Skip to main content

Unfolding Business and Stakeholder Relationships: The Heuristic Drawing Process Tool

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Humanizing Business

Part of the book series: Issues in Business Ethics ((IBET,volume 53))

  • 401 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter we propose a new tool, the Heuristic Drawings Process Tool (HDPT), rooted in Dewey’s (1934), Rorty’s (1989, 1991) and Davidson’s (2001, 2004) pragmatism approach that helps both to formulate problems and to reach an agreed solution in the stakeholder engagement process. Problem identification and formulation are not always obvious, nor do they always consider the unconscious and emotional aspects. The latter are sometimes poorly understood and/or sometimes taken for granted in business and stakeholder relationships. The HDPT consists of 4 phases, in which business and stakeholder participants in a workshop 1) prepare and understand specific rules, 2) freely draw the assigned business and stakeholder relationship (on a poster), 3) generate new narratives and vocabularies through their readings and descriptions of these posters (images/drawings), enabling them to talk without the risk of being censored and bringing out emotional and unconscious motives, 4) reach an agreement with all participants on an action plan to solve problems, thus, generating social hope and potentially improving the business and stakeholder relationship in the near future. The chapter presents the results of HDPT workshops applied in two companies, the Chemical Company SA, (with two stakeholders: the employees and the suppliers), and the company, Consulting IT SA (with one stakeholder: the employees). Both companies are located in Barcelona (Spain). The HDPT brought about two main effects after 2 months: 1) the adoption of the new HTPD narratives and vocabularies in business-stakeholder informal communications, b) the creation of three interrelated types of value: 1) economic gains (increasing profits), 2) emotional gains (reducing unpleasant and stressful emotions while at the same time increasing social hope), and 3) relational gains (increasing trust).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Archel, Pablo, Javier Husillos, and Crawford Spence. 2011. The institutionalization of unaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibility discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36 (6): 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auster, Ellen, and R. Edward Freeman. 2013. Values and poetic organizations: Beyond value fit toward values through conversation. Journal of Business Ethics 113 (1): 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, Douglas, Robert Phillips, and Jeffrey Harrison. 2009. Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 30: 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, Flore, and J.W. Stoelhorst. 2016. Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. The Academy of Management Review 41 (2): 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Judy, and Jesse Dillard. 2013. Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24 (3): 176–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donaldson. 2001a. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001b. Essays on actions and events. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Problems of Rationality: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Truth, language, and history. Philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1894. The theory of emotion. (II) Emotional attitudes. Psychological Review 1: 553–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1895. The theory of emotion. (2) The significance of emotions. Psychological Review 2: 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1934. Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, Alan Page. 1991. Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. The four elemental forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review 99: 689–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Relational models theory 2.0. In Relational models theory: A contemporary overview: 3–25, ed. N. Haslam. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Metarelational models: Configurations of social relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology 42: 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, and Michelle Greenwood. 2020. Deepening methods in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 161 (1): 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. Edward, Kujala Johanna, and Sachs Sybille. 2017. Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gallhofer, Sonja, Jim Haslam, and Akira Yonekura. 2015. Accounting as differentiated universal for emancipatory praxis: accounting delineation and mobilisation for emancipation(s) recognizing democracy and difference. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28 (5): 846–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulos, George, and Ian Thomson. 2008. Social reporting, engagements, controversies and conflict in an arena context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (8): 1116–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, Michelle. 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 74 (4): 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Jeffrey, Douglas Bosse, and Robert Phillips. 2010. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 31: 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Thomas, and William Felps. 2013a. Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013b. Stakeholder happiness enhancement: A neo-utilitarian objective for the modern corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly 23: 349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, Andre, K. Saurav Sonpar, and Remy Litz. 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management 34 (6): 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passetti, E., L. Bianchi, M. Battaglia, and M. Frey. 2019. When democratic principles are not enough: Tensions and temporalities of dialogic stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics 155 (1): 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preziosa, M. 2016. La mentalidad compartida en la empresa. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Teseo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991a. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991b. Essays on Heidegger and others: Philosophical papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., M. Milneb, and K. Kearinsa. 2014. (Re)presenting sustainable organizations accounting. Organizations and Society 39 (6): 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, Jeffrey, and Mark Bennett. 2004. Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting. Organizations and Society 29 (7): 685–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, Anne-Laure P., Jill A. Brown, and David L. Finegold. 2019. Employees as conduits for effective stakeholder engagement: An example from B corporations. Journal of Business Ethics 160 (4): 913–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabet Garriga .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Garriga, E. (2022). Unfolding Business and Stakeholder Relationships: The Heuristic Drawing Process Tool. In: Dion, M., Freeman, R.E., Dmytriyev, S.D. (eds) Humanizing Business. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 53. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72204-3_29

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics