Risk and Financial Management; Vol. 2, No.

2; 2020
ISSN 2690-9790 E-ISSN 2690-9804
https://doi.org/10.30560/rfm.v2n2p1

Reputation Risk from a Stakeholder Management Perspective

A. Aderibigbe1 & E. Fragouli1
1
University of Dundee, UK
Correspondence: E. Fragoui, School of Business, University of Dundee, UK. E-mail: e.fragouli@dundee.ac.uk

Received: May 4, 2020 Accepted: May 29, 2020 Online Published: July 13, 2020

Abstract
Stakeholders face many different risks that arise from any business activity. The stakeholder management
approach is the process by which is organised, monitored and improved relationships with business stakeholders.
It involves systematically identifying stakeholders; analysing their needs, expectations; planning and
implementing various tasks to engage with them. Most definitions of stakeholder management tend to focus around
the idea of how could stakeholders be managed in order to get them to do what is equired. The emphasis is placed
on creating a stakeholder management plan that maps the level of interest and influence of stakeholders and list
various levels of engagement for the different groups. This paper applies a case study methodology presenting the
Wal-Mart case and the Malden Mills case to reflect the implications of stakeholder management in companies.
The findings indicate the positive but also the negative implications which result when various stakeholders are
neglected, and, conversely, the benefits when stakeholders are effectively engaged in corporate activities. It
concludes that effective stakeholder management contributes to risk management and reputation management, as
well as, to corporate social responsibility.
Keywords: stakeholder, management, risk, corporate social responsibility
1. Introduction
The management of stakeholders as well as their relationship with a given company has become a crucial matter
not only for public relations practitioners, but also scholars and academics researching the topic. The
stakeholder management approach to business incorporates information about the various stakeholders and
how they affect and are affected by company operations. This report will ultimately aim to discuss and analyze
the effectiveness of the stakeholder approach as actually fully serving as risk and reputation management
policies themselves. First, however, we will provide some background on the actual theory as well as
important related concepts and terms. Additionally, we will compare and contrast some of the various other
risk management policies as well as providing practical examples in the form of case study analysis to link our
theories with real world events. This report will also use literature review to assess the views and criticisms of this
approach and to form a sort of proposal on the matter. By the conclusion of this report, the reader will have a
comprehensive knowledge of the stakeholder management theory and if and how this approach is able to serve
as a risk management policy.
Business in the modern era exist for the primary objective of generating profits. Under the stakeholder
management approach, organizations can gain wealth through multifaceted relationships with any of their
stakeholders. Successful corporate leaders have long understood the importance of hearing and reacting to
concerns from their clients as well as the general public so that they can capitalize on new opportunities
while simultaneously anticipating and mitigating crises before they fully develop (Post, Preston, and Sauter-
Sachs 2002). Despite this fact, sectors such as risk and crisis management are relatively new corporate functions
that have become increasingly more commonplace in the years post World War II (Dionne 2013).
2. A Theoretical Review and Applications
2.1 The Concept of Risk & Reputation Risk
The definition of risk is a topic that has stirred up arguments among risk practitioners. In 2002, there was a debate
between some risk practitioners, David Hillson, David Hullett and Ron Kohl. Hillson and Hullett argued for a new
and more expansive definition of risk that reflects “upside risk” while Ron Kohl on the other hand argued that the
traditional definition of risk should be retained. The basis for the argument is whether the term risk should include
both ‘threat’ and ‘opportunity’ or risk should refer exclusively to negative events, with opportunity being
qualitatively distinct. (Hullet et al 2002). Some risk practitioners support Hillson and Hullett’s argument while

1 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

some support Kohl’s argument. For example, (Jabagchourian & Cvetko, 2002) Associated the use of risk
exclusively to negative outcomes in projects, i.e. project threats and potential problems while opportunity is used
to refer to positive outcomes. The authors argue that risk and opportunity are different therefore incorporating
opportunity into the definition of risk will lead to confusion.(Jabagchourian & Cvetko, 2002). However some other
authors have a very different opinion, for example, some authors argues that “incorporation of opportunity in the
definition of risk is a clear statement of intent, recognizing that both are equally important influences over project
success and both need managing proactively”. (Hillson, 2002) .Traditional usage of the word “risk” reflects only
the possibility of something bad, this is reflected in the dictionary definition of risk. In the dictionary, risk is defined
exclusively in bad terms. The noun risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger (Oxford English
dictionary 2013).
Without a doubt, the general use of the word ‘risk’ sees only the downside. However, sometimes, the traditional
meaning of a word may defer from its meaning in the technical discipline for example the word ‘value’ or ‘quality’
have different technical meanings within the world of project management. This may be the case for the word
‘risk’. Over the past decade, some professional bodies and risk management standard organizations have taken a
different view of risk from the layman, they have expanded their definition of risk to include both ‘upside’ and
‘downside’.(Hillson, 2003) For example, a quide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK), (2008)
defines risk as “an uncertain event that if it occurs has a positive or negative effect on project objectives.” Some
other professional bodies have also taken this inclusive position, although it is not generally accepted.(Hillson,
2009).
Following the scandals of many companies that were considered reputable and long standing before their fall like
the Enron; Arthur Anderson’s melt down, Findus horse meat scandal, BP ‘fat cat’, Perrier product recall, Exxon
Valdese environmental contamination, etc. shows that every company is at risk even the finest organisations. From
across all sectors of industries- banking, insurance, oil and gas, construction, etc. reputation plays a central role on
the success or failure of that industry. Reputation is considered as the reason why people and organisation do
business with you and this is achieved through many years of investment (Davies, 2006) and perhaps one of the
most important strategic resources of an organisation (Flanagan & O’Shaughnessy, 2005:445; Hall, 1992 cited by
Boyd et al, 2010), which helps to differentiate one organisation from the other (Peterson, 1993). Similarly, “an
organisation’s reputation reflects stakeholder impressions of the firm’s disposition to behave in a certain manner”
(Basdo et al, 2006: 1206 cited by Lange et al, 2011).
To define reputation risk (RR), Peterson, (2006), (United States Patent Application: Interactive Risk Management
Systems and Methods with RRM), puts it in a clear perspective. He defines RR as “arising from situation,
occurrence, business practice or an event that has the tendency to materially influence the perceived trust and
confidence of the public or stakeholders in an institution, resulting in a measurable, negative impact on financial
performance on a short or long- term basis, resulting in an impact on the going-forward value of a brand or
franchise threatened in a material manner; and or resulting in a change in fundamental business practice required
in order to mitigate the risk”. This definition does not only embodies what is and can be the result of RR but also
how this can be mitigated and managed- it requires best practices, an organisation wide approach and processes;
reputation risk management (RRM). RRM, according to Larkin (2003), involves the anticipation and knowledge
of responding to changes in values and behaviours on the part of a range of corporation’s internal and external
stakeholders’ relations. Effective RRM depends upon identifying and control each process, and being operated
holistically- not as a special function to be activated in an emergency but a major influence on the organisation’s
behaviours and standards but this also means committing money. “The key therefore is to understand that
reputation is in all probability the biggest asset and if managed properly will have a spin-off benefits that, by
themselves massively improve corporate performance and profitability” (Davies, 2006)
2.1.1 What is Risk Management?
Risk and complexity is a common feature of modern day business. Managers have to deal with a large array of
different, yet interrelated types of risks including financial, technological, environmental safety, insurance-related
and regulatory risks. Because risks impact heavily on profitability, efficiency and sustainability, its management
is crucial to growth and development (Zwikael & Ahn, 2011). In the past five years, there has been:
... a paradigm shift has occurred regarding the way organizations view risk management. Instead of looking at risk
management from a silo-based perspective, the trend is to take a holistic view of risk management. This holistic
approach toward managing an organization’s risk is commonly referred to as enterprise risk management (ERM).
Indeed, there is growing support for the general argument that organizations will improve their performance by
employing the ERM concept. (Gordon, Leob & Tseng 2009, p.301)

2 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

In 2004, COSO defined Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) as:

a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management and other personnel, applied in strategy setting
and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be
within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of entity objectives. (as cited
in Kirkpatrick 2009, p.7)
Because risks are by their nature dynamic, fluid and interconnected, the best way to manage them is through an
integrated approach. Such a portfolio view of risks will lead to organisational effectiveness, better risk reporting
and enhanced business performance amongst others (Lam, 2003). Although people tend to focus on the negative
connotations associated with risk, there are indeed several upsides and possibilities for gain. In the business
context, for example, risk will always be connected to new opportunity; therefore, companies must be willing
to take on at least some degree of risk in order to succeed (Panaggio 2013). Knowing when and how much
risk to assume is essential for firms because of the potential for severe crisis when risk manifests. The
willingness of an investor to bear a risk is known as risk appetite and depends on two different factors: the
extent of the investor’s dislike for that uncertainty and the extent of that uncertainty (Gai and Vause 2005).
As was previously noted, the field of risk management has undergone dramatic changes in recent decades. For
a majority of the 1980s and 1990s, most large companies employed a risk manager who was responsible for
overseeing the company’s insurance transactions. Now, in today’s business environment, the scope and
objective of corporate risk management has grown to include all different types of corporate operations
and strategic risks. Now, instead of having a corporate risk manager, firms often choose a chief risk officer
who holds a position in senior management. Essentially, risk management has expanded from simply alleviating
deviations from the earnings trajectory, to protecting the entire firm’s sources of future earning power (Chew
2008). Bob Anderson, who is the executive director of the Committee of Chief Risk Officers, summarizes
the changing dynamics of the sector: “Corporate risk management is no longer a just a series of isolated
transactions…risk management is clearly a senior management function that requires input and collaboration
from all levels of company operations” (Morgan Stanley Publication 2005). These views reiterate the increasing
awareness of the importance of risk and how to handle it.
2.1.2 Critical Review of the Stakeholder Management Approach
Although research on stakeholders reveals many elements separately, it is surprising to mention the minimal efforts
that have been put to establish comprehensive models for managing stakeholders. Aggeri and Acquier (2005)
recommend a model for involving stakeholders with an interpretive vision (understanding the practices of
companies) and an instrumental one (managing relations with stakeholders). This approach made up of the four
key elements : 1) any company have stakeholders who raise requirements 2) not all stakeholders can influence the
company in the same way; 3) the well of of the corporation depends on its potentils to meet the requests of key
stakeholders; 4) thkey role of top management is to arbitrate between the potentially contradictory demands of the
stakeholders. is restrictive insofar as it only takes into consideration the scenario of the stakeholders supporting
various interests. Aggeri and Acquier’s model (2005) became more improved later on stating: 1) all corpoations
have stakeholders with requirements with regard to them, but also in regard of whom the corporation perhaps have
demands; 2) few stakeholders can influence the organisation, as well as , the organisation can not influence all its
stakeholders; 3) achieving the corporate objective relies on the organisation’s ability to act on its key stakeholders;
4) therole of management is to arbitrate between its organisational needs and the potential contradictory requests
of stakeholders.. Preble (2005) adds to this debate developing a model for managing stakeholders that is designed
to be comprehensive. His model has the merit of integrating a number of analysis for the stakeholder theor.. This
theory is particularly relevant in explaining the actor's behaviour in a changing process. It insists on the process
by which the organisational change is conducted
Much like risk management, the term stakeholder management is relatively new despite the fact that its basic
concepts have been around for several decades. A stakeholder is any individual, group, or organization that can
affect or be affected by a firm’s activities. These can include customers, suppliers, property owners, etc.
Although traditional shareholder value maximization should theoretically lead to the highest firm earnings, the
stakeholder approach aims to solve three key problems (Freeman et al. 2010).
First is the problem of value creation and trade. In the present times, business relationships can change
depending on the national, industrial, and societal context. Essentially, there are changing external factors that
affect the economics of business and must also be considered. Next, we have the problem of ethics in capitalism.
Although this economic system has led to substantial technological advancements and human progress, it has
also created societal inequality that places those whore are unable to compete with new technologies at a

3 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

significant disadvantage (Frieden and Rogowski 2013) while attempts to solve the problem of value creation
and trade under a strict shareholder value approach only serve to intensify the problem of ethics in capitalism.
The third problem that the stakeholder approach attempts to overcome is the economically centered
managerial mindset. It is suggested that often, this type of business mentality is simply not suitable for the
turbulent nature of the modern business environment. The challenge is to redefine economic theory so that it
incorporates modern day ethical challenges with business matters and managers can combine elements from both
in their decision making process. Furthermore, it is suggested that business schools might need to change what
they teach in order for future leaders to be properly prepared to deal with modern challenges (Freeman et al.
2010). Stakeholder theory implies that if the relationship between a company and all of its stakeholders is used as
a measure of analysis, the three problems stated earlier may be overcome.
Freeman (1994) points out that most traditional business theories stress the separation of business
decisions from ethical ones hence the common joke “business ethics as an oxymoron”. It seems, however,
that this way of thinking has just perpetuated many of the problems that exist in our society today. Attempts to
solve these problems with the traditional shareholder value mentality displays an element of reflexivity as the
cause and effect actually affect one another: Increased attempts to solve problems lead to more problems which
lead to more attempts and the cycle continues indefinitely.
Business as usual, government as usual, and even protest as usual are not promoting the progress that we
need as a society therefore, large scale collaboration will be necessary to bring about positive change (Hohnen
2001). Many modern day issues are incapable of being resolved with any single set of decision makers from
the government or any other sector. Rather, these issues require cooperation between different stakeholders in
working out the solutions, their implementation, and the monitoring of results (Hemmati 2002).The stakeholder
management approach includes various analytical procedures for planning and developing corporate strategy
with stakeholders and is based on the idea that strong ethical principles can result in tremendous competitive
advantage (Weiss 2008). In the real world, there are three dimensions to stakeholder management: identifying
stakeholders, maintaining a solid relationship with them, and improving existing relationships (Smudde and
Courtright 2011). Companies cover these three elements by forming processes that strive to gather all major
stakeholders in a new circle of communication and decision making on various issues. These processes must
be based on an awareness of the importance of maintaining equity and accountability, as well as an awareness
of the democratic principles of transparency and participation between the stakeholders.
Despite the many positive aspects of the stakeholder approach, there are several barriers that impede the
implementation of this strategy. For starters, non- governmental organizations lack funding and often times
governments are incapable or reluctant to develop a consistent approach to stakeholder involvement. More
importantly, however, there is a general unwillingness to engage on the part of many individuals and
organizations for various reasons. Minu Hemmati (2002) stresses that businesses tend to have a stubbornness
that prevents them from understanding that stakeholders, rather than just shareholders, should have a say in
their policies. Under this mindset, companies believe that no groups or individuals should have any say in
operations as long as they are within government regulations.
Deborah Tannen (1998) believes that there is a strong element of “the argument culture” in society today. This
refers to the widespread automatic tendency to aggressive forms of communication, confrontational exchange,
military metaphors, and thinking in dualisms. There are two sides to every coin therefore Tannen (1998) suggests
a shift from debate to dialogue rather than fighting and heated discussion. This also means that people need
to start listening rather than just hearing because dialogue is the foundation for integrating diverse views in
order to form solutions for complex problems.Now that we have covered some of the relevant theoretical
elements, we may begin to make the argument that the stakeholder management approach is a multifaceted
strategy that serves as an effective risk management policy and simultaneously fulfills the objectives of
various other management policies as well. We are able to support this argument through analysis of real world
scenarios. Davies (2013) presents a large scale sporting event such as the Cricket World Cup which we will
use as a preliminary example. An even such as this is accompanied by tremendous media attention which
provides millions of people around the world a chance to watch the sports competition, which in reality
is just a component of the entire event. For an event like this to be successful, effective risk management
is an essential, yet challenging, component. We begin to see the reflexivity element again because as a
stakeholder’s interests increase, so does media attention which leads to more risk.
As a result of the increase in risk, more stakeholders become involved once again. Because of this reflexive
relationship, an event as huge as a World Cup carries high levels of risk and many stakeholders who all

4 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

want a successful event. The problem now becomes that the criteria for success to different stakeholders changes
because they have different perspectives. The host nation is concerned with conducting a successful event in
their country whereas the governing body, International Cricket Council (ICC), is concerned with the successful
completion of the event regardless of where it is held. Although the difference seems very small, if a dangerous
accident were to potentially threaten the staging of the event, the host nation would focus on a short-term
postponement.The governing body, on the other hand, might prioritize possibly obtaining a new host nation and
relocating the event in order to stay on schedule. Law enforcement agencies, event organizers, and private
security are also all involved in a mega event. Sound communication is necessary to ensure an effective
division of labor so that the different groups do not become counterproductive to one another. Similarly,
event organizers and sponsors must collaborate because the sponsor expects positive brand exposure as
compensation for providing funding to hold the event in the first place. In the case of inclement weather,
the event organizer must consider the contracted sponsor rights while also attending to other areas of risk
such as spectator and player safety. The World Cup example shows us that the consolidation of many different
objectives into one big picture approach is essential for a mega event to succeed. When the stakeholders work
together, potential risks are more easily identified and interdependencies between groups can be highlighted
(Davies 2013). This approach proved to be effective because the event was staged successfully. Spectators
were entertained and players, sponsors, vendors, and media agencies all profited financially without dispute.
The ICC, host nation, governments of participating nations, and law enforcement agencies all followed the
same framework, which allowed the whole tournament view on risk to be developed and successful executed.
In this event, as well as many others that follow the same approach, the act of engaging in stakeholder
management highlights potential risks seemingly on there own. This case supports our argument that the
stakeholder approach is also an effective risk management policy as it relates to large scale sporting events but
the same principles also can also be applied successfully in the business environment and the remainder of
cases in this report,, will focus on businesses, rather than sporting events.
2.2 Application in Practice
2.2.1 1st Case Study
A large private retailer is Wal-Mart based in the United States (Fortune 500) and offers a wide spectrum of
goods such as clothes, pharmaceuticals, food, electronics, automotive accessories, sporting items, and much
more. Sam Walton founded the company in 1962 and from the beginning; his philosophy has been to promote a
higher volume of sales by accepting lower profit margins and portraying his low prices as a major attraction to
consumers (Tedlow 2001). The concept was very profitable and within the first five years of being open,
had expanded to 24 stores and generated over $12 million of sales (PBS Frontline). Now, Wal-Mart has over
11,000 stores worldwide and stand out from other retailers because of the extent to which they have used
economic globalization to prioritize the interests of customers and shareholders above other parties like
employees, unions, competitors, and suppliers (Boutilier 2011).
Resultantly, there are many that have benefited from their operation and many that have suffered. Wal-
Mart is a massive institution not only in regards to their store sizes but also economically. For the purposes of
comparison, we observe that in 2013, competitors such as Sears and Macy’s accumulated revenues of $36 billion
and $27 billion respectively while Wal-mart, on the other hand, managed to generate over $476 billion in the
same year. To put this in perspective, the GDP of Nigeria as a nation in the same year was $479 million (Fortune
500). Due to the shear size of Wal-Mart, it is easy to understand that many, many issues have been raised
against the company that span a wide variety of topics.As we can from the numbers, Wal-Mart is flourishing
economically and dominating their so-called “competition” but this comes with other important implications.
We will now look into some of the issues/protests that have been raised against this mega retailer and take a
look at how their corporate strategy has affected various stakeholders either positively or negatively. Based on
the companies various upsides and shortcomings, we will asses the effectiveness of their strategy which we will
integrate with our argument for the stakeholder management approach.Wal-Mart is notorious for offering and
aggressively advertising very low prices; this is one of the main reasons that so many consumers are attracted
to their stores. The reality of the situation is that the low prices come at the expense of many other people/groups:
Even the customers, who are thrilled with low prices, see negative effects from the lower quality associated
with the cheaper goods. This is one of the most common complaints against the company and the first issue
that we will asses. “Wal-Mart Watch” is a public education campaign dedicated to challenging the world’s biggest
retailer to improve a wide spectrum of shortcomings. David Nassar (2007), executive director of the campaign,
points out that dangerously cheap products have lead to E. coli tainted meat, melamine in dog food, and
even lead paint on children’s toys; all of which underwent product recalls. Nassar (2007) states that in order to

5 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

cut costs, Wal- Mart has moved production to countries with weaker labor and environmental standards.
Their continual desire for lower prices means that manufacturers are pressured to abandon sensible methods
and instead begin to cut corners on materials, labor conditions, and ultimately quality. If suppliers are
unable or unwilling to reduce prices by at least 5 percent annually, Wal-Mart will either stop selling a
particular item completely or they will simply find a different supplier that can meet their desired price
(Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2010). Due to the nature of the company’s risk appetite, they continually pressure
manufacturers to lower costs, which essentially transfer much of the price risk, back up the supply chain to the
manufacturer (Zsidisin and Hartley 2012). In this aspect, we can see that lack of attention to customer health is
yielding negative results. In some instances, Wal-Mart even continued to sell products that had undergone
recall. This really shoes that the company has such a deeply ingrained shareholder value approach that they
prioritize profit maximization over consumer safety. If a true stakeholder approach had been employed, it is
likely that dangerous products that were recalled might not have been on the shelves in the first place because
the marginally cheaper products would not meet acceptable standards as they can have detrimental effects on
consumer health. For this scenario, we will argue that the company’s refusal to consider the customer’s health
over their profits lead them to assume the increased risk of harming some customers.
This risk manifested on several occasions leading to crisis and product recalls. We will use the product recalls
and sick or injured customers as criteria to deem Wal- Mart’s risk management strategy as ineffective in regards
to product quality. This fully supports our argument for the stakeholder approach, as the company could have
avoided risk and crisis by employing it. Another big issue that has been raised against Wal-Mart is that they
have very poor employee relations. Over the past twenty years, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) has filed fifteen lawsuits against the mega retailer; only 5 of them have been resolved
and the other ten are still pending (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2010). The basis of these complaints ranges
from alleged discrimination on the basis of age, sexual orientation, and most commonly gender. Women
comprise 67 percent of the Wal-Mart workforce but only about 33 percent of their managers are women
according to ABC News (2014). This discrepancy was used as support for the 2007 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores
lawsuit alleging that women faced discrimination against receiving promotions. A class action suit covering
all former and current female employees was sought but eventually could not proceed in court although several
women proceeded individually (New York Times 2011).
According to Joe Sellers, lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, “Wal-Mart has operated the largest glass ceiling for its
women employees and we want to shatter it.” He also continued to add that they hoped to break down the
company procedures that prevented women from being treated fairly. Similar qualms have been raised about
age and disability discrimination. This will have negative implications on the corporate reputation, an issue
that will be covered in further detail. Additional employment issues are complaints about low wages, poor
working conditions, insufficient health care, and opposition to the company’s stringent policies against labor
unions. In 2001, sales clerks averaged an hourly rate of $8.23, which equates to an annual salary of $13,86,
a value that failed to meet the federal poverty line for a family of three at the time (Bianco and Zellner 2015).
When one adds the fact that 46 percent of these employees are uninsured (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell
2010), the sentiment of displeasure from the workers seems justified. From the information we have gathered
about Wal- Mart’s employee relations, we can observe elements of the scientific management theory in their
approach. This theory starts with the assumptions that employees are prone to avoid work whenever possible,
have limited, selfish aspirations, and are immature in the ways of work (Abbott 2006). In attempt to mitigate
risk from these behavioral employee assumptions, companies that chose to follow this form of management
practice should treat employees impersonally and collectively while reducing work to its basic elements;
effectively reducing required skill to a minimum.
This management approach seeks to suppress internal tension over the distribution of organizational power
by ensuring that management retains superior knowledge about the structure of work, and has the authority
to direct workers as it sees fit (Abbott 2006). Wal-Mart appears to follow the prescriptions of this theory very
closely, although implications are that employee satisfaction is quite low and internal tensions are merely
suppressed rather than resolved. When you combine that with a well documented record of recalls for low
quality products, corporate reputation suffers as well. We will use the numerous lawsuits against Wal-Mart as
additional criteria for failure as it relates to their risk management approach. Had this mega retailer employed
better stakeholder management, they could have avoided at least some of the lawsuits and the costly
compensation settlements.Due to the vastness of the corporation, the effects of their actions surpass just their
own company because the entire retail industry must engage in similar practices in order to stay in business.
As the biggest and most influential retailer in the United States, it is unfortunate that Wal-Mart fails to

6 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

implement sufficient stakeholder management. Their financial success is unquestionable, however the
aggressive shareholder mentality coupled with certain stakeholder neglect leaves doubt that the financial
profits are worth ethical and other implications that cannot be measured financially such as reputation. For our
scope of study, the Wal-Mart case supports our arguments for the stakeholder approach.
2.2.1.1 Corporate Reputation Management & Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate reputation is a function of the views and attitudes of various stakeholder groups and individuals
and rests on assessments made by individuals outside the organization (Highhouse et al. 2009). Trust and
confidence are two of the most important elements that affect corporate reputation and according to Earle
(2009) they represent two uniquely distinct elements. Trust is relational and is based on shared values such
as integrity, benevolence, morality, fairness, and caring. Confidence, on the other hand, is based on past
performance and experience with a company. This implies that a good reputation requires that the corporation
be based around strong values, typically outlined in a mission statement, and that they consistently perform
in line with these values. The key here is that both elements are a requirement; if one is missing, the reputation
is tarnished. Without trust, a company will never have the opportunity to perform. Similarly, a company will
quickly suffer loss of reputation if they continue to perform poorly regardless of how appealing their
mission statement may be. Because corporate reputation cannot easily be measured quantitatively, many
question if it matters at all. Multiple studies/surveys have shown that the most “admired” Fortune 500
companies have a price to earnings ratio that is approximately 12 percent higher than less “admired”
companies (Dube 2009) which accounts for a staggering $5 billion increase in market capitalization. This
implies that there is a strong correlation between reputation and profit gain. An increasing number of firms
are making this realization, as evidenced by results from a Conference Board survey of 148 business executives
that show 81 percent of major companies have made substantial efforts to improve their reputation risk
management in the past 3 years. Although the different stakeholders may have different perceptions of a
company’s reputation, those of the customer and employee are especially key (Burke, Martin, and Cooper 2011).
This is one of the important concepts that Wal-Mart failed to realize in our earlier case as they had major
shortcomings in this regard.
Building a positive corporate reputation requires the following steps: formulating a corporate strategy and
important elements for sustainability, integrating social responsibilities into the corporate strategy, developing a
reputation risk management strategy, communicating with internal and external stakeholders, and building a
strong corporate culture that attracts and retains talent (Burke, Martin, and Cooper 2011). It quickly becomes
apparent that if a company follows the stakeholder approach, they already fulfill a majority of the elements of
reputation management.
From studying the Wal-Mart case, we have learned that an aggressive shareholder value strategy can lead
to tremendous profits when properly executed however there is a missing component. Wal-Mart has become
the largest and most profitable retailer in the world, yet they fall short in several other aspects. Corporate social
responsibility is the commitment to improve community well being through discretionary business practices
and contribution of corporate resources (Kotler and Lee 2005). An important element of this definition is
that it refers to discretionary practices; these do not include legally mandated activities or those that are
societally expected. Rather, these are voluntary initiatives from the company to improve human conditions
and/or to address environmental issues. Firms often have a mindset that they do not need to engage in such
activities because they do not lead directly to company profits.
From their research and experiences, they have concluded that when companies fulfill their CSR, they indirectly
experience bottom line benefits like increased market share, stronger brand positioning, enhanced corporate
image, increased ability to retain quality employees, lower operating costs, and higher appeal to
investors.Similarly to reputation management theory, most of the elements for fulfilling CSR are effectively
covered by firms that chose to employ the stakeholder approach. This supports our argument that the stakeholder
approach is a diverse and multifaceted business method that simultaneously meets the objectives of risk,
crisis, and reputation management while fulfilling corporate social responsibility and still increasing
shareholder value. In contrast to our previous case analysis of Wal-Mart, our next case will demonstrate the
positive implications from a successful application of the stakeholder approach.
2.2.2 2nd Case Study
Our previous cased proved that regardless of extreme financial success, a company’s failure to engage or value
important stakeholders can have serious repercussions in regards to crisis, risk, and reputation. Thus far, we have
argued that the stakeholder approach can mitigate risk and help prevent the occurrence of crisis. We will now

7 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

make the argument that companies who use a stakeholder approach can reap positive benefits when crisis
does occur. A crisis, which usually carries the element of surprise, is an unpredictable event that has the
capability of harming an organization and/or it’s stakeholders (Goel 2009). As we have already covered, there
are ways to prevent crisis or reduce the risk of its occurrence however, accidents can and do happen in the
real world and even the most cautious firms are vulnerable.
Most current literature about crisis management stresses the significance of effective leadership following
the onset of the crisis (Ulmer 2001), however this case will show the benefits of good stakeholder
management practices both before and after crisis and how they can aid a company that is struggling. The
first benefit is that stakeholders have a true interest in the success of the organization and may serve as a support
network in times of crisis by providing their crisis mitigating resources (Ulmer and Sellnow 1995). Firms that
possess weak stakeholder relations tend to find that the various groups that are also affected by the crisis
will not simply withdraw support, but can also add fuel to the fire, which serves to prolong or intensify the crisis.
We saw this in the Wal-Mart case when, in the midst of product recalls for low quality goods, several lawsuits
were dropped on the company. Once an organization has determined value positions on important issues,
they should work to promote open communication with stakeholders so that they may develop alliances,
good will, and mutual understanding (Ulmer 2001).
Malden Mills was a textile manufacturing plant in Lawrence, Massachusetts famous for inventing a fabric
known as Polartec (Leung 2003). In December 1995, the plant burst into flames and although there were no
fatalities, 36 workers were injured. The fire, which was deemed to be an industrial accident, destroyed three
important manufacturing buildings and threatened the jobs of approximately 3000 employees in a small
manufacturing town. Aaron Feuerstein, owner and CEO of Malden Mills, was able to resolve the crisis and
received widespread praise for the care and responsibility he showed his community following the fire. For
purposes of our study however, we will focus on how Feuerstein’s stakeholder practices before, during, and after
the fire ended up helping his company through the crisis.
Effective crisis management is more than just damage control and usually requires solid risk management
elements if it is to succeed. This means planning and preparing for its potential onset far in advance. One of
the most crucial features of this is managing the firm’s complex web of stakeholder relationships (Ulmer 2001).
In December of 1997, two years after the fire, Aaron Feuerstein and several key stakeholders for Malden Mills
were interviewed in an effort to shed light on two different aspects of the case. The first agenda focused on
understanding Feuerstein’s values, main concerns, and decision-making processes while the second was to
get a better understanding of the nature of Malden Mills’ internal and external stakeholder relationships (Ulmer
2001). The information from these interviews will be used extensively for the remainder of our case analysis.Jeff
Bowman, head of crisis coordination and corporate communication for Malden Mills, identified the company’s
stakeholders as the “employees and their families, the community, customers, vendors, the government, and
the press”.
2.2.2.1 Crictical Review of the Case Studies
Freeman (2010) points out that companies wishing to adopt stakeholder management should usually asses
the stakeholder’s needs so that they have a solid understanding of the most affected groups and least affected
groups. With this understanding, the company leaders can more effectively prioritize efforts to develop
relationships with primary stakeholders before secondary stakeholders. For Malden Mills, the community and
the employees represented primary stakeholders while secondary stakeholders included customers and the media.
Malden Mills was able to build a strong, positive relationship with its workers. Feuerstein dedicated
extensive time to working with the labor union to ensure that his own employees were being treated fairly.
Despite the fact that Malden Mills had been a union factory for many decades, they never had a strike; one of
the biggest sources of pride for Feuerstein (Hartman and DesJardins 2008). Paul Coorey, leader of the
nearby union for textile workers, stated that Feuerstein’s employee methodology was a belief that if the
workers were paid well and given adequate benefits to support their families, they would perform well. This
belief was supported by the fact that Malden Mills was the highest paid textile factory in the United States
(Melewar 2008). This whole mentality towards employee relations is a polar opposite to that of Wal-Mart for
several reasons. Wal-Mart strongly discourages union activity while Malden Mills uses unions as a resource to
improve the relationship with employees. Wal-Mart pays employees minimum wage, while Malden Mills
compensates their employees with industry leading salaries. Wal-Mart discriminates against certain employees,
while Malden Mills was “always fair and compassionate”.
In our previous case analysis, we determined that Wal-Mart followed principles of the scientific management

8 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

theory for the workplace. In Malden Mills, however, we can see some elements of the human relations theory
and even more from the human resource management theory. Under the human relations theory, companies
must grant employees the right to influence the manner in which they are governed. This is because this
theory seeks to reduce internal tensions by promoting the sense of workplace satisfaction (Abbott 2006).
Feuerstein definitely grants his employees the right to have a say in their governance as evidenced by his
cooperation with the labor unions. He also promotes workplace satisfaction but not with the same aims as the
human relations theory. The human resource management theory, on the other hand, is based on the belief that
managers and employees are more alike than they are different. Companies subscribing to this theory should
promote communication and collaboration between managers and employees while developing a unified
culture, strong leadership, and a clear vision of company objectives. The aim of this theory is to resolve
internal tensions by eliminating workplace social classes, developing communication and engagement with
the stakeholders, and avoiding conflict by promoting teamwork (Stone 2002). This is exactly how Feuerstein
structured his workplace and as we have seen, this approach for employee relations produces workers that
want to work hard for the company rather than filing lawsuits against them like in the case of Wal-Mart. Malden
Mills identified their community (Lawrence, MA) as another primary stakeholder perhaps because the Feuerstein
family founded and has been operating the company in the Merrimack Valley region of Massachusetts for over
a century (Nelson and Kanso 2008). Lawrence along with surrounding cities is highly reliant on the textile
industry. Often times, entire households worked for Malden Mills, which would explain why a majority of
the economy depends on their operations (Ulmer 2001).
Many years ago, Massachusetts had a high density of mills but by the early 1990s, Malden Mills was one
of the few remaining in the region because many others moved south or offshore in order to escape union
activity and cut production costs. Regardless, Aaron Feuerstein insisted that his company would stay put because
the employees’ technical skills outweighed the benefits of cheaper production costs. This really displayed
the level of commitment and loyalty that he had for his workers and his community.Additionally, Feuerstein
proved his dedication to his community on numerous different occasions. For example, there are several
instances where he decided to extend generous credit lines that essentially saved other local businesses.
Aaron Feuerstein and his brother even came forward to donate $2 million to rebuild a local synagogue
when it burned down in 1994 (Ulmer 2001). These actions really reiterate the tradeoff between Feuerstein and
his community because most of his employees are from the area. By supporting the community through all of
these generous and significant contributions, Feuerstein was able to build a strong positive reputation largely
through loyalty and trust. Aaron Feuerstein had a solid understanding of the concept that no stakeholders should
be neglected. For this reason, he dedicated significant effort to maintain positive relationships even with the
company’s secondary stakeholders: customers and media. Malden Mills had many high profile corporate
customers such as L.L. Bean, The North Face, Patagonia, Ralph Lauren, and even all branches of the
United States military and what many people fail to realize is that Malden Mills produces over 70% of some
their corporate customer’s product lines (Ulmer 2001). Implications are that the company is mutually dependent
with its corporate customers and communication is necessary so that they can be informed about production
delays or other relevant information.
An example of this occurred very early in 1995 when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
announced on live news that fleece jackets were highly flammable (Business Wire 1995). Since fleece is one
of Malden Mills’ main products, the company had to respond quickly to guarantee customers that the CPSC
announcement did not refer to their products and that they were safe. This event enlightened the company as to
the power of media to spread important information very quickly.Because the media can spread information
to the public on such a large- scale, they assume the role of a key stakeholder to a majority of companies,
especially the larger firms. As such, the organization should strive to promote open communication with
them in a similar manner to their other stakeholders. According to Jeff Bowman, Malden Mills made a
deliberate effort to be “open, candid, and accessible” to the media. For example, the company used the
media to present the facts of the situation to the public and clear and customer doubts that their products were
safe. As one can gather just from the names, the two secondary stakeholder relationships, with customers and the
media, received less attention than the employees and community because of less daily interaction. Nevertheless,
Feuerstein made certain that he established and maintained cordial and open communication with all of his
stakeholders.
2.2.2.2 Stakeholder Management During and After a Crisis
We have now assessed the means with which Aaron Feuerstein and Malden Mills used the stakeholder
approach to effectively benefit the company pre crisis. We will now analyze how continued management of the

9 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

stakeholders during and after the onset of crisis can also greatly behoove a firm by reducing the effects of the
crisis. When the factory burned down, employees were unsure about their futures, the community as a whole
was at risk of losing their biggest employer, and it appeared as if Feuerstein had the potential to suffer
extensive financial loss. The company faced a difficult challenge to recoup from crisis over the next several
months. Similarly to many related accidents, there were very high levels of uncertainty with the company as
well as its stakeholders. Shortly after the occurrence of this type of crisis, people are mostly concerned
with discovering the cause of the accident along with how to prevent them in the future. The media typically adds
to the franticness of the situation with extensive news reports and updates from the scene of crisis. Aaron
Feuerstein acted quickly to remove uncertainty and apprehension before they had time to develop further
amongst the various stakeholders. To the delight of many and wile the factory was still burning in the
background, he proclaimed that, “We’re going to continue to operate in Lawrence” and added that they “had
the opportunity to run south many years ago. We didn’t do it then and we’re not going to do it now.” To add to
the worker’s delight and to the shock of many business analysts amongst others, Feuerstein added that all
of the employees would continue to receive their salaries for the following 30 days (Gasparski, Ryan and
Kwiatkowski 2010). One month later, he announced that the pay would continue for an additional 30 day period
because he considers the employees to be the company’s most valuable asset unlike other leaders who view
them as an being expendable. This appears to be aimed at CEOs who tend to downsize their workforce in attempt
to generate short-term profits. Ultimately, the extensive efforts of Feuerstein along with tremendous
contributions from the community kept Malden Mills running for the following 6 years until they were forced
to declare bankruptcy in 2001 due to the high payroll and rebuilding costs after the fire. Although Aaron
Feuerstein lost control of his company, Malden Mills was able to achieve solvency due to the generosity of
various creditors and subsidies. This case reiterated that the quality of the stakeholder relationships with the
company is overwhelmingly based on mutual interdependence (Nelson and Kanso 2008). Corporate reputation
is built from an aggregate of actions over time and Malden Mills certainly built themselves a strong one
centered on elements such as trust and loyalty. It has been twenty years since the factory fire, yet Malden
Mills and Aaron Feuerstein are still a model case for how effective stakeholder management should be
conducted. Critics will reject this case as being a failure since Feuerstein ultimately lost control of his
family business. We disagree because it is important to remember that investigation deemed the fire to be caused
by an industrial accident, whatever that may mean. Considering that the cause of this crisis is still relatively
ambiguous, it is impossible to blame the company because had they not been so unlucky as to have the fire,
Aaron Feuerstein could potentially still be running a very successful company. This realization makes his
tendency to put responsibility to others over his own interest even more commendable.
3. Conclusion
This study argued that the stakeholder management approach to business is an effective strategy because it
serves a wide spectrum of functions such as risk and reputation management. Furthermore, the stakeholder
mentality promotes fulfillment of a company’s corporate social responsibility because of the mutual
interdependence that both sides must understand and protect. After some theory analysis and propositions, we
tested our argument by applying it to two case studies. The Wal-Mart case proved that shareholder value is
not the only factor in business. By neglecting relationships with key stakeholders, such as the employees,
crisis can occur in the form of lawsuits and corporate reputation may be tarnished. It is important to note that the
negative implications here may take quite long to onset. The Malden Mills case reiterated that strong ethics along
with carefully nurtured stakeholder relationships could create advantage for a firm. Their reaction to the
CPSC reports show that the stakeholder approach can effectively mitigate many risks but the fire teaches
us that some are simply unavoidable. In the face of corporate disaster, the stakeholder approach strengthens
support systems when they are most needed. Essentially, we can think of effective corporate strategy in
this manner: employing effective stakeholder management means that a company must fulfill their corporate
social responsibility; when a company has fulfilled their corporate social responsibility, the corporate reputation
is positive; and when the corporate reputation is positive, competitive advantage is gained.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgement is attributed to the research work of the first author for the completion of the manuscript
following directions and feedback of the corresponding author for its improvement & completion.
References
Abbott, K. (2006). A Review of Employment Relations Theories and their Application. Problems and Perspectives
in Management, 1, 1-10.

10 Published by IDEAS SPREAD

rfm.ideasspread.org Risk and Financial Management Vol. 2, No. 2; 2020

Bianco, A., & Zellner, W. (2015). IS WAL-MART TOO POWERFUL? Low prices are great. But Wal-Mart's
dominance creates problems -- for suppliers, workers, communities, and even American culture. Business
Week, (3852).
Burke, R., Martin, G., & Cooper, C. (2011). Corporate reputation. Farnham, Surrey: Gower.
Chew, D. (2008). Corporate risk management. New York: Columbia University Press.
https://doi.org/10.7312/chew14362
Davies, D. (2006). Reputation Risk Management-A Holistic Approach. Retrieved from
http://www.idrisk.com/v2articles/189_Reputation_Risk_-_Holistic_Approach.pdf Last visited on 4th May,
2013
Davies, J. (2013). A Multi Stakeholder Approach to Risk Management at Mega Events. Risk Dialogue Magazine,
1-4.
Dionne, G. (n.d.). Risk Management: History, Definition and Critique. SSRN Journal.
Dube, I. (2009). Corporate governance. LexisNexis.
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2010). Business ethics. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Feuerstein, A. (2003). The Mensch of Malden Mills.
Freeman, R. (2010). Strategic management. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675
Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art.
Cambridge University Press, pp.4-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768
Gai, P., & Vause, N. (n.d.). Measuring Investors' Risk Appetite. SSRN Journal.
Gasparski, W., Ryan, L., & Kwiatkowski, S. (2010). Entrepreneurship. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Goel, S. (2009). Crisis management. New Delhi: Global India Publications.
Hartman, L., & DesJardins, J. (2008). Business ethics. Boston: McGraw- Hill/Irwin.
Hillson, D. A. (2003). Effective Opportunity Management for Projects: Exploiting Positive Risk. New York, US:
Marcel Dekker. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203913246
Holmes, A. (2004). Smart Risk. Capstone Publishing Limited (A Wiley Company): The Atrium Southern Gate
Chichester
Larkin, J. (2003). Strategic Reputation Risk Management. Houndmills Basingstoke, Hampshire RG2 6XS. pp. 36.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511415
Peterson, G. E. (2006). Interactive Risk Management Systems and Method with Reputation Risk Management.
United States Patent Application Pub, No. US 2006/0116898 A1

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

11 Published by IDEAS SPREAD