A Framework to Assess Possible Sources of Stakeholder Exploitation: A Developing Country Case

Abstract

Solving complex post-disaster reconstruction challenges requires the altruistic involvement of heterogeneous stakeholder groups. However, small, more organized groups, such as government parastatals, private developers, and contractors often exploit large, unorganized groups, such as affected communities, leaving them more vulnerable to future disasters. Based on data collected from a case study in Pakistan, this study proposed a framework to assess, anticipate, and mitigate the exploitation of vulnerable stakeholders in post-disaster reconstruction projects. The framework draws on influential management theories and utilizes reciprocal relationships between stakeholder attributes (power, legitimacy, and urgency), participation, and exploitation. The study also argued for non-binary treatment of stakeholder attributes. The framework will allow practitioners to address issues around the exploitation of stakeholder interests in future post-disaster reconstruction projects.

Keywords

Collective action / Pakistan / Post-disaster reconstruction / Stakeholder participation / Stakeholder exploitation

References

[] Aase M. Listing for change? Exploring the politics of relief lists in Bangladesh after Cyclone Sidr. Disasters, 2020, 44(4): 666-686,

[] Anilkumar S, Banerji H. An inquiry into success factors for post-disaster housing reconstruction projects: A case of Kerala, South India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2021, 12(1): 24-39

[] Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1969, 35(4): 216-224

[] Baker SE, Edwards R, Doidge M. . How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research, 2012 Southampton Economic & Social Research Council

[] Boje DM. . Narrative methods for organizational & communication research, 2001 London Sage

[] Boyatzis RE. . Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, 1998 London Sage

[] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3(2): 77-101

[] Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW. Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 2022, 47(2): 214-236

[] Brown RS. Franchise systems and lobbying: Implications for Olsonian collective action theory. Management Decision, 2018, 56(11): 2357-2372

[] Chandra Lal P. Making communities disaster resilient: Challenges and prospects for community engagement in Nepal. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2019, 28(1): 106-118

[] Civera C, De Colle S, Casalegno C. Stakeholder engagement through empowerment: The case of coffee farmers. Business Ethics: A European Review, 2019, 28(2): 156-174

[] Curato N. From authoritarian enclave to deliberative space: Governance logics in post-disaster reconstruction. Disasters, 2018, 42(4): 635-654,

[] Davidson CH, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, Dikmen N, Sliwinski A. Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat International, 2007, 31(1): 100-115

[] Davis K. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 2014, 32(2): 189-201

[] De Bruycker I, Berkhout J, Hanegraaff M. The paradox of collective action: Linking interest aggregation and interest articulation in EU legislative lobbying. Governance, 2019, 32(2): 295-312

[] Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(1): 25-32

[] Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 2014, 4(1): 1-10

[] EM-DAT (Emergency Events Database). . The International Disaster Database EM-DAT by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2021 Brussels Université catholique de Louvain

[] Freeman RE. . Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, 1984 Englewood Cliffs Prentice-Hall

[] Gul S, McGee TK. Women's participation in disaster recovery after the Kashmir,  Pakistan earthquake. Disasters, 2022, 46(4): 1007-1026,

[] Herrmann-Lunecke MG, Villagra P. Community resilience and urban planning in tsunami-prone settlements in Chile. Disasters, 2020, 44(1): 103-124,

[] Hilbolling S, Deken F, Berends H, Tuertscher P. Process-based temporal coordination in multiparty collaboration for societal challenges. Strategic Organization, 2022, 20(1): 135-163

[] Hülssiep M, Thaler T, Fuchs S. The impact of humanitarian assistance on post-disaster social vulnerabilities: Some early reflections on the Nepal earthquake in 2015. Disasters, 2021, 45(3): 577-603,

[] Ika LA, Diallo A, Thuillier D. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 2012, 30(1): 105-116

[] Jordan E, Javernick-Will A, Amadei B. Post-disaster reconstruction: Lessons from Nagapattinam district. India. Development in Practice, 2015, 25(4): 518-534

[] Khan AM. . Disaster preparedness for natural hazards: Current status in Pakistan, 2007 Kathmandu International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)

[] Khurram S, Pestre F, Charreire-Petit S. Taking stock of the stakeholder salience tradition: Renewing the research agenda. M@n@gement, 2019, 22(2): 141-175

[] Maly E. Building back better with people centered housing recovery. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2018, 29: 84-93

[] Merriam-Webster. . Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2023 Springfield Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc

[] Miles S. Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 2017, 142(3): 437-459

[] Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22(4): 853-886

[] Olson M. . The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, 1965 Cambridge Harvard University Press

[] Opdyke A, Javernick-Will A, Koschmann M. Assessing the impact of household participation on satisfaction and safe design in humanitarian shelter projects. Disasters, 2019, 43(4): 926-953, pmcid: 6852319

[] Poteete AR, Jansen MA, Ostrom E. . Working Together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in Practice, 2010 Princeton Princeton University Press

[] Quzai U. Lyons M, Schilderman T. Pakistan: Implementing people-centred reconstruction in urban and rural areas. Building back better, 2010 Warwickshire Practical Action Publishing 113-134

[] Rayamajhee V, Bohara AK. Social capital, trust, and collective action in post-earthquake Nepal. Natural Hazards, 2021, 105(2): 1491-1519

[] Ryan B, Johnston KA, Taylor M, McAndrew R. Community engagement for disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction., 2020, 49: Article101655

[] Sadaqat, M. 2012. Balakot City: A tale of the forgotten town. The Express Tribune, 8 October 2012. http://tribune.com.pk/story/448530/balakot-city-a-tale-of-the-forgotten-town/. Accessed 9 May 2023.

[] Sadiqi Z, Trigunarsyah B, Coffey V. A framework for community participation in post-disaster housing reconstruction projects: A case of Afghanistan. International Journal of Project Management, 2017, 35(5): 900-912

[] Safapour E, Kermanshachi S, Pamidimukkala A. Post-disaster recovery in urban and rural communities: Challenges and strategies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021, 64: Article 102535

[] Sarasvathy SD, Ramesh A. An effectual model of collective action for addressing sustainability challenges. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2019, 33(4): 405-424

[] Schembera S, Scherer AG. Organizational strategies in the context of legitimacy loss: Radical versus gradual responses to disclosed corruption. Strategic Organization, 2017, 15(3): 301-337

[] Shafique K. Addressing community participation barriers using emic-etic perspectives. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 81: Article 103270

[] Shafique K, Gabriel C-A. Vulnerable stakeholders’ engagement: Advancing stakeholder theory with new attribute and salience framework. Sustainability, 2022, 14(18): Article 11765

[] Shafique K, Warren CMJ. Empowerment and legitimization of affected communities in post-disaster reconstruction. Procedia Engineering, 2018, 212: 1171-1178

[] Shmueli DF, Ozawa CP, Kaufman S. Collaborative planning principles for disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021, 52: Article 101981,

[] Sufri S, Dwirahmadi F, Phung D, Rutherford S. Enhancing community engagement in disaster early warning system in Aceh, Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. Natural Hazards, 2020, 103(3): 2691-2709

[] Williams A, Whiteman G. A call for deep engagement for impact: Addressing the planetary emergency. Strategic Organization, 2021, 19(3): 526-537

[] Wood DJ, Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Bryan LM. Stakeholder identification and salience after 20 years: Progress, problems, and prospects. Business & Society, 2018, 60(1): 196-245