Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Stakeholder salience in global projects

Kirsi Aaltonen a,*, Kujala Jaakko b,1, Oijala Tuomas a,2
a
Helsinki University of Technology, BIT Research Centre, P.O. Box 5500, FI-02015 HUT, Finland
b
University of Oulu, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, P.O. Box 4610, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Received 20 May 2008; accepted 20 May 2008

Abstract

Stakeholder management is particularly important in global projects, which are carried out in institutionally demanding environ-
ments. Existing research suggests that management gives attention to stakeholders whose claims are perceived to be more salient in terms
of power, legitimacy and urgency. In this paper, we study a pulp mill construction project in Uruguay to identify the different strategies
project stakeholders use to increase their salience. The salience shaping strategies identified include the direct withholding strategy, indi-
rect withholding strategy, resource building strategy, coalition building strategy, conflict escalation strategy, creditability building strat-
egy, communication strategy and direct action strategy.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stakeholder management; Global projects; Stakeholder salience; Stakeholder influence strategies; Stakeholder theory

1. Introduction gies through which stakeholders advance their interests

The management of project stakeholders is an essential
part of project management. Project managers must con-
sider stakeholder’s needs and requirements to ensure pro-
ject success [1]. The management of stakeholders is most
crucial in global projects. These projects involve multiple
actors with differing interests and are carried out in institu-
tionally demanding and complex environments. Several
studies report and illustrate the challenges and conflicts
that arise from the project’s external stakeholders. For
example, in large infrastructure and engineering projects,
these stakeholders have significantly affected the project
outcomes [2]. One of the primary challenges results from
management’s lack of understanding the various interest
groups, Hence, there is a need to better understand the nat-
ure of stakeholders’ project related claims and the strate-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 357 6077.
E-mail addresses: kirsi.aaltonen@hut.fi (K. Aaltonen), jaakko.kujala
@oulu.fi (K. Jaakko), tuomas.oijala@hut.fi (O. Tuomas).
1 employed. Only a limited amount of research adopts the
Tel.: +358 40 839 1717.
2
Tel.: +358 40 052 3492.
and affect project realization.
Although project stakeholders have been defined in
numerous ways, the most common definitions view project
stakeholders broadly as any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the project. Stakeholder theory pro-
vides a solid standing point for identifying, classifying and
categorizing stakeholders and understanding their behavior
in order to better manage them. Mitchell et al. [3] classify
stakeholders according to their power, legitimacy and
urgency of their claim and propose that these attributes
can be used to define salience of stakeholder claims to
determine, how much and which type of attention stake-
holders receive from management. However, various
researchers have pointed out that a typical stakeholder
classification approach provides only a static view of the
situation and state the need to understand the dynamic nat-
ure of stakeholder attributes [3–5]. Furthermore, the main-
stream research on stakeholder management adopts the
perspective of the firm to describe and analyze the different
stakeholder management strategies that have been
perspective of the stakeholders to understand the kinds of

0263-7863/$34.00 Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.004
510 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516
strategies stakeholders use to influence organizations and
their decision making.
In this paper, we combine the stakeholder salience
framework with stakeholder influence strategies to identify
the strategies stakeholders attempt to use to increase their
salience in the eyes of the project management, and thus
influence the outcome, on global projects. The paper
extends existing research by increasing the understanding
of the dynamic nature of stakeholder salience in global pro-
jects and the understanding of the influence strategies
stakeholders use to influence projects. Ultimately, under-
standing stakeholder influence strategies can enable man-
agers to better understand and manage stakeholder
behavior. The paper addresses the types of strategies stake-
holders use to increase their salience and affect the outcome
of large, global projects.
We apply Mitchell et al.’s [3] stakeholder classification
framework in the analysis of an empirical case of the build-
ing of a pulp mill in Uruguay. In this case, our focal com-
pany is the owner of the plant, Botnia S.A. Due to the
stakeholder challenges, the project has been subject to
extensive media attention since the publication of the pro-
ject in March 2005.
To begin, we review the existing literature on project
stakeholder management and discuss the key ideas, defini-
tions and categorizations of stakeholder theory. In addi-
tion, we present the salience framework of Mitchell et al.
[3] and discuss the existing research on stakeholder influ-
ence strategies. After this, the empirical case Botnia is dis-
cussed and analyzed. Finally, we present conclusions and
recommendations.
2. Literature review
2.1. Project stakeholder management
The basic assumption of stakeholder theory is that a
company has relationships with many groups and organi-
zations in the external environment. These groups and
organizations affect the company’s decisions and, in turn,
are affected by the company’s decisions [6]. The purpose
of stakeholder identification and analysis is to facilitate
the understanding of how to manage stakeholders in
increasingly turbulent and unpredictable environments.
The theory’s primary focus is on managerial decision mak-
ing [7]. The stakeholder research has focused on describing
the actual processes of management decision making.
Hence, the existing research’s perspective is typically the
viewpoint of the focal company with little attention given
to the stakeholder’s perspective [4,8]; however, viewing
the situation from stakeholders’ point of view can ulti-
mately enhance managers’ understanding of stakeholders
and their management.
In the field of project management, Cleland [9] intro-
duced stakeholders and stakeholder management processes
to the project management by highlighting the importance
of stakeholder identification, classification, analysis, and
management approach formulation. Various definitions
and categorization attempts of stakeholders have been pre-
sented in the existing project management literature rang-
ing from broad to rather narrow views. The broad views
argue that a stakeholder can virtually be anyone or any
organization that is affected by the project or can affect
the project. In PMBOK [10], stakeholders are defined as
‘‘individuals and organizations that are actively involved
in the project or whose interest may be affected as a result
of project execution or project completion.” In addition,
stakeholder classifications in the project management liter-
ature categorize stakeholders according to their role in a
project, such as client, contractor, customers, sponsors,
local community members, NGOs, media, lobbying orga-
nizations, and government agencies [11]. A typical division
is to divide stakeholders to internal and external stakehold-
ers. Internal stakeholders are the stakeholders who are for-
mally members of the project coalition and hence usually
support the project [12]. They are often referred to as pri-
mary stakeholders [13] or business actors [11]. External
stakeholders are not formal members of the project coali-
tion, but may affect or be affected by the project. Such
groups are often referred to as non-business stakeholders
[11]. A widely utilized approach for categorizing and defin-
ing project stakeholders is also a categorization matrix
based on stakeholders’ power and interest in the project
[14]. Winch [12] focuses his analysis on categorizing the
stakeholders as those who promote the project and those
who oppose it. In turn, Turner [15] views stakeholders as
‘‘all the people or groups whose lives or environment is
affected by the project but who receive no direct benefit
from it. These can include families, people made redundant
and local community actors.” This definition views stake-
holders rather narrowly as the external actors that are
not actively involved in the project.
The key issue in project stakeholder management is
managing the relationship between the project and its
stakeholders. As PMBOK [10] defines it, project stake-
holder management is ‘‘the systematic identification, anal-
ysis and planning of actions to communicate with and
influence stakeholders.” Many tools exist to manage stake-
holders in projects. For example, there are tools to classify
stakeholder through matrices such as the power/interest in
the project matrix [14], tools to map whether stakeholders
are promoting or opposing the project [5], and tools to cat-
egorize, visualize, and identify different stakeholder attri-
butes such as Stakeholder Circle [16].
2.2. Stakeholder salience framework
In this paper we build upon Mitchell et al.’s [3] stake-
holder identification and salience framework. The stake-
holder salience framework indicates whether a stakeholder
that possesses one or more of the attributes of power, legit-
imacy and urgency is more salient to firms – salience refers
to the degree to which managers give priority to competing
stakeholder claims. By combining these three attributes, a
 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516
typology of stakeholders can be formed and their impor-
tance to management and its decision making evaluated.
Hence the salience framework predicts the stakeholders a
focal firm’s management pays attention to, i.e. which stake-
holder is salient in the eyes of the management.
The framework proposes that the more powerful the
stakeholders are, the more salient their requests are in the
eyes of the management. In the salience framework, stake-
holder power is defined as ‘‘the ability of those who possess
power to bring about the outcomes they desire” [17]. The
bases of power are seen to be mainly in the type of resource
used to exercise power. According to Etzioni [18], coercive
power is based on the physical forces of force and violence,
utilitarian power is based on material or financial
resources, and normative power based on symbolic
resources.
Mitchell et al. [3] argue that the more legitimate the
stakeholders’ claims are, the more likely they are to
receive positive responses from firms. Mitchell et al. [3]
employ the definition of Suchman [19] on legitimacy as
‘‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions
of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs
and definitions.”
Finally, the urgency of the stakeholders’ request is seen
as the third attribute that increases the salience of the
stakeholder. Urgency is defined as ‘‘the degree to which
stakeholder claims call for immediate attention.” It is based
on two attributes (1) time sensitivity – the degree to which
managerial delay in attending to the claim or relationship is
unacceptable to the stakeholder – and (2) criticality – the
importance of the claim to the stakeholder.
2.3. Stakeholder influence strategies
Stakeholders use versatile strategies or tactics to influ-
ence firm’s and project’s decision making. Limited atten-
tion is given to the strategies of stakeholders in the
existing literature [4,8]. However, different stories and case
descriptions illustrate the various actions stakeholders
engage to advance their interests. Frooman [4] has utilized
resource dependency theory in his argument on the kinds
of strategies stakeholders choose. In his theoretical analy-
sis, he identifies four types of stakeholder influence strate-
gies that are based on the nature of resource relationships
between stakeholders and the focal company. These strat-
egies are: direct withholding, direct usage, indirect with-
holding and indirect usage. In the direct withholding
strategy, a stakeholder will withhold resources in an
attempt to change a behavior of the firm. When a stake-
holder continues to supply resources, but attaches con-
straints towards the use of the resource, they are using
the direct usage strategy. Whereas the stakeholder directly
manipulates the flow of resources to the firm in the direct
strategies, in indirect strategies the stakeholder works
through an ally by having an ally to manipulate the flow
of resources to the firm [4].
511
In an attempt to advance Frooman’s [4] arguments,
Hendry [8] has explored different influence strategies used
by environmental non-governmental organizations. In his
empirical study, he identifies seven influence strategies:
allying with other stakeholders, multi-stakeholder dia-
logues, letter-writing campaigns, blockades, boycotts, liti-
gation and lobbying legislators.
3. Methodology
To understand the strategies stakeholders use in shaping
their salience attributes, we conducted a single case study
was conducted [20]. Our global project case, further
referred to as Botnia, is a pulp mill construction project
carried out in Uruguay and has faced vast stakeholder
related challenges. We selected this particular case in order
to explore and understand the strategies through which
stakeholders influence and shape their salience attributes
in global projects. We hypothesized that the groups who
opposed the project would be the ones attempting to
receive management attention to their requests. It is in
these instances of potential conflict where the concept of
stakeholder management becomes meaningful to projects;
therefore, our case analysis focuses mainly on identifying
and categorizing the salience shaping strategies of the pro-
ject opponents that are not directly involved in the execu-
tion of the project.
The data for the case study was collected from public
sources by two of the researchers. Many Botnia project -
related articles were published in two main Finnish finan-
cial periodicals.3 In order to obtain a rich case description
of the case for analysis, we used these periodicals, other
related and publically available material, such as the draft
cumulative impact study of the pulp mill conducted by
World Bank, and Internet sources such as the webpage
of Botnia and of different stakeholders. In addition the
findings of this study were discussed with Botnia
representatives.
In the first step of the case analysis, researchers familiar-
ized themselves with the case material and formed a picture
of the series of different project events. After this, two of
the researchers independently documented the incidents
and formed a timeline of project related important inci-
dents, which were then compared. In the process of com-
parison, special attention was placed on the incidents that
were stakeholder specific. At this stage, a dynamic project
stakeholder map was formed, which made it evident that
one local stakeholder group in particular was an important
actor and initiator in the stakeholder related events and in
shaping its salience attributes in the case. Hence, most of
our analysis is focused around this group’s activities. After
compiling the list of stakeholder specific events, the identi-
fied influence strategies were analyzed, evaluated, and
3
Kauppalehti and Talouselämä. Our article sample covered over 100
articles published during 2005–2007.
512 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516
categorized according to their effects on salience attributes.
The results of our analysis are presented in the case conclu-
sions chapter.
4. Empirical case description
4.1. Case background
Botnia S.A.’s cellulose pulp mill investment in Fray Ben-
tos is the largest industrial investment in the history of
Uruguay. The pulp mill is located in the Uruguay River,
which is a border river between Uruguay and Argentina.
The use of the river is protected by a treaty, which requires
both parties to inform the other of any project that might
affect the river. One of the most local active groups oppos-
ing the project was the Argentinian Citizens Environmental
Assembly of Gualeguaychú (further referred to as CEAG).
It was concerned that the pulp mill would pollute the river
and harm the flourishing tourism business of the town
across the river. The challenges related to the management
of complex external environment were pointed out by Bot-
nia’s project manager,
‘‘Building a plant is not just pure technology, but really
much something else. In addition to being a cellulose
engineer one should be a political engineer.”
4.2. Botnia’s investment preparation (1999–2005)
The preparation for the pulp mill investment project was
started in the 1990s by searching for appropriate locations
in South America. After selecting Fray Bentos as the loca-
tion, the project team emphasized stakeholder communica-
tion by organizing local information sessions in both
Uruguay and Argentina. Even though attendance at the
information session in Argentina side was not high, Botnia
was not alarmed.
The company’s goal was to integrate with the local cul-
ture and economy – the CEO of the company was hired
from Uruguay, local companies were selected as subcon-
tractors and plans were made to use Argentinian subcon-
tractors. Botnia minimized technical risks of the project
by only using technology that was successfully operating
in other plants. Finally, they ensured environmental friend-
liness by utilizing the best available technology.
4.3. Escalation of the conflict in 2005
Once the Uruguayan government granted permission to
build the plant in February 2005, active construction com-
menced. At this point, CEAG and local residents initiated
active protests, and by the end of April, tens of thousands
of people gathered to block a bridge between Gual-
eguaychú and Fray Bentos to protest the building of pulp
mills. In addition to CEAG, the protests were also sup-
ported by the governor of the local Argentinian commu-
nity, Entre Rı́os. The Argentinian chancellor personally
visited Gualeguaychu to meet the local people and gain
political support. It soon became evident to Botnia that
the use of Argentinian subcontractors would be a problem
and they began to search more local subcontractors.
The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation
(IFC), a major financier of the project, published a draft
cumulative impact study of the two mills on the 19th of
December 2005. According to the study, the technical
requirements of the plants had been fulfilled and the
quality of the water and the air in the region should
not be harmed. The IFC said it would wait for further
consultations before finalizing the study and thus before
financing the projects. At the same time, CEAG members
were actively initiating letter-writing campaigns to the
banks planning to finance the project. In these letters,
the environmental and social effects of the mills were
pointed out.
At the end of 2005, CEAG members and local residents
blocked a road and detour bridge. The timing of the block
during holiday season was critical, and it angered many
drivers. In addition, the block prevented material transpor-
tations from Chile via Argentina to Uruguay. As a
response to the blocks, the Uruguayan chancellor accused
Argentina of violating Mercosur regulations on the free-
dom of circulation of goods. These requests were strongly
rejected by Argentina and it decided to take the case to
Haag court in January 2006. Argentina accused Uruguay
of violating the Uruguay River Statute by authorizing the
construction of the plants without prior consultation with
Argentina.
The road blocks soon became everyday occurrences. In
early 2006, Greenpeace activists met with Uruguayan offi-
cials to request suspension of the work and the environ-
mental organization Friends of the Earth also made
demands for Botnia to abandon the pulp mill project.
4.4. Weak resolution attempts during spring 2006
Throughout the spring of 2006, CEAG continued its
protests. In addition, the local Argentinian government
supported the spreading of pamphlets and flyers about
the paper factories and the risks of pollution. CEAG and
others spread emails regarding the threats of the pulp mill
and posted video clips to YouTube targeting Botnia and
the pulp mill. They also initiated boycotts against Finland.
At the same time CEAG’s previous counsel, Romina
Picolotti, was appointed to the Argentina Secretariat of
Environment and Sustainable Development. Picolotti sent
a letter to IFC authorities, claiming that the environmental
studies did not provide new data and speculating that part
of the study was conducted by the same engineer hired for
Botnia’s own previous study. Later, the ombudsman of the
World Bank concluded that the IFC review of the cellulose
plants was ‘‘incomplete” and did not employ rigorous
procedures.
During the spring various parties, such as the Catholic
Church, offered to facilitate mediation sessions. During a
 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516
visit to Chile in March, both the president of Argentina
and Uruguay met to discuss the situation face-to-face.
Together, they asked participants to suspend both the con-
struction of the cellulose plants and the road blocks in
order to discuss the matter. In late March, Botnia decided
to suspend the building of the mills to ‘‘contribute to the
opening of a dialogue”.
4.5. International Court of Justice’s decision in July 2006
In July, 2006, Argentina sued Uruguay in the Interna-
tional Court of Justice (ICJ). Argentina argued that Uru-
guay had breached a treaty obligation that required
consultation with the neighboring country before doing
anything that might affect the river. In response, Uruguay
took its case to Mercosur, claiming that Argentina had
failed to take action to ensure the free circulation of goods
and services. During their defense at the ICJ, the Uruguay-
an authorities pointed to the fact that the plants were to use
a technology known as elemental chlorine-free bleaching,
which has been adopted by both the United States and
the European Union as the ‘‘best available technology”
in their wood pulp processing environmental regulations,
and that an independent World Bank study has supported
their position. In July, 2006, the ICJ ruled that Argentina
had failed to convince the court that Uruguay’s actions
were enough to grant a provisional measure to stop the
construction of the two cellulose plants.
4.6. Involvement of financial parties
In April 2006, the Dutch bank ING announced that it
would abandon its advisory role for Botnia. The IFC and
the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
released the final version of the environmental study in
October 2006, stating that the pulp mill project is environ-
mentally sound and a positive force for the Uruguayan
economy. CEAG reacted to the study with new road blocks
and encouraged Argentinians not to visit Uruguay during
their summer vacations.
On November, 2006 the IFC and MIGA approved $170
million and $350 million guarantees, respectively. They
claimed that ‘‘the two organizations, after completing a
thorough review of the facts, are convinced that the mill
will generate significant economic benefits for Uruguay
and cause no environmental harm.” The president of
Argentina reacted to this by emphasizing that Argentina’s
government would not prevent the blockades. This pushed
Uruguay to take the case to the ICJ.
4.7. Pressure continues during 2007
At the beginning of 2007, Argentina threatened to
impose laws that would ban exporting or transporting
wood from Argentina to Uruguay. These threats were
focused primarily on the region of Entre Rios, where an
Argentinian governor is actively opposing the mills. Dem-
513
onstrations were also seen outside the Finnish embassy in
Argentina. At this point, it was speculated that Botnia
would need to make further investments to avoid conflict
that would hurt its upcoming operations. The situation
for Uruguay and Botnia was made worse when the ICJ
denied Uruguay’s requests to take provisional measures
against the blockades. This denial increased Argentina’s
motivation and led to additional road blockades by local
groups. With the given situation, the King of Spain recom-
mended a large theme park be built between Fray Bentos
and Gualeguaychú. Other suggested courses of action were
Botnia-sponsored pipelines to change the location of waste
water disposal and the installation of filters on exhaust
pipes. For Botnia, this was controversial as they were con-
vinced that the technology would not pollute the air or
water. Thus, landscaping projects and theme parks seemed
to be the most plausible course of action.
4.8. Startup of the plant in late 2007
The situation escalated when Argentinian locals block-
aded entryways to Uruguay in early April, a popular time
for Uruguayans to travel. Entre Rios passed legislation
prohibiting the transport and export of wood to Uruguay,
threatening high financial penalties. However, Botnia owns
several plantations and can fulfill most of the plant’s lum-
ber needs with its own supply.
Finally, in the beginning of April 2007, a meeting was
arranged between the leaders of Argentina and Uruguay
with the King of Spain acting as a mediator. Argentina
announced that it would attend the meetings, but with a
determined mindset. They would demand that Botnia leave
Fray Bentos. The results of the negotiations were vague
and different types of protests continued the whole summer
and fall. The opponents stated that they would finally have
to resort to more powerful actions.
The Botnia mill was scheduled to start its operations in
September, but the operation permits from the Uruguayan
government were not received before the 9th of November,
soon after the Argentinian presidential election. To protect
the start-up of the mill, Uruguay closed the border between
Argentina and Uruguay in order to prevent any conflicts or
demonstrations on the Uruguayan side. The pulp mill
finally began its operations in late 2007.
5. Case conclusions
The Botnia case provides interesting insights into the
dynamic nature of stakeholder involvement in complex
global project networks that are carried out in turbulent
and institutionally demanding environments. In our actual
case analysis, we will focus on the salience shaping strate-
gies stakeholders use to attain management’s attention.
In Table 1, we identify and categorize three strategies used
by the opponents of the mill to shape their salience attri-
butes and gain attention from Botnia’s management:
power, legitimacy and urgency.
514 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516

Table 1
Salience shaping strategies of project opponents
Salience Strategies employed to shape salience attributes
attribute
Power – CEAG actively lobbied project sponsors and financial parties
(e.g. IFC and the Dutch bank) by sending letters to inform them
of the speculated effects of the pulp mill
– CEAG actively lobbied Argentinian and Uruguayan governmen-
tal representatives to pass laws that would harm the operations
of the plant
– Argentina passed a law preventing the transportation and expor-
tation of wood to Uruguay from Argentina
– Opponents prevented transportation from Chile via Argentina to
Uruguay
– CEAG actively built networks and coalitions with local citizens
and Uruguayan environmental groups
– CEAG built connections with powerful international environ-
mental groups such as Greenpeace and CEAG
– CEAG recruited people with connections to and past experience
in the IFC and Argentinian government
Legitimacy – CEAG fully supported Argentina’s attempts to block the plant at
international court
– Opponents actively searched for both national and international
political support
– Local Argentinian politicians used the project as an arena for
promoting their political careers
– CEAG organized local information sessions, handed out pam-
phlets, communicated with by-passers, initiated letter-writing
and email campaigns, posted video clips and images of the pulp
mill to the Internet and YouTube
– Opponents organized boycotts against Finland
– Local citizens did not attend the information sessions organized
by Botnia for the local stakeholders
– Opponents accused Botnia and IFC of impartial environmental
evaluations
– CEAG and Argentina attempted to utilize Ence’s withdrawal as a
showcase of the legitimacy of the claims
Urgency – Opponents organized direct events such as protests, blockades,
road blocks during holiday seasons and prevented transport to
the pulp mill site
– Opponents searched for extensive international media attention
by organizing a scene at an EU meeting
– Opponents threatened companies with legal consequences
– Opponents continued protests to indicate the urgency and criti-
cality of their claims
– Opponents threatened that the continuation of protests, even
after plant operations start
Description
Trying to affect and influence the parties that provide resources,
e.g. financiers of Botnia during the project and during the plant’s
operations by proclaiming that involvement in the project will
harm their reputation. This strategy is an in-direct strategy to
increase power by affecting project resources
Affecting directly the project by withholding resources from the
project
Building lobbying allies, coalitions and networks especially with
organizations that have a high inter-dependence relationship with
the project and this way increasing power base and legitimacy
Recruiting capable and knowledgeable individuals with networks
to important resource providers, increases power base
Initiating a legal and political conflict can be interpreted as an
attempt to increase the legitimacy of the claims
Trying to initiate awareness of the effects of the project in the local
community through different information medias is a strategy to
increase legitimacy and negatively affect the reputation of the
project and the parties actively involved in it
Signaling the illegitimacy of the project to the focal company.
However, these types of means may be interpreted by the focal
company in a way that the local community accepts the project
Attacking project supporters e.g. financiers by proclaiming they
conduct incomplete environmental evaluations in an attempt to
question their legitimacy and morality and negatively affect their
reputation
Using other projects and withdrawals by companies as an example
to signal the legitimacy of withdrawing from similar situations
Signal the urgency, time-sensitivity and criticality of the project to
a stakeholder by direct actions

6. Discussion managers perceive their importance by increasing their

6.1. Stakeholder salience shaping strategies in global projects
According to Mitchell et al. [3], managers will more
likely pay attention to and respond to the claims of those
stakeholders that they perceive to have more salience,
which is defined using three attributes: power, legitimacy
and urgency. It is also important for stakeholders to rec-
ognize that managers will evaluate the salience of their
claim compared to the salience of other stakeholders’
claims [21]. Thus, stakeholders wish to influence the way
salience.
Drawing from the identified strategies stakeholders used
in the Botnia case, we formed more generic strategy catego-
ries stakeholders use to increase their salience. These are
presented in Table 2.
According to resource dependence theory project stake-
holder power is related to the resource dependence a
specific stakeholder has with the project. In order to
provide the project with the resources, stakeholders can
claim something in return, which gives them utilitarian
power over projects [3]. Stakeholders that use the direct
 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516 515

Table 2
Classification of stakeholder salience shaping strategies in projects
Type of stakeholder Description
strategy
Direct withholding Stakeholders restrict project’s access to critical resources which are controlled by the stakeholder to increase their perceived
strategy power

Indirect withholding Stakeholders influence project’s access to resources that are not directly controlled by the specific stakeholder to increase their
strategy perceived power

Resource building Stakeholders acquire and recruit critical and capable resources to their group to increase their perceived power
strategy

Coalition building Stakeholders build alliances with other project stakeholders to increase their perceived power or legitimacy
strategy

Conflict escalation Stakeholders attempt to escalate the conflict beyond initial project related causes (e.g. political). Through this process the
strategy project may become an arena for non-project related battles. This may introduce a new institutional environment in which
stakeholders’ claims are perceived as more legitimate

Credibility building Stakeholders increase their perceived legitimacy by acquiring credible and capable resources, for example, capable individuals
strategy with good reputation or networks

Communication strategy Stakeholders use different types of media to communicate and increase the perceived legitimacy and urgency of their claims

Direct action strategy Stakeholders organize protests, road blockades, etc. to increase the perceived urgency of stakeholder claims

withholding strategy control critical resources in terms of
project’s success and can therefore increase their power
by conditionally restricting access to these resources. In
the Botnia case, Argentina used this strategy by threatening
to pass laws preventing the supply and transportation of
wood from Argentina to Uruguay. In addition, stakehold-
ers may be in a position to influence resources provided by
another stakeholder. In these instances, they can use the
indirect withholding strategy to manipulate the flow of
resources and increase the salience of their claims [4]. For
example, CEAG attempted to influence the financial
resources provided by the banks by initiating letter-writing
campaigns against them. The Resource building strategy
can be used by stakeholders to increase the possession of
critical resources on a project.
Stakeholders may use different strategies to influence the
legitimacy of their claims. One important strategy for this
is the coalition building strategy. This can directly increase
stakeholder legitimacy, particularly if they are able to form
a coalition with a more legitimate partner. Stakeholders
often do not pursue their objectives alone, but in coopera-
tion with other partners and stakeholders to increase the
salience of their claims [21]. Furthermore, in the Botnia
case, the process of coalition building and networking with
other stakeholders proved to be important to support the
conflict escalation strategy used to create a political conflict
between Argentina and Uruguay. In many projects, there
are also actors who use the project to further other, non-
project related goals. In these situations, the project
becomes an arena for actors with a political agenda to pro-
mote other, non-project related issues. Finally, stakehold-
ers can increase their legitimacy through the credibility
building strategy, for example, recruiting a well-known
and legitimate member into the stakeholder group. Project
stakeholders may use communication or direct action strat-
egies to increase the urgency of their claims. In the Botnia
case, different stakeholders used the different communica-
tion channels and media cleverly to highlight the urgency
of their claims in various protests and roadblocks.
6.2. Managerial implications
Stakeholder management can be critical for global pro-
jects. These projects are executed in demanding and unpre-
dictable institutional environments and involve a number
of diverse actors who are affected by the project and can
also affect the project. To achieve project success, it is
therefore critical to understand both the interests of stake-
holders and the means through which they attempt to
achieve their interests and objectives. Stakeholder action
can arguably increase the direct operational costs of pro-
jects in the form of from legal fees and public relation
expenses. Furthermore, stakeholder actions may have neg-
ative effects on the reputations of companies engaged in the
project and affect the company’s subsequent project
business.
Through the use of the Botnia case, our findings pres-
ent the criticality of stakeholder’s claims and deepen the
understanding of the strategies stakeholders use to shape
their salience and affect the project outcomes. Further, we
shed light on the multidimensional and dynamic concept
of stakeholder interest. It is important for the focal
company to understand the nature of stakeholder inter-
ests in planning and adopting its effective stakeholder
516 K. Aaltonen et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 509–516
management strategies. The presence of multiple, often
conflicting, institutional environments presents a chal-
lenge for managing stakeholder environment in global
projects. The legitimacy of stakeholder claims is evaluated
differently in diverse institutional environments and man-
agers must be aware of the diverse behavioral assump-
tions, normative rules, and regulations in each of the
institutional environments that are relevant for the suc-
cess and survival of the project. Hence, in order to select
the right strategy on how to respond to each stakeholder
operating in multiple institutional environments, project
management must carefully analyze the salience of each
stakeholder. Managers need to also analyze which stake-
holder groups are willing and able to threaten project
success.
7. Conclusion
Global projects not only contain technical risks, they also
include social, political and cultural risks from the involve-
ment of diverse actors with different objectives, goals and
strategies. Our analysis provides an application of Mitchell
et al.’s [3] stakeholder classification framework in the con-
text of global projects. Thus, the paper extends and deepens
the research conducted on the challenges of large engineer-
ing projects that are subject to the impacts of a wider socio-
political environment [22,23]. Further, by an in-depth
analysis of the Botnia project, the paper provides new
understanding on the types of strategies stakeholders have
attempted to increase their salience and affect project
outcomes. Hence, we provide new knowledge on the dyna-
mism and variability of stakeholder salience within projects.
Finally, we want to note that the focus with our analyses
has been at the project level and in the project implementa-
tion phase. However, in the stakeholder analyses, manage-
ment should also consider the long-term effects of
stakeholder’s claims beyond the project’s implementation
phase, and the impacts on the company’s project business.
For example, in the Botnia case there is already some indi-
cation that certain stakeholders (CEAG) will continue to
pressure Botnia during the plant’s operations as well. Pro-
ject management must therefore be aware of how their
responses to stakeholder claims will influence the actual
operations phase of the project – in this case the acquisition
of material and other required inputs for the actual plant
operations. Recent research has also recognized the impor-
tance of taking the long-term business aspects into account
when managing project stakeholders [24].
This analysis of strategies that stakeholders use to shape
their salience provides a basis for future research to focus
on the effectiveness of responses to stakeholder’s claims
on projects. Further empirical research is needed to address
how the dynamic nature of stakeholder attributes is taken
into account by focal companies in their design of effective
stakeholder management strategies and models.
References
[1] Olander S, Landin A. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. Int J Proj Manage
2005;23:321–8.
[2] Miller R, Olleros X. Project shaping as a competitive advantage. In:
Miller R, Lessard DR, editors. The strategic management of large
engineering projects: shaping institutions risks and governance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2000. p. 93–112.
[3] Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what
really counts. Acad Manage Rev 1997;22(4):853–86.
[4] Frooman J. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manage Rev
1999;24(2):191–205.
[5] Winch GM, Bonke S. Project stakeholder mapping: analyzing the
interests of project stakeholders. In: Slevin DP, Cleland DI, Pinto JK,
editors. The frontiers of project management research. Project
Management Institute; 2002. p. 385–403.
[6] Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Bos-
ton: Pitman; 1984.
[7] Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev
1995;20:65–91.
[8] Hendry JR. Stakeholder influence strategies: an empirical exploration.
J Bus Ethics 2005;61:79–99.
[9] Cleland DI. Project stakeholder management. Proj Manage J
1986;17(4):36–44.
[10] Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management
book of knowledge (PMBOK), 3rd ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute; 2004.
[11] Cova B, Salle R. Six key points to merge project marketing into
project management. Int J Proj Manage 2005;23:354–9.
[12] Winch GM. Managing project stakeholders. In: Morris PWG, Pinto
JK, editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects. New Jersey:
Wiley; 2004. p. 321–39.
[13] Cleland DI. Stakeholder management. In: Pinto J, editor. Project
management handbook. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass, Project Manage-
ment Institute; 1998. p. 55–72.
[14] Johnson G, Scholes K. Exploring corporate strategy. London:
Prentice Hall Europe; 1999.
[15] Turner JR. The handbook of project-based management – improving
the processes for achieving strategic objectives. 2nd ed. London:
McGraw-Hill; 1999. p. 529.
[16] Bourne L, Walker D. Using a visualizing tool to study stakeholder
influence – two Australian examples. Proj Manage J 2006;37(1):
5–21.
[17] Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. The bases and use of power in organizational
decision-making: the case of universities. Admin Sci Quart
1974;19:453–73.
[18] Etzioni A. Modern organizations. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
NJ; 1964.
[19] Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional
approaches. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20:571–610.
[20] Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed. SAGE
Publications; 1994.
[21] Neville BA, Menguc B. Stakeholder multiplicity: toward understand-
ing of the interactions between stakeholders. J Bus Ethics 2006;66:
377–91.
[22] Miller R, Lessard D. Understanding and managing risks in large
engineering projects. Int J Proj Manage 2001;19:437–43.
[23] Jafaari A. Modeling of large projects. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK,
editors. The Wiley guide to managing projects. John Wiley & Sons
Inc; 2004. p. 288–320.
[24] Eloranta K, Kujala J, Artto K. Managing risk in subcontractors’
business relationships with client and competitors. Proj Perspect
2007;XXIX:52–6.