3.8 Article

Building social sustainability: multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management

期刊

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 685-+

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2012-0134

关键词

Paradox; Reflexivity; Social sustainability; Conflict management research; Multi-stakeholder processes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The aim of the paper is to investigate social sustainability by focussing on the stakeholder theory and by presenting specific levers and capabilities for building more socially sustainable organizations. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on the analysis of recent academic and managerial literature. Through comparing theoretical and methodological perspectives from multiple authors, a specific theoretical and methodological viewpoint based on the stakeholder theory is proposed. Findings - The paper discusses the idea that building socially sustainable organisations requires the management of multi-stakeholder processes that are physiologically conflicting and that often create paradoxical tensions. Participative settings of action and reflection and capabilities as reflexivity and paradoxical thinking are proposed as key levers for dealing with multi-stakeholders processes towards a more socially sustainable organizing. Research limitations/implications - This paper raises reflections focussed on the social pillar of sustainability and does not consider different types of organizations in different multi-stakeholders processes. Such a perspective does not exhaust the variety of cases and research studies that could be considered in the field and further developed. Originality/value - The value of the paper is in its construction of a framework for both research and practical purposes in the domain of management and sustainability. The work also attempts to link the concepts of reflexivity and paradox to a methodological proposal for leading the organizational journey towards social sustainability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据