflexion.

There is a case showing formulation and solution of the problem of determining the stakeholders’ rank of reflexion by using mathematical fuzzy logic. It is proved that the storage of the estimates of the stakeholders’ reaction as fuzzy sets allows considering the conclusion of B3, giving opportunities for further analysis of patterns changing the stakeholder’s rank of reflexion within the conclusions B1 and B2.

The results of the study show that the rank of reflexion increasing in the company promotes corporate social responsibility growth through a more effective interaction with the stakeholders. Five types of reflexive management of corporate social responsibility are proposed depending on the rank and complexity level of reflexion, used by the company’s management, namely: defensive, compliance, managerial, strategic, and civil. The use of relevant reflexive influences as implementation tools of corporate social responsibility provides increasing efficiency of interaction with stakeholders. The prospects of the follow-up research on this topic should include the classification of the company’s reflexive influences on the stakeholders.

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility; Stakeholder; Rank of Reflexion; Reflexive Management; Reflexive Games; Fuzzy Logic

JEL Classification: M14; C70; C44

Acknowledgements and Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Contribution: The authors contributed equally to this work.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V181-08

References

1. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic Management of Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179-196.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001
2. Bourne, L. (2015). Stakeholder identification and Prioritisation. Series on Stakeholder Engagement. PM World Journal, 4(5), 1-6.
   Retrieved from https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/ESEI-04-Stakeholder_Identification_and_Prioritisation.pdf
3. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
4. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 853-886.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
5. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
6. Guriievska, V. M. (2014). Reflexive approach application in the system of public administration. Bulletin of the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, 1, 64-70.
   Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Vnadu_2014_1_12 (in Ukr.)
7. Heorhiadi, N. H., Shpak, N. O., & Vankovych, L. Y. (2017). Reflexive Management of the Diffusion of Enterprise Innovational Activity Results. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia, 10(2), 8-15.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-2-2(10)-8-15
8. Hult, G. T. M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder marketing: a mefinition and conceptual framework. AMS Review, 1, 44-65.
   doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0002-5
9. Jaitner, M. L., & Kantola, H. (2016). Applying Principles of Reflexive Control in Information and Cyber Operations. Journal of Information Warfare, 15(4), 27-38.
   Retrieved from https://www.jinfowar.com/journal/volume-15-issue-4/applying-principles-reflexive-control-information-cyber-operations
10. Kamyshnykova, Е. (2018). Typology of reflexive control of stakeholders’ relations in the system of corporate social responsibility. Reporter of the Priazovskyi State Technical University, 36, 81-86.
    Retrieved from http://ves.pstu.edu/article/download/169054/168819 (in Ukr.)
11. Keir, G., Sherr, J., & Seaboyer, A. (2018). Russian Reflexive Control. Kingston, Ontario: Royal Military College of Canada.
    Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328562833_Russian_Reflexive_Control
12. Koehler, I., & Raithel, S. (2018). Internal, external, and media stakeholders’ evaluations during transgressions. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(4), 512-527.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2017-0096
13. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That Moves Us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324322
14. Lefebvre, V. A. (2003). Reflexion. Moscow: Kogito Center (in Russ.).
15. Lefebvre, V. A. (2010). Lectures on the Reflexive Games Theory. New York: Leaf & Oaks Publishers.
16. Lepa, R. M. (2004). The system concept of the decision-making reflexive mechanism. Economic Cybernetics, 27-28(3-4), 76-82. (in Ukr.)
17. Looser, S., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2015). Stakeholder mapping of CSR in Switzerland. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 780-830.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2014-0071
18. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226-252.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111109133
19. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20-38.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00278.x
20. Mavrina, M. (2017). The concept of reflexive management of consumer demand. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(3), 38-46.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-3-38-46
21. Mazur, A. K., & Pisarski, A. (2015). Major project managers’ internal and external stakeholder relationships: The development and validation of measurement scales. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1680-1691.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.008
22. Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 285-298.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-1090-8
23. Novikov, D. A., & Chkhartishvili, A. G. (2014). Reflexion and Control: Mathematical Models. Leiden: CRC Press.
24. Novikov, D., Korepanov, V., & Chkhartishvili, A. (2018). Reflexion in mathematical models of decision-making. International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems, 33(3), 319-335.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445760.2017.1413189
25. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.495581
26. Schumann, A. (2014). Probabilities on streams and reflexive games. Operations Research and Decisions, 1, 71-96.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5277/ord140105
27. Schumann, A. (2018). Reflexive Games in Management. Studia Humana, 7(1), 44-52.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/sh-2018-0004
28. Taran, T. A., & Shemaev, V. N. (2004). Boolean Reflexive Control Models and Their Application to Describe the Information Struggle in Socio-Economic Systems. Automation and Remote Control, 65, 1834-1846.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1023%2FB%3AAURC.0000047897.05877.d0
29. Thomas, T. (2004). Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 17(2), 237-256.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13518040490450529
30. Zadek, S. (2004). The Path to Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125-132.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_13

Received 13.11.2019
Received in revised form 19.12.2019
Accepted 27.01.2020
Available online 10.02.2020