RESPONSE - Insead

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Recommendations: Recommendations for policy and standards 104 Table 30. Step of the analysis calculations Action steps Assign ranking order positions of stakeholder types from interview responsense Examples Client Empl. Shareh. Suppliers Communities Client Empl Shareh Suppliers Comm. S1: 1 2 3 4 0 M1 1 2 5 3 4 S2: 1 2 4 3 5 M2 2 1 3 0 4 Standardization of the S1: 1 0,80 0,60 0,40 0 M1 1 0,80 0,20 0,60 0,40 rankings (see formula above) S2: 1 0,80 0,40 0,60 0,20 M2 0,80 1 0,60 0 0,40 Average of the standardized rankings across interviewees (managers or stakeholders) Cognitive Gap assessed for each stakeholder type as the difference bet. Managers’ and stakeholders’ average ranking Cognitive Gap for Company X: Average of cognitive gaps across all stakeholder types S 1 0,80 0,50 0,50 0,10 M 0,90 0,90 0,40 0,30 0,40 SM 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,20 0,30 Av. St 15 0,16 <strong>RESPONSE</strong>: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility
Recommendations: Recommendations for policy and standards 105 In the example, we have 2 managers (M1 and M2) and 2 stakeholders (S1 and S2) interviewed for the same company (X). They list either 4 or 5 stakeholder types (in the columns). The ranking order, either implicit in the sequence of response (gap 1) or explicit in response to the ranking questions (gap 2 and 3) is also different among managers, among stakeholder and, more importantly for our purposes, between managers and stakeholders. In the example, clients and employees are the top ranked stakeholder types mentioned by both managers and stakeholders. If we look at the gap we see that the perception of the first three stakeholders is very similar between managers and stakeholders (0,10) while for the last two (suppliers and communities) the gap is quite high (0,20, 0,30). The overall gap (0,16 or 16%) is not so high, compared to what it could be, because the perception of the majority of stakeholder types (3 on a range of 5) are not so different between managers and stakeholders. <strong>RESPONSE</strong>: understanding and responding to societal demands on corporate responsibility
Page 1 and 2:
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary 6 1 Intr
Page 5 and 6:
Tables Table 1. Typology of factors
Page 7 and 8:
Executive summary Recommendations c
Page 9 and 10:
Executive summary Recommendations l
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Recommendations r
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction Aims of this study “
Page 15 and 16:
PART I: CSR AND COGNITIVE ALIGNMENT
Page 17 and 18:
A model of cognitive alignment and
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Methodology Scope 3 Methodology 3.1
Page 27 and 28:
Methodology Company case studies Th
Page 29 and 30:
Methodology Case comparison Analysi
Page 31 and 32:
Methodology CrossPair Comparison
Page 33 and 34:
Findings: Managers’ understanding
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Findings: External factors and cogn
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Findings: Internal factors and cogn
Page 53 and 54: Findings: Internal factors and cogn
Page 59 and 60: A Model of Social Consciousness and
Page 65 and 66: Methodology Experiment Settings 8.3
Page 67 and 68: Methodology Experiment Protocols ev
Page 69 and 70: Findings: Developing Social Conscio
Page 77 and 78: Conclusions from study findings Ass
Page 79 and 80: Conclusions from study findings Dev
Page 81 and 82: Conclusions from study findings Dev
Page 83 and 84: Recommendations Recommendations for
Page 103: Recommendations Recommendations for
Page 107 and 108: Recommendations: Recommendations fo
show all

RESPONSE - Insead

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?