Erere

Page 1 of 2

Erere

By | November 2009
Page 1 of 2
jso;pdfjjjjjjjj d sofjsojdfo pojkdopfj p pso siodjfpsofj sjfp pojd spdojfp psodjfps psodjf psodj spofj posj psodj spofj spofjpsofjsopfjsopfj psofjs pofjsp ojsdpof jspodjf psojfsp odjf spodjfps odjfps ojfps jfspjfps ofjsp sodjfpsojfsp odjf psodjfp odfjspodjfs ojspfjsp doj

were viewed as constraints on the main objective of the firm and Ansoff actually rejects the usefulness of the idea. Here there is a fundamental difference between the SRI approach and corporate planning. Corporate planning simply recognized that stakeholders might place limits on the action of the firm. Thus, management should understand the needs of stakeholders in order to set the bounds of operation. However, within these bounds management should develop strategies that maximize the benefits to a single stakeholder group, the shareholders. In contrast SRI saw the support of all stakeholders as central to the sucess of the firm. Therefore, successful strategies are those that integrate the interests of all stakeholders, rather than maximize the position of one group within limitations provided by the others.

The process of strategy development is also entirely different under these two approaches. Corporate planning has two main elements: prediction and adaptation. First, management carries out an environmental scan to identify trends that help predict the future business environment. Second, management identifies the best way for the firm to adapt to the future environment in order to maximize its position. Within corporate planning stakeholder analysis is carried out as part of the environmental scan. As such stakeholders can defined by their roles rather than as complex and multifaceted individuals. Therefore, corporate planners could carry out stakeholder analysis at a generic level, without having to develop a detailed knowledge of the actual stakeholders in the specific firm under question. This level of abstraction led to many analytical breakthroughs in strategy...