trends and future of sustainable development - TransEco

the government of Argentina as well through the negotiations. The interests of the government werelegitimate and urgent based on time-sensitivity of the claims. The opposing definite stakeholders had acommon objective and through cooperation they increased the power of their common demand. Theopposing stakeholders were able to delay the construction works and by drawing international attentionto the conflict. The claims were mostly legitimized by invoking environmental and social concerns, andurgent given the dynamic context of the case. The definitive, neutral stakeholders had legitimate powerto influence the opposing and supportive stakeholders of the case. The interests of these stakeholderswere legitimate, as mostly other stakeholders had requested them to interfere in the case in the firstplace. Urgency of their interest was based on the dynamic context of the case.The expectant stakeholders were groups that expected something of the other parties, but did nothave the power to directly influence them. The citizens of Fray Bentos had a legitimate and urgentexpectation of the pulp mill to bring socioeconomic benefits to the area, even though they were not ableto influence the opposing stakeholders or other parties to restrain the dispute that threatened toendanger the expected benefits. The opposing NGOs and Argentineans claimed that the pulp mill willharm the environment, but they were not able to influence the construction works of the pulp mill orother parties related to the case. Similarly, the neutral stakeholders had a legitimate and urgent interestto solve the dispute, but they did not have power to force the parties to negotiate.The only latent stakeholder was the EU. The EU supported the pulp mill project and had a legitimateinterest as it expected Argentina and Uruguay to find a solution to the dispute. This interest, however,was not presented as urgent. As a result of the analysis we can note that both the definitive andexpectant stakeholder categories consist of supportive, opposing and neutral stakeholders.5. DiscussionGlobal strategies of large corporations supportive of shareholder value thinking so deeply rooted in ourcontemporary business culture are creating counter reactions presented by actors who are closely relatedto the local units of large corporations. Stakeholder identification shows the differences in stakeholderclaims and allows for grouping stakeholders according to their stance toward the pulp mill investment.Those opposing the investment argued for environmental sustainability while those in favour of theinvestment argued for the local social and economic sustainability. Both supporting and opposingstakeholders comprised mostly local stakeholders while global stakeholders appeared as neutralstakeholders.Stakeholder salience analysis indicates that the stakeholders of high salience were the opposingstakeholders. They had power, urgency and legitimacy in relation to the case, and they were the onesthat contributed to the escalation of the conflict. In addition, the definitive, opposing stakeholdersinfluenced the definitive, neutral parties and also the expectant, neutral parties during the case. Thedefinitive, supportive stakeholders acted as a counterpart to the opposing ones.In a study of conflict situation, complementing the salience analysis with an analysis of the roles ofthe different parties allows for a better understanding of the dynamics of the stakeholder relationships.The host country stakeholders had power both in terms of salience and determined stance towards theinvestment. The home country stakeholders had power in terms of salience but appeared as neutraltowards the dispute.367