Smyth, H (2008) The credibility gap in stakeholder management: Ethics and evidence of relationship management. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), pp. 633-643. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The predominant utilitarian conceptualization of stakeholder management within construction is reviewed. Utilitarianism will be contrasted with an ethics of nurture and care perspective. A credibility gap is identified in the utilitarian approach whereby individual parties in positions of power are unable to maximize net well-being. The relationship management concept will be outlined and located within the ethics of care, showing how aggregated behaviours can be linked to this approach. Behaviours that management can facilitate will be outlined and links made with the ethics of care concerning stakeholder management. The analysis will conceptually establish how the credibility gap in stakeholder management can be bridged. Research into relationships within PPP/PFI projects will be explored. The relationships between the SPV and the public sector will provide a particular focus. Recommendations for practice and future research will draw the analysis to a conclusion.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ethics; relationship management; stakeholder management; utility |
| Index terms: | ethics, evidence, public sector, well-being, stakeholder management, relationship management |
| Subjects: | management, participation process, mental health and wellbeing, evaluation and assessment methods, administrative law, ethical practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here