Identification of stakeholder classes

As mentioned above, Mitchell et al. (1997) identified seven different stakeholder classes and each class could be mapped into different categories based on the possession of attributes. The first category is the latent stakeholder, which is characterized by the possession of only one of the attributes. These stakeholders are not likely to acknowledge the organization or even pay attention to any business practises. Likewise, the organization might not recognize the existence of those stakeholders. The second category is the expectant stakeholder. In this category, stakeholders possess two attributes and, therefore, are likely to expect the organization to respond to their interest. In that way, the relationship between the organization and these expectant stakeholders is higher. The last category is the definitive stakeholder and these stakeholders possess a combination of all three attributes. These stakeholders should be considered as highly important and the organization should give priority to those stakeholders’ claims.

Furthermore, after identifying the different stakeholder classes, Mitchell et al. (1997) could also determine the degree of salience of each class. They define salience as “the degree to which managers give attention to competing stakeholder claims” (1997: 869). For instance, they argue that the salience of a stakeholder to the organization is low if only one out of the three attributes is present, whereas it is seen as moderate if two attributes are present, and high if all three attributes are present. In the next sections the different stakeholder classes are described in detail.

Figure 3. Stakeholder classes by Mitchell et al. (1997).

Stakeholder classes

Latent stakeholders Dormant stakeholders (1)

This stakeholder type possesses the attribute power which means that these stakeholders could impose their will on an organization without having either a legitimate relationship or an urgent claim. In accordance to the above-mentioned bases of power; coercive, utilitarian and symbolic.

Mitchell et al. (1997) give examples of different influences of dormant stakeholders. For instance, the multiple shootings at postal facilities by former mail employees is described as execution of coercive power. Utilitarian power exercised by a dormant stakeholder could be the filing of wrongful dismissal suits in the court system. An example of symbolic power could be speaking out on talk radio.

Discretionary stakeholders (2)

The discretionary stakeholders possess the legitimacy attribute. Yet they do not have any power to influence the organization and their claims are not considered as urgent. This means that there is no pressure on the organization to retain an active relationship with discretionary stakeholders.

An example of a discretionary stakeholder is non-profit organizations such as soup kitchens, which receives donations and volunteer labour from companies.

Demanding stakeholders (3)

Demanding stakeholders only possess the urgency attribute. This means that they have an urgent claim but having neither power nor legitimacy to back it up. These stakeholders are described as irksome but not dangerous. Therefore, their claim might only pass the organization’s attention, as the attribute urgency is not sufficient to project a stakeholder claim beyond latency.

Expectant stakeholders Dominant stakeholders (4)

The dominant stakeholders are considered both powerful and legitimate. Hence, their relationship with the organization is of great importance as their influence in the organization is assured due to the legitimate claim they have and the ability to act upon this claim. Examples of this stakeholder class could be corporate boards of directors and public affairs offices. Arguably, organizations produce different reports such as annual reports, proxy statement and environmental and social responsibility reports to those stakeholders as these stakeholders are seen as important to the organization.

Dangerous stakeholders (5)

A dangerous stakeholder is characterized by possessing the attributes urgency and power and lacking legitimacy. Mitchell et al. (1997) suggest coercion as a descriptor as illegitimate claims often is accompanied by exercising coercive power. In that way, these stakeholders call attention to their claims by dangerous actions. Therefore, it is important for organizations to identify these stakeholder classes without acknowledging them. Examples of using coercive means to advance their claim include any form of sabotage, wildcat strikes actions and terrorism. The actions of this

stakeholder class are not only outside the bounds of legitimacy but are also considered as dangerous.

Dependant stakeholders (6)

The dependent stakeholder class is characterized by having urgent and legitimate claims but lacking the attribute power to enforce their claims in the relationship with the organization. Due to the lack of power, this stakeholder class is dependant on other stakeholders who possess the power to influence the organization. An example of a dependent stakeholder could be local residents when a giant oil spill occurs nearby. In this case, the local residents have to rely on the advocacy of a more powerful stakeholder such as the state government or the court system who could provide guardianship of the region's citizens.

Definitive stakeholders (7)

As stated above, the definitive stakeholder class possesses all three attributes. Further, the claims of these stakeholders are seen as highly important and are given great organizational antecedence.

As expectant stakeholders only possess two out of three attributes, they can easily become a definitive stakeholder by obtaining this missing attribute. Using the example of the oil spill case, the local residents who only had an urgent and legitimate claim became definitive stakeholders by acquiring a powerful ally in the government.