Abstract

The issue of stakeholder activity and collaboration for developing and promoting the green competitiveness of enterprises are nowadays relevant and play a significant role in creating competitive advantages. Systematization literary sources prove that economic activity is characterizing by specific relationships between a wide set of stakeholders, the effective communicative system can bring potential benefits to all parties and stakeholders have specific expectations regarding various aspects of the enterprises’ operation: organizational, economic, social, environmental etc. The main objective of the article is creating the preconditions for building the stakeholder communication system for promoting the green competitiveness of the company and assessing by stakeholders the results of companies’ activity. The paper used scientific methods are based on logical generalization and scientific abstraction for systematizing the prerequisites for the formation of a system of communications of green competitive stakeholders; typology of green competitiveness stakeholders; formal-logical for determining the determinants and principles of effective collaboration of stakeholders of green competitiveness. For investigating the stakeholders’ assessment of the green competitiveness effects was undertaken Multidimensional scaling analysis and were estimated five outcome dimensions: consumer satisfaction in green goods; efficiency of green goods production; green goods quality and cleaner production; institutional partnership; community impact. For scaling responses in survey research was used a seven-point psychometric Likert scale. A general questioning is provided for five countries: Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and include the results of the survey the 1236 stakeholders. The results of the assessment showed that in all groups (internal and external) of stakeholder, the employees assessed results of the environmental strategies as «success» – 22,3% and community from another group – 7,45%. The stakeholder opinion is the same. That is evidence that the processes of greening stakeholder’s communication are becoming wider and involve more participants. The result of the research creates the background for improving the system of green competitiveness stakeholder interaction.  

Keywords: stakeholder, green competitiveness, interaction, stakeholder partnership, assessment.

JEL Classification: M40, O13, Q56 .

Cite as: Chygryn, O., Bilan, Y., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). Stakeholders of green competitiveness: innovative approaches for creating communicative system. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 358-370. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.3-26

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Baranovskyi, O. I. (2020). Regulation of functional and structural transformational processes in the financial sector. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 1(32), 292-306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Baranovskyi, О. І. (2018). Quality of the transformational processes in the financial sector of the national economy: vectors of the measurement. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 3(26), 350-367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar]
4. Bardy, R., Rubens, A., & Eberle, P. (2017). Soft Skills and Job Opportunities of Migrants: Systemic Relationships in the Labour Market. Business Ethics and Leadership. 1(4), 5-21. [Google Scholar]
5. Bettinazzi, E. L. M., & Zollo, M. (2015, June). Stakeholder engagement and organizational experiential learning: Evidence from M&A activities. In DRUID15 Conference (pp. 15-17). [Google Scholar]
6. Boiko, V., Kwilinski, A., Misiuk, M., & Boiko, L. (2019). Competitive Advantages of Wholesale Markets of Agricultural Products as a Type of Entrepreneurial Activity: The Experience of Ukraine and Poland. Economic Annals-XXI, 175(1-2), 68-72. [CrossRef]
7. Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568-584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Chigrin, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2014). The ways of corporate sector firms financing for sustainability of performance. International Journal of Ecology and Development, 29(3), 1-13. [Google Scholar]
9. Chipulu, M., Ojiako, U., Marshall, A., Williams, T., Bititci, U., Mota, C., … & Stamati, T. (2019). A dimensional analysis of stakeholder assessment of project outcomes. Production Planning & Control, 30(13), 1072-1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Chygryn, O. (2016). The mechanism of the resource-saving activity at joint stock companies: The theory and implementation features. International Journal of Ecology and Development, 31(3), 42-59. [Google Scholar]
11. Chygryn, O. (2018a). Green consumers: structure and profile. Bulletin of Sumy State University. Economics series, 4, 72 – 76. 
12. Chygryn, O. (2018b). Green consumption: preconditions and prospects for promotion. Bulletin of Sumy State University. Economics series, 3, 82 – 86.
13. Chygryn, O., Pimonenko, T., Luylyov, O., & Goncharova, A. (2018). Green Bonds like the Incentive Instrument for Cleaner Production at the Government and Corporate Levels Experience from EU to Ukraine. Journal of Advanced Research in Management, 9(7), 1443-1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Clarke, T., & Clegg, S. (1998). Changing paradigms: The transformation of management knowledge for the 21st century. HarperCollins Business.
15. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2012). Corporate attention to stakeholders: Enterprise logic and an inside-out explanation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1174-1193. [CrossRef]
17. Dalevska, N., Khobta, V., Kwilinski, A., & Kravchenko, S. (2019). A Model for Estimating Social and Economic Indicators of Sustainable Development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1839-1860.  [CrossRef]
18. Donaldson, T. & T. W. Dunfee. (1999). Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach To Business Ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
19. Dźwigoł, H., & Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2018). Scientific Research Methodology in Management Sciences. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(25), 242-237. [CrossRef]
20. Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Miskiewicz, R., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). Manager Competency Assessment Model in the Conditions of Industry 4.0. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2630-2644. [CrossRef]
21. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A Stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
22. Freeman, R. E., & D. Gilbert. (1987). Managing stakeholder relations. Business and society: dimensions of conflict and cooperation. Toronto, 397–422. 
23. Greenley, G. E., & Foxall, G. R. (1996). Consumer and nonconsumer stakeholder orientation in UK companies. Journal of Business research, 35(2), 105-116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural systems, 55(2), 173-193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 7-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of management Journal, 42(1), 87-99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Jay Polonsky, M., & Ottman, J. (1998). Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(6), 533-557. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
28. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review, 20(2), 404-437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Kassinis, G. I., & Soteriou, A. C. (2008). Quality, environmental practices and customer satisfaction in services. Sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship, 227-247. [Google Scholar]
30. Kuzior, A., Kwilinski, A., & Tkachenko, V. (2019). Sustainable development of organizations based on the combinatorial model of artificial intelligence. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 7(2), 1353-1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Kuznyetsova A. Ya., Zherebylo I. V., Klipkova O. I., Kozmuk N. I. (2019). Creation of the value of national enterprises with the help of the innovation centers in the cluster formations. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 2(29), 391-402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Kuznyetsova, A. Y., & Klishchuk, O. V. (2017). Theoretical conception of price stability targeting arrangement: investigation of basic principles of implementation monetary regime. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 2(23), 388-396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Kwilinski, A., & Kuzior, A. (2020a). Cognitive technologies in the management and formation of directions of the priority development of industrial enterprises. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(2), 119-123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Kwilinski, A., Zaloznova, Y., Trushkina, N., & Rynkevych, N. (2020b). Organizational and Methodological Support for Ukrainian Coal Enterprises Marketing Activity Improvement. E3S Web of Conferences, 168, 00031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Kwilinski, A., Vyshnevskyi, O., & Dzwigol, H. (2020c). Digitalization of the EU Economies and People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(7), 142. [CrossRef]  
36. Li, R., Sineviciene, L., Melnyk, L., Kubatko, O., Karintseva, O., & Lyulyov, O. (2019). Economic and environmental convergence of transformation economy: the case of China. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(3), 233. [Google Scholar]
37. Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., Chygryn, O., & Palienko, M. (2018). Environmental Performance Index: relation between social and economic welfare of the countries. Environmental Economics, 9(3), 1. [Google Scholar]
38. Mills, R. W., & Weinstein, B. (2000). Beyond shareholder value-Reconciling the shareholder and stakeholder perspectives. Journal of General Management, 25(3), 79-93. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
39. Miśkiewicz, R, & Wolniak, R. (2020). Practical Application of the Industry 4.0 Concept in a Steel Company. Sustainability, 12(14), 5776. [CrossRef]
40. Mitchell, R. K., & Agle, B. R. (1997, July). Stakeholder identification and salience: Dialogue and operationalization. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society (Vol. 8, pp. 717-727). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Palienko, M., & Lyulyov, O. (2018). The impact of social factors on macroeconomic stability: empirical evidence for Ukraine and European Union countries. SocioEconomic Challenges, (2, Iss. 1), 103-116. [Google Scholar]
42. Pająk, K., Kvilinskyi, O., Fasiecka, O., & Miśkiewicz, R. (2017). Energy security in regional policy in Wielkopolska region of Poland. Economics and Environment, 2(61), 122-138. Retrieved from https://www.ekonomiaisrodowisko.pl/uploads/eis 61/11_pajak.pdf     
43. Pfeffer, J., & Jeffrey, P. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar]
44. Pimonenko, T., & Lushyk, K. (2017). Green investing: EU experience for Ukraine. Bulletin of Sumy State University. Economy Ser, 3, 61-67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Pimonenko, T., Bilan, Y., Horák, J., Starchenko, L., & Gajda, W. (2020). Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 12(4), 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Pimonenko, T., Chyhryn, O., & Liulov O. (2018a). Green Entrepreneurship as an Integral Part of the National Economy Convergence. National Security & Innovation Activities: Methodology. Policy and Practice: a monograph, 358 – 366. [Google Scholar]
47. Pimonenko, T., Lyulyov, O., & Chygryn, O. (2018b). Green investment marketing: a mechanism of collaboration between major stakeholders. Bulletin of Priazovsky State Technical University. Series: Economic Sciences, 1 (36), 214 – 220. 
48. Pimonenko, T., Lyulyov, O., Chygryn, O., & Palienko, M. (2018c). Environmental Performance Index: relation between social and economic welfare of the countries. Environmental Economics, 9(3), 1. [Google Scholar]
49. Plepys, A., Heiskanen, E., & Mont, O. (2015). European policy approaches to promote servicizing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 117-123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), 97-118. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
51. Rosokhata, A., & Sager, L. (2020). Individual issues of economic security: the study of the impact of changes in migration processes on countries economic and innovative development. Visnyk of Sumy State University, Economics series, 1, 62-74. 
52. Rosokhata, A., Rybina O., Derykolenko, A., & Makerska, V. (2020a). Improving the Classification of Digital Marketing Tools for the Industrial Goods Promotion in the Globalization Context. Research in World Economy, 11 (4), Special Issue, 42 – 52. [CrossRef]
53. Saługa, P.W., Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K., Miśkiewicz, R., & Chłąd, M. (2020). Cost of Equity of Coal-Fired Power Generation Projects in Poland: Its Importance for the Management of Decision-Making Process. Energies. 13(18), 4833. [CrossRef]
54. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of management perspectives, 5(2), 61-75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Savchenko, T., Basiurkina, N., Rodina, O., & Kwilinski, A. (2019). Improvement of the Assessment Methods of Product Competitiveness of the Specialized Poultry Enterprises. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 41(1), 43-61. [CrossRef]
56. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management review, 25(1), 43-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Susniene, D., & Vanagas, P. (2006). Development of stakeholder relationships by integrating their needs into organization’s goals and objectives. Engineering economics, 48(3), 88-93. [Google Scholar]
58. Tkachenko, V., Kwilinski, A., Kaminska, B., Tkachenko, I., & Puzyrova, P. (2019). Development and Effectiveness of Financial Potential Management of Enterprises in Modern Conditions. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(30), 85-94. [CrossRef]
59. Van Horn, C., Baumer, D., & Gormley, W. (2001). Politics and Public Policy. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 45 – 53. [Google Scholar]
60. Vovchak, O. D., Senyshch, P. M., & Melnyk, T. V. (2019). «Purging» of the banking system: impacton the key performance indicators of banks. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 1(28), 16-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Yevdokimov, Y., Chygryn, O., Pimonenko, T., & Lyulyov, O. (2018). Biogas as an alternative energy resource for Ukrainian companies: EU experience. Innovative Marketing, 14, 7 – 15. [Google Scholar]