|
Summary In
an era of heightened stakeholder awareness, fractured public trust, and
instant digital accountability, the ability to identify, prioritise, and
strategically engage with stakeholders and publics has become one of the
defining competencies of effective public relations practice. This article
presents a comprehensive analysis of stakeholder identification frameworks,
Grunig's Situational Theory of Publics, and the four-quadrant contingency
model of PR strategy — enriched throughout with contemporary examples from
global organisations including Meta, Nike, Patagonia, Nestlé, and Airbnb.
Drawing on foundational scholarship from Freeman, Grunig and Repper, Dewey,
and Wilson, this article argues that the organisations most resilient to
reputational risk are those that integrate stakeholder intelligence into
strategy before publics self-organise around problems. |
Public Relations | Stakeholder Management
| Strategic Communication | Crisis PR
|
SECTION 01 Introduction Why Stakeholder Identification Is the Foundation of Strategic
PR |
One of the most consequential — and most
frequently mishandled — steps in public relations practice is the accurate
identification of the publics with which an organisation needs to build
mutually beneficial relationships. The consequences of getting this wrong are
not abstract: they manifest as crises that could have been anticipated,
campaigns that miss their intended audience, and stakeholder communities that
self-organise in opposition to organisational objectives.
A foundational axiom in public relations
holds that there is no such thing as a "general public." Every
organisation navigates a complex constellation of groups — each with distinct
expectations, interests, levels of influence, and propensities to act. The
strategic task of the public relations professional is to map this
constellation with precision, segment it into manageable and meaningful
clusters, and develop communication strategies calibrated to each group's
unique profile.
|
|
There is no such thing as
a general public. An organisation has a variety of key groups who bring
different expectations for their relationship with the organisation. — Rawlins, B.L. (2006). Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public
Relations. Institute for Public Relations. |
The stakes have never been higher. In the
digital age, stakeholder groups that might previously have remained latent —
uninformed and unorganised — can now coalesce around a grievance in hours. A
single incident, amplified through social media, can transform an indifferent
public into a coordinated adversarial force. Organisations that have invested
in systematic stakeholder mapping and ongoing relationship management are
measurably more resilient to such events.
This article traces the evolution of
stakeholder theory and public relations strategy, presenting both the
foundational frameworks and their application in contemporary corporate
practice. It proceeds through five interconnected themes: the distinction between
stakeholders and publics; the linkage model of stakeholder identification;
Grunig's Situational Theory of Publics; strategic prioritisation; and the
contingency model of PR approaches.
|
SECTION 02 Stakeholders and Publics Defining the Key Groups Every Organisation Must Engage |
The terms "stakeholder" and
"public" are frequently used interchangeably in organisational
communication, but they carry distinct meanings that carry significant
strategic implications. Understanding this distinction is not merely an academic
exercise — it determines how an organisation allocates its communication
resources and designs its engagement strategies.
Defining
Stakeholders
The concept of the stakeholder was
articulated with landmark clarity by R. Edward Freeman in his seminal 1984 work
Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, in which he defined a stakeholder
as "a group or individual who is affected by or can affect the success of
an organisation."¹ This definition has since been expanded to include
groups who have interests in the organisation, regardless of whether the
organisation has any direct interest in them.
¹ Freeman, R.
E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
The five most commonly identified
stakeholder groups within organisations are:
1.
Employees — the internal public whose engagement and
alignment is foundational to all external reputation.
2.
Customers — whose purchasing decisions and brand
loyalty are the ultimate validation of the organisation's value proposition.
3.
Shareholders — whose confidence and continued
investment underpin the financial viability of the organisation.
4.
Communities — the local and societal environments in
which the organisation operates and on whose goodwill it depends for its social
licence.
5.
Suppliers — whose reliability, ethics, and performance
directly affect operational integrity and, increasingly, brand reputation.
Defining
Publics
Grunig and Repper introduced a crucial
distinction between stakeholders and publics that reshapes how communication
strategy is designed. Whereas organisations choose their stakeholders through
deliberate actions — marketing strategies, hiring, investment decisions —
publics "arise on their own and choose the organisation for
attention."²
² Grunig, J.
E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management
(pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
This insight, grounded in John Dewey's 1927
definition of a public as a group of people who face a similar problem,
recognise it as a problem, and organise themselves to do something about it,³
has profound implications for PR strategy. Publics do not wait to be identified
— they self-organise. The question is whether organisations identify them
proactively, before they mobilise, or reactively, after they have already
consolidated around a grievance.
³ Dewey, J.
(1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Meta Platforms (2021–present) When Latent Publics Become Active Adversaries Overnight The 2021 testimony of whistleblower Frances Haugen
before the US Senate provided a paradigmatic illustration of how rapidly a
latent public can become an active, organised adversarial force. Before
Haugen's revelations — covering Facebook's alleged awareness of its
platform's harmful effects on teenage mental health, political polarisation,
and misinformation — the affected public of parents, child welfare advocates,
mental health professionals, and legislators had not coalesced into a unified
pressure group. Within days of the Senate hearing, these stakeholders were
actively coordinating legislative action, media campaigns, and regulatory
pressure. Meta had failed to proactively identify and engage this latent
public; the cost was congressional scrutiny, regulatory proposals across
multiple jurisdictions, and billions of dollars in market capitalisation
loss. Reference: Haugen, F. (2021, October 5). Senate Commerce
Committee Testimony on Facebook. United States Senate. |
|
SECTION 03 The Linkage Model A Systematic Framework for Identifying Every Stakeholder |
Before an organisation can prioritise its
stakeholders, it must first identify them comprehensively. The risk of
premature narrowing — focusing immediately on the most visible or vocal
stakeholders while overlooking those with less obvious but equally significant
interests — is one of the most common failures in stakeholder management.
Grunig and Hunt developed a linkage model
that categorises stakeholders according to their relationship to the
organisation, providing a systematic method for ensuring that no significant
group is overlooked.⁴ The model distinguishes four types of stakeholder
linkage:
⁴ Grunig, J.
E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Developed from the work of Esman (1972), Evan (1976), and Parsons
(1976).
|
Enabling
Stakeholders Hold control and authority over the organisation —
boards of directors, elected officials, government regulators, and licensing
bodies. They provide resources and operational autonomy. When enabling
relationships falter, resources can be withdrawn and autonomy restricted. Functional
Stakeholders Essential to operations, divided between input
(employees, suppliers providing labour and resources) and output (consumers
and retailers receiving products or services). Disruption to functional
stakeholders can halt organisational activity entirely. |
|
Normative
Stakeholders Associations or groups sharing the organisation's
values, goals, or concerns — including industry associations, professional
bodies, and even competitors who belong to the same trade group. These
relationships often shape industry-wide standards. Diffused
Stakeholders The most difficult to identify because they become
involved based on the organisation's actions rather than through permanent
relationships. Typically activated during crises: the media, activist
communities, special interest groups, and local residents. |
The enabling, functional, and normative
stakeholder groups tend to be relatively stable — organisations can map them in
advance and maintain ongoing engagement. The diffused linkage group is
inherently situational and therefore the most strategically challenging, since
its composition changes with each issue or crisis.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Nestlé — Baby Formula Controversy (ongoing since 1970s,
reinvigorated 2020s) The Cost of Ignoring Diffused Stakeholders Nestlé's decades-long controversy over the marketing
of infant formula in developing countries offers a sobering study in what
happens when diffused stakeholders — global health advocates, WHO, UNICEF,
community health workers, and international media — are not proactively
identified and engaged. What began as a localized public health concern
became a global boycott that has endured for over four decades. Successive
waves of activist organisation, now amplified by social media, have
periodically reignited the controversy. The lesson of the linkage model is
precisely this: diffused stakeholders must be mapped not just for current
crises, but for potential future issue activations. Organisations that wait
until the activist community has already mobilised have already ceded the
communication high ground. Reference: Baby Milk Action. (2023). Nestlé — breaching the
International Code. Cambridge: IBFAN. |
|
SECTION 04 The Situational Theory of
Publics Predicting Who Will Act, When, and Why |
Having identified stakeholder groups
through the linkage model, the next strategic imperative is to understand which
of these groups are likely to become active — and therefore require immediate,
high-priority attention — and which remain passive or dormant. James Grunig's
Situational Theory of Publics provides the analytical framework for making this
determination with rigour.
|
|
Situational theory can
identify which publics will "communicate actively, passively, or not at
all about organisational decisions that affect them." — Grunig, J. E. (2005). Situational theory of publics. In
Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
The Four Public
Categories
Grunig distinguishes four categories of
publics along a spectrum of awareness and engagement:
|
The
Four Public Categories (Grunig) |
|
Non-Publics:
Groups who face no problem related to the organisation and have no reason to
engage with it. They are not a communication priority. Latent
Publics: Groups who face a problem but do not yet recognise it as such. They
represent a critical early-warning intelligence target — they can quickly
become aware or active publics. Aware
Publics: Groups who recognise a problem exists. They are processing
information and may act, but have not yet organised a response. Communication
strategy at this stage can still shape outcomes significantly. Active
Publics: Groups who recognise the problem, feel personally affected, and
believe they can do something about it. They actively seek information and
organise collective action. These groups require immediate, high-priority
engagement. |
The Three
Activating Variables
Grunig identified three psychological
variables that determine whether an individual moves from latent awareness to
active engagement:
1. Problem Recognition
People do not seek or process information
unless they recognise a connection between themselves and a problem. The degree
to which a group perceives an issue as personally relevant determines their
propensity to engage. Referent criteria — the guidelines people apply to new
situations based on prior experience with the issue or organisation — also
shape problem recognition significantly.
2. Level of Involvement
Involvement is measured by the extent to
which people connect themselves personally to the situation. High personal
involvement dramatically increases the likelihood of active public formation.
Digital media has intensified this dynamic by enabling individuals to find
others who share their personal connection to an issue.
3. Constraint Recognition
Constraint recognition is the individual's
assessment of their personal capacity to influence the outcome. Those who
believe that nothing can be done — high constraint recognition — are less
compelled to become active. Conversely, when digital platforms lower the
barrier to action (signing a petition, sharing content, joining a campaign),
constraint recognition drops and public activation accelerates.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Nike — Colin Kaepernick Campaign (2018) Converting Latent Publics into Advocate Publics Through
Strategic Risk Nike's 2018 decision to make Colin Kaepernick, the
NFL quarterback who had sparked national debate by kneeling during the
national anthem to protest racial injustice, the face of its "Just Do
It" 30th anniversary campaign was a masterclass in reading the
situational dynamics of its publics. Nike's data revealed a large, latent
public among its core 18–34 demographic — young, diverse consumers who were
personally connected to the racial justice issue (high problem recognition
and involvement) but felt their consumer choices were disconnected from the
cause (high constraint recognition). By placing Kaepernick at the centre of
its brand narrative, Nike lowered the constraint recognition of this latent
public — purchasing a Nike product became an act of social alignment. Nike
shares initially dipped 3% amid a boycott from an adversarial public, but
climbed 36% over the following 12 months. Nike's willingness to explicitly
alienate one public in order to deeply activate another demonstrated
sophisticated situational theory applied at brand scale. Reference: Edison Trends. (2018). Nike online sales report.
Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2018. |
The Four Types
of Publics
Grunig's empirical testing of the theory
identified four recurrent public configurations in organisational contexts:
|
All-Issue
Publics Consistently active across multiple organisational
issues. These are highly engaged stakeholders who require sustained,
systematic communication and relationship investment. Single-Issue
Publics Active on a narrow subset of issues that directly
concern them. They mobilise intensely around their specific concern but are
disengaged from broader organisational matters. |
|
Hot-Issue
Publics Activated by a single issue that has received
significant media attention and affects nearly everyone. These publics emerge
suddenly and can dissolve equally rapidly once attention moves on. Apathetic
Publics Inattentive across all issues. While apparently safe
to ignore, they represent a latent risk — shifts in media coverage or
personal circumstances can rapidly activate this group. |
A critical dimension missing from Grunig's
original model is the question of support orientation: whether active publics
are supportive of or opposed to the organisation. Each of the four public types
can be either supportive or adversarial, and this distinction is decisive for
strategy design.
|
SECTION 05 Prioritising Stakeholders From Identification to Strategic Engagement |
Identifying stakeholders comprehensively is
a necessary condition for effective PR strategy, but not a sufficient one.
Because organisational resources for engagement are finite, prioritisation is
unavoidable — and consequential. The question at the heart of stakeholder
prioritisation, as Rawlins articulates it, is: "How much attention does
each stakeholder group deserve or require?"⁵
⁵ Rawlins, B.
L. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Institute for Public
Relations.
Winn's insight that stakeholder management
is fundamentally about managing potentially conflicting interests⁶ underscores
the inherent difficulty of this task. Prioritising one group necessarily
involves trade-offs with others. The frameworks presented here provide
structured decision-support for navigating these trade-offs.
⁶ Winn, M. I.
(2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology.
Business & Society, 40, 133–166.
The Four
Engagement Quadrants
Once stakeholders have been mapped using
the linkage model and assessed for their level of activity using situational
theory, they can be placed within a two-dimensional matrix defined by their
activity level (active/inactive) and their support orientation
(supportive/non-supportive). This yields four distinct strategic scenarios,
each demanding a different engagement approach:
|
① Advocate Stakeholders Active + Supportive. Mobilise for endorsements, campaigns,
donations. Communication is action-oriented. |
|
② Dormant Stakeholders Inactive + Supportive. Needs awareness-building. Reduce
perceived constraints; use affective cues to increase emotional attachment. |
|
|
|
|
|
③ Adversarial Stakeholders Active + Non-supportive. Avoid defensive postures. Use conflict
resolution and win-win dialogue to build bridges. |
|
④ Apathetic Stakeholders Inactive + Non-supportive. Do not ignore. Raise issue salience
and invite collaboration before crisis activates them. |
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Airbnb — Community Neighbour Opposition (2019–2022) Transforming Adversarial Stakeholders Through
Collaborative Design As Airbnb's growth accelerated through the late
2010s, it encountered a well-organised adversarial public in the form of
neighbourhood resident associations and long-term tenant advocacy groups in
cities including New York, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Barcelona. These groups —
active and non-supportive — were mobilising successfully to lobby for strict
platform restrictions. Airbnb's initial defensive communications (citing
economic benefits, individual host rights) entrenched opposition further.
Shifting to a collaborative strategy, Airbnb worked directly with city
authorities and community groups to co-design Airbnb-friendly legislation
that addressed concerns about housing affordability and neighbourhood
character. In some cities, Airbnb became a co-author of the very regulations
governing its activity — transforming adversarial stakeholders into normative
stakeholders who had a shared interest in a workable framework. The strategy
did not eliminate opposition, but it demonstrably moderated it and reduced the
risk of outright bans in key markets. Reference: Airbnb Policy & Communications Team. (2021).
Responsible Hosting Initiative. Airbnb Newsroom. |
Key Publics,
Intervening Publics, and Influentials
Wilson's three-part framework for
communication strategy provides a practical structure for deploying
communication resources toward the right groups in the right sequence.⁷
⁷ Wilson, L.
(2005). Strategic program planning for effective public relations campaigns.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
|
Key
(Priority) Publics Those whose participation and cooperation are
required to achieve organisational goals. They have the highest priority
according to power, urgency, and active involvement. Communication must
appeal directly to their self-interests and reach them through preferred
channels. Intervening
Publics Pass information to priority publics and serve as
opinion leaders. If an organisation is satisfied when the message stops at a
public, it is a priority public; if it expects the message to be passed on,
it is an intervening public. The media is the most common example. |
|
Influentials Shape how priority publics interpret messages.
Members of priority publics turn to influential opinion leaders to verify or
refute information. Successful campaigns must account for how influentials
will frame the message — they can amplify or neutralise PR efforts. Strategic
Sequencing Effective communication strategy sequences
engagement: cultivating relationships with intervening publics and
influentials before a campaign or crisis, so that when priority publics need
information, the intermediary voices are already aligned. |
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Patagonia — Environmental Activism Strategy (2017–present) Influentials and Intervening Publics as Campaign
Architecture Patagonia's public relations strategy provides a
sophisticated example of the three-public framework in action. Its key
publics are outdoor enthusiasts and environmentally conscious consumers. Its
primary intervening publics are environmental journalism outlets,
conservation NGOs, and social media outdoor communities. Its most critical
influentials are outdoor athletes, conservationists, and, increasingly,
sustainability-focused investors. Patagonia's communications strategy — from
its 2017 homepage takeover ("The President Stole Your Land") to its
2022 announcement transferring company ownership to a trust dedicated to
fighting climate change — is designed not to speak directly to its key
publics first, but to ignite a response among influentials (opinion leaders
in conservation and business ethics), who then carry the message to key
publics through channels their audiences trust. The result is earned media
with a credibility profile that paid advertising cannot replicate. Reference: Chouinard, Y. (2022, September 14). "Earth is
now our only shareholder." Patagonia.com. |
|
SECTION 06 A Contingency Approach to
PR Strategy Matching the Response to the Situation |
No single communication strategy is
appropriate for all stakeholder situations. Effective PR requires what might be
termed strategic situational intelligence — the capacity to read the specific
configuration of stakeholder interests, activity levels, and support
orientations, and to select from a repertoire of strategic approaches
accordingly. The contingency model presented here organises this repertoire
around two fundamental dimensions:
|
Reactive
vs. Proactive Reactive strategies respond to existing problems.
Proactive strategies anticipate or prevent problems before they develop. The
most resilient organisations develop capacity for both, deploying them as the
situation demands. |
|
Self-Interest
vs. Public Interest Self-interested strategies prioritise organisational
goals and ROI. Public-interest strategies balance the needs of all affected
parties. In practice, most decisions contain elements of both — the most
effective strategies align self-interest with genuine public benefit. |
The interaction of these two dimensions
produces four distinct strategic approaches — defensive, responsive, assertive,
and collaborative — each appropriate to a specific stakeholder situation.
The Defensive
Approach: Reactive, Self-Interested
The defensive approach is a reactive
behaviour that acts principally in the self-interest of the organisation. It
relies primarily on one-way communication — disseminating facts, providing
information, correcting inaccuracies, and responding to specific criticisms or
crises from a position of organisational self-protection.
The defensive approach is a legitimate and
sometimes necessary response — particularly when the organisation is the victim
of false or misleading accusations. However, used exclusively or as the default
response to all stakeholder challenges, it signals an organisation that views
its publics as threats to be managed rather than relationships to be built.
Over time, defensive-only PR erodes credibility and trust.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Boeing — 737 MAX Crisis (2018–2020) When Defensive PR Becomes Catastrophic Following the crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft
— Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in
March 2019, killing 346 people in total — Boeing's initial PR response was
paradigmatically defensive. The company resisted grounding the aircraft,
disputed the role of its MCAS flight control software in the crashes, and
issued measured statements that avoided explicit acceptance of
responsibility. This defensive posture — reactive and firmly self-interested
— alienated the families of victims, the global aviation community, and the
travelling public simultaneously. The FAA ultimately grounded the aircraft
globally. The total financial cost of the crisis exceeded $20 billion.
Boeing's subsequent acknowledgement of fault and its CEO transition came too
late to prevent the reputational and financial damage that a more responsive
or collaborative early approach might have mitigated. Reference: Kitroeff, N., & Gelles, D. (2019).
"Boeing's 737 Max Crisis." The New York Times, March 23, 2019. |
The Responsive
Approach: Reactive, Public-Interested
The responsive approach is also triggered
by existing problems or crises, but it differs fundamentally from the defensive
in its orientation: where the defensive strategy prioritises organisational
self-protection, the responsive strategy demonstrates genuine concern for the
interests of affected publics and for society.
This approach has become more prominent as
organisations have recognised that stakeholder trust, once lost through
defensive posturing, is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to rebuild. The
responsive approach acknowledges organisational responsibility, demonstrates
remorse, and commits to concrete action to prevent recurrence.
|
✕ Exxon Valdez — Defensive Response
(1989) |
|
✓ Johnson & Johnson — Responsive
Response (1982) |
|
Exxon
was slow to accept responsibility for the Alaska oil spill, initially
appearing more concerned with legal liability than ecological or community
impact. Its CEO did not visit the site for weeks. Despite spending billions
on the cleanup, Exxon's reputation was permanently damaged — it became the
defining example of what not to do in a corporate crisis. |
|
When
seven people died after taking cyanide-laced Tylenol, J&J CEO James Burke
voluntarily recalled 31 million bottles before any regulatory mandate,
appeared frequently in media to express genuine concern, and led the
development of tamper-evident packaging. J&J restored 95% of market share
within a year and set the global standard for responsive crisis management. |
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Samsung — Galaxy Note 7 Battery Crisis (2016) Responsive Strategy Preserves Long-Term Brand Equity When Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 smartphones began
catching fire in 2016, airlines banned the device from flights and regulators
in multiple countries issued warnings. Samsung's initial response — issuing
replacement units that also caught fire — compounded the crisis. However,
Samsung's subsequent pivot to a fully responsive strategy was swift and
decisive: a global recall of all 2.5 million units, a public apology directly
addressing consumer safety, a comprehensive third-party engineering
investigation whose findings were published in full, and a series of battery
safety innovations introduced across all subsequent products. Samsung's brand
value recovered to pre-crisis levels within two years. The responsive
approach — accepting responsibility, demonstrating public-interest
orientation, and translating remorse into concrete systemic change — was
decisive in that recovery. Reference: Samsung Electronics. (2017, January). Galaxy Note 7
Cause Investigation Results. Samsung Global Newsroom. |
The Assertive
Approach: Proactive, Self-Interested
The assertive approach is proactive — it
anticipates rather than reacts — but is primarily motivated by organisational
self-interest. Organisations using this approach deploy public relations as an
asymmetric strategic function, seeking to shape the external environment in
ways that favour their interests: influencing public opinion, steering
legislative outcomes, and establishing market conditions conducive to their
objectives.
Assertiveness is not inherently negative.
Some of the most consequential prosocial campaigns in modern history have been
assertively executed: anti-smoking campaigns, road safety initiatives, and
public health awareness efforts. The civil rights movement deployed assertive
PR strategy to reshape public opinion and legislative reality. The ethical
quality of the assertive approach depends entirely on whether the self-interest
being advanced is aligned with or in conflict with the public interest.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Tobacco Industry — Internal Doubt Campaign (1950s–1990s) Assertive PR in the Service of Harmful Self-Interest The tobacco industry's decades-long public relations
campaign to manufacture doubt about the link between smoking and cancer is
one of the most studied — and most cautionary — examples of the assertive
approach used to the detriment of the public interest. Documents released
through litigation revealed that industry PR professionals had identified the
health risk evidence as early as the 1950s, and had deliberately deployed
assertive communications strategies — funding alternative research,
cultivating scientific "experts," and running proactive information
campaigns — to delay regulatory action and protect market share. The PR
strategy was ultimately exposed, contributing to the landmark Master
Settlement Agreement of 1998. The assertive approach, wielded against the
public interest, can achieve short-term strategic objectives at catastrophic
long-term cost to credibility and legitimacy. Reference: Brandt, A. M. (2012). Inventing Conflicts of
Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(1), 63–71. |
The
Collaborative Approach: Proactive, Public-Interested
The collaborative approach represents the
most sophisticated and, in most contexts, the most strategically durable form
of public relations practice. It is simultaneously proactive — anticipating
stakeholder needs rather than reacting to them — and genuinely
public-interested, seeking outcomes that benefit both the organisation and its
stakeholders. It is, in effect, the practical application of Grunig's two-way
symmetrical model to stakeholder strategy.
|
|
Collaboration emphasises
that the publics who are affected by or who can affect the action of an
organisation should participate in the decision-making process. It involves
cooperation to develop equilibrium between the interests of the two parties. — PR Strategy Module — Contingency Approach to Public
Relations |
The collaborative approach requires more
than dialogue as a tactic — it demands dialogue as a genuine commitment. Its
tools are participatory: stakeholder consultations, co-design processes, joint
task forces, transparent reporting, and formal accountability mechanisms. Its
standard for success is not whether the organisation's message was received,
but whether the relationship was deepened and whether the outcome served shared
interests.
|
|
MODERN EXAMPLE | Unilever — Sustainable Living Plan & Stakeholder
Co-Design (2010–2020) The Collaborative Approach as Competitive Advantage Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan, launched in 2010
under CEO Paul Polman, is one of the most extensively studied examples of the
collaborative PR approach at global corporate scale. Rather than setting
sustainability targets internally and communicating them outward, Unilever
engaged a wide network of NGOs, supplier communities, academic institutions,
and consumer groups in co-designing the plan's goals — including commitments
on water use, carbon emissions, smallholder farmer welfare, and women's economic
empowerment. This collaborative architecture served Unilever's self-interest
(brand differentiation, supply chain resilience, regulatory relationship
management) while genuinely advancing public interest goals. By the
mid-2010s, Unilever's Sustainable Living Brands were growing 50% faster than
the rest of the portfolio. The collaborative approach had transformed
stakeholder relationships into a source of competitive advantage. Reference: Unilever. (2020). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan
Summary of 10 Years' Progress. Unilever.com. |
|
SECTION 07 Case Study The Memphis Headquarters — Collaborative Strategy in Practice |
The theoretical frameworks presented in
this article find practical illustration in a case study involving a large
corporation's decision to build a new headquarters in one of Memphis,
Tennessee's most prestigious residential neighbourhoods — a decision that,
without careful stakeholder management, could have generated prolonged legal
and community opposition sufficient to prevent construction entirely.
The Stakeholder
Landscape
Applying the linkage model to this
situation immediately reveals the complexity of the stakeholder environment.
The enabling stakeholders included the city government, neighbourhood zoning
authorities, and the corporation's own board. The functional stakeholders
included the construction contractors and the corporation's employees who would
occupy the building. The normative stakeholders were limited in this context.
The most strategically significant group was the diffused stakeholders — the
neighbourhood's residents, particularly the prominent citizens who owned
high-value properties and had recently successfully fought a similar
development battle (the conversion of a school into offices).
Applying Grunig's situational theory, the
neighbourhood residents were clearly an aware public — they recognised the
problem, were personally involved (their property values and daily environment
were directly at stake), and had demonstrated in the recent school case that
their constraint recognition was low (they believed they could do something
about it). They were, in short, on the verge of becoming an active adversarial
public. The corporation's PR director recognised this before the announcement,
enabling a proactive collaborative response.
The
Collaborative Strategy in Action
Rather than announcing the project and
managing the inevitable opposition reactively, the PR director initiated a
structured dialogue with the homeowners' association before any construction
plans were disclosed publicly. Through this dialogue, four primary areas of
concern were identified:
6.
Construction noise and disruption to the residential
environment.
7.
The visual impact and aesthetic incongruity of a
corporate building within a residential neighbourhood.
8.
The potential diminishment of property values, some
exceeding one million dollars.
9.
Secondary impacts — increased traffic, reduced privacy,
and the ongoing presence of an office building in daily life.
Taking this intelligence back to the CEO
and senior management, the PR director developed a set of collaborative
commitments that were negotiated — not imposed — through further meetings with
the association. The solutions included:
•
Installation of soundproof baffles between the
construction site and neighbouring homes.
•
Preservation of all old-growth trees, with the building
height not to exceed tree height — rendering the structure invisible from
surrounding streets and homes.
•
Preservation of the original historical mansion on the
property.
•
Innovative underground construction, allowing several
floors to be built below grade while maintaining natural light — addressing the
visual impact concern entirely.
•
Adjustment of working hours to 7:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m.,
based on commuter research showing a half-hour drive time for local residents,
eliminating traffic conflict during peak residential hours.
•
Provision of corporate security services to the
neighbourhood — converting a potential source of conflict (increased foot
traffic) into a community benefit.
The result was not grudging acceptance but
active advocacy. The corporation built its new headquarters with vocal support
from its neighbours. For years following completion, the PR director received
notes from residents thanking security guards for returning lost pets and
contributing to neighbourhood charitable initiatives.
|
|
Using the collaborative
approach, this corporation was able to achieve a win-win solution through
two-way communication. Both the organisation's interests and the
neighbourhood's interests were served — not at each other's expense, but
through each other's cooperation. — PR Strategy Module — Case Study: Building a Headquarters in
a Neighbourhood |
|
Key
Lessons from the Memphis Case Study |
|
1.
Proactive identification of diffused stakeholders — before they
self-organised into an adversarial public — was the decisive first move. The
PR director did not wait for opposition to form. 2.
Two-way communication was genuine, not performative. The corporation went
into the dialogue without predetermined answers, and allowed stakeholder
concerns to reshape the project design. 3.
Self-interest and public interest were aligned through co-design. The
corporation's need to build was met; the neighbourhood's need to protect
property values and quality of life was met. Neither side conceded; both
gained. 4.
Long-term relationship capital was generated. The goodwill produced by the
collaborative process continued to yield dividends — in the form of community
goodwill and advocacy — for years after construction was complete. |
|
SECTION 08 Conclusion Stakeholder Intelligence as Organisational Resilience |
The frameworks examined in this article —
the stakeholder/public distinction, the linkage model, Grunig's Situational
Theory of Publics, the four-quadrant engagement strategy, and the contingency
model of PR approaches — constitute a coherent and mutually reinforcing
architecture for strategic stakeholder management. Taken individually, each
framework offers a useful lens. Taken together, they provide an integrated
system for building and maintaining the stakeholder relationships on which
organisational reputation, legitimacy, and ultimately survival depend.
The modern examples presented throughout
this article reinforce the core theoretical argument with contemporary
evidence: the organisations most resilient to reputational risk — whether
facing whistleblower revelations, product safety crises, community opposition,
or environmental controversies — are those that have invested in systematic
stakeholder intelligence and proactive relationship management before the
crisis arrives. They are the organisations that know who their stakeholders
are, understand their concerns, have classified their activity and support
orientation, and have maintained genuine two-way communication with the groups
that matter most.
The shift from transactional to
collaborative stakeholder engagement is not merely an ethical imperative —
though it is that. It is a strategic one. As Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan
demonstrates, organisations that genuinely embed stakeholder interests into
their decision-making processes do not sacrifice competitive advantage; they
create it. As Patagonia demonstrates, organisations that align their brand
narrative with the self-interests of their key publics generate a quality of
loyalty and advocacy that no paid media campaign can replicate.
The discipline of identifying and
prioritising stakeholders is not a preliminary to strategy — it is strategy. It
is the foundation on which every PR campaign, every crisis plan, every
community engagement programme, and every corporate communication initiative
must be built. In the age of radical transparency, instant communication, and
digitally empowered publics, organisations that treat stakeholder mapping as a
bureaucratic exercise rather than a living intelligence function will find
themselves perpetually reactive — always surprised by the publics who chose to
choose them.
|
|
Stakeholders who are also
active publics become the obvious top priority publics. An organisation must
develop strategies to help mediate issues with priority publics before those
issues become crises. — Rawlins, B. L. (2006). Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public
Relations. Institute for Public Relations. |
References
Airbnb Policy & Communications Team.
(2021). Responsible Hosting Initiative. Airbnb Newsroom.
https://news.airbnb.com
Baby Milk
Action. (2023). Nestlé — breaching the International Code. Cambridge:
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).
Boeing.
(2019–2020). 737 MAX Updates. Boeing Media Room. https://www.boeing.com
Brandt, A. M.
(2012). Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 63–71.
Buchholz, R.
A. (1989). Business environment and public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Chouinard, Y.
(2022, September 14). Earth is now our only shareholder. Patagonia.com.
https://www.patagonia.com
Dewey, J.
(1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow.
Edison
Trends. (2018). Nike online sales report. Reported in The Wall Street Journal,
September 7, 2018.
Fitzpatrick,
K., & Gauthier, C. (2001). Toward a professional responsibility theory of
public relations ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16, 193–212.
Freeman, R.
E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Grunig, J. E.
(2005). Situational theory of publics. In Encyclopedia of public relations (p.
779). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J.
E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Grunig, J.
E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management
(pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haugen, F.
(2021, October 5). Testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Facebook.
United States Senate.
Kitroeff, N.,
& Gelles, D. (2019, March 23). Boeing's 737 Max crisis. The New York Times.
Liechty, G.
(1997). The limits of collaboration. Public Relations Review, 23, 47–55.
Murphy, P.
(1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and
asymmetrical public relations. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 115–131.
Rawlins, B.
L. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Institute for Public
Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org
Samsung
Electronics. (2017, January). Galaxy Note 7 cause investigation results.
Samsung Global Newsroom. https://news.samsung.com
Unilever.
(2020). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Summary of 10 years' progress.
Unilever.com. https://www.unilever.com
Wilson, L.
(2005). Strategic program planning for effective public relations campaigns.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Winn, M. I.
(2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology.
Business & Society, 40, 133–166.