Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Review of Economic Perspectives

Národohospodárský obzor; The Journal of Masaryk University

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.262
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.516

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 15, Issue 3


Stakeholder Groups of Public and Private Universities in the Czech Republic – Identification, Categorization and Prioritization

Marie Slabá
  • Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, Department of Tourism and Marketing, Okružní 10, 37001 České Budějovice
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2015-0022


With regard to changes in the environment of tertiary education and tertiary educational systems, universities are now unlikely to succeed as ‘separated closed’ institutions that are unresponsive to their environment and stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis is considered as an important part of university management and marketing and universities have to take care of key stakeholder groups and build long term relationships with them. This paper focuses on the stakeholder analysis and adopts the stake-holder theory and analysis for the needs of the Czech market of tertiary education. This paper analyses results of the author’s online questionnaire that provided the input for data analysis deploying basic descriptive analysis and first steps of stakeholder analysis – identification, categorization and prioritization. Results of author’s research show that there are only slight differences between public and private universities and their perspective concerning generic stakeholder groups of universities. However the research revealed two controversial stakeholder groups – donors and competitors. In comparison with other stakeholder groups perception of these two stakeholder groups by public and private universities is very different. Stakeholder groups of public and private universities were categorized into four basic groups - primary internal stakeholder groups, primary external stakeholder groups, secondary internal stakeholder groups, and secondary external stakeholder groups. Primary internal and external stakeholder groups which are crucial for survival of universities are the most important stakeholder groups for universities. The author identified ten most important stakeholder groups for public and private universities separately, based on assigned priorities that will be used for further research.

Keywords: stakeholder; university; stakeholder management; stakeholder group

JEL Classification:: I29; M19; M39


  • ALTMAN, D.G. (1991). Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar

  • AMARAL. A., MAGALHÃES.A. (2002). The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance. Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Higher Education Dynamics.2002 (2). Pp. 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ANDERSON L. IRIGGS. A. R. J.. BURTON. N. (2001). Managing Finance. Resources and Stakeholders in Education. London: Paul Chapman PublishingGoogle Scholar

  • BRYSON. J. M. (2004). What to do when Stakeholders Matter? Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques. Public Management Review.6(1). pp. 21-53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BRYSON. J. M. (2011). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco: John Wiley &Sons.Google Scholar

  • BURROWS, J. (1999). Going Beyond Labels: A Framework for Profiling Institutional Stakeholders. Contemporary Education.70(4). Pp. 5-10.Google Scholar

  • BURTON. C. (2001). The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement. Journal of the Programme on Institutional management in Higher Education 13(2). Pp. 9-24Google Scholar

  • BUYSSE, K., VERBEKE, A. (2003). Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective. Strategic Management Journal. 24 (5). Pp. 453-470.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • CHINYIO. E. et al. (2010). Construction Stakeholder Management. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • CLARKSON.M. (1994). A risk based model of stakeholder theory: Toronto. Proceedings of the Second Toronto Conference on Stakeholder Theory. Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto: Toronto.Google Scholar

  • CLARKSON.M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20 (1). Pp. 92-117.Google Scholar

  • EESLEY. C., LENOX.M. (2006). Firm Responses to Secondary Stakeholder Action.Strategic Management Journal. 27(8). Pp. 765-781CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • EURYDICE (2008).Higher Education Governance in Europe Policies. structures. funding and academic staff. Brussels: Eurydice. ISBN 978-92-79-08524-6Google Scholar

  • FIALA. R., PROKOP. M., ŽIVĚLOVÁ, I. (2012). The relationship between interorganizational trust and performance. Acta universitatis agriculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 55(4). Pp. 89–98.Google Scholar

  • FRANZ, R. (1998). Whatever you do, don‘t treat your students like customers! Journal of Management Education. 22(1). Pp. 63-69. DOI: 10.1177/105256299802200105CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • FREEMAN. R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Massachusetts. USA: Pitman Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • FREEMAN. R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • HILLMAN. A. J., KEIM. G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal. 22(2). Pp. 125-139. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-HCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • JOHNSON, G., SCHOLES, K., WHITTINGTON, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Text and Cases. Harlow: Financial Times / Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • KANJI, G. K., TAMBI, M. B. A. (1999). Total quality management in UK higher education institution. Total Quality Management. 10(1). Pp. 129-153. DOI: 10.1080/0954412998126Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • KOTLER, P., FOX, K. (2002).Strategic Marketing For Educational Institutions. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

  • LAAN, VAN DER G., EES VAN H., WITTELOOSTUIJN Van A. (2008). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory, and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures. Journal of Business Ethics.79 (3).Pp. 299-310. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • LICATA, J., FRANKWICK, G. (1996). University marketing: a professional service organisation perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 7(2). Pp. 1-16.Google Scholar

  • LUMBY. J., FOSKET. N. H. (1999). Managing External Relations in Schools and Colleges: International Dimensions. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar

  • MAINARDES. W. E..ALVES.H.. RAPOSO.M. (2010). An Exploratory Research on the Stakeholders of University. Journal of Management and Strategy.10 (1). pp. 76-88.Google Scholar

  • MAINARDES. W. E..ALVES.H.. RAPOSO.M.(2013). Identifying Stakeholders in a Portuguese university: a case study. Revista de Educación. . 2013 (362). pp. 429-457.Google Scholar

  • MAINARDES. W. E..RAPOSO.M., ALVES.H.. (2012). Public university students’ expectations: an empirical study based on the stakeholders theory. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science. 2012 (35). pp. 173-196.Google Scholar

  • MARIĆ.I. (2013). Stakeholder analysis of higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems.11(2).Pp. 217-226Google Scholar

  • MIROIU. A., ANDREESCU. L. (2010). Goals and Instruments of Diversification in Higher Education. Quality Assurance Review.2(2). Pp. 89-101Google Scholar

  • MOSAIC.(2015). Key Stakeholders. From: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/N008_Key_Stakeholders.pdf

  • OECD. 2013. Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. ISBN 978-92-64-20105-7Google Scholar

  • PARIS. K.A. (2003). Strategic planning in the university. Madison. WI: Office of Quality Improvement. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved on July 25. 2007 from: http://kathleenparis.com/ee-assets/my-uploads/docs/Strategic-Planning-%20inthe-University.pdf

  • PARK.T. (2011). Academic Capitalism and its Impact on the American Professoriate. The Journal of the Professoriate. An affiliate of the Center for African American Research and Policy.6(1). Pp. 84-99.Google Scholar

  • PEREIRA, M. A. C., SILVA DA, M. T. (2003). A Key Question for Higher Education: Who are the customers? Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society. Atlanta. pp. 1-16.Google Scholar

  • PLESSIS. du N., GERBER. K. (2009). Marketing communication. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa Ltd.Google Scholar

  • ROSENMAYER.T. (2014). Using Data Envelopment Analysis: a Case of Universities. Národohospodářský obzor.14(1). Pp. 34–54. DOI: 10.2478/revecp-2014-0003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ROWLEY, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education.5(1). Pp. 7 – 14.Google Scholar

  • ROWLEY.J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education.5(1). Pp. 7 – 14.Google Scholar

  • SLANTCHEVA, S. AND LEVY, D. (2007). Private higher education in post-communist Europe. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • SMITH, L., CAVUSGIL, T. (1984). Marketing planning for colleges and universities. Long Range Planning.17(6). Pp. 104-117. DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(84)90223-1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • SVĚTLÍK, J. (2006). Marketingové řízení školy. Praha: ASPI.Google Scholar

  • WAGNER. N., HASSANEIN. K., HEAD. M. (2008). Who is responsible for E-Learning Success in Higher Education? A Stakeholders' Analysis. Educational Technology & Society.11(3).Pp. 26-36Google Scholar

  • WEAVER, T. (1976). What is the good of higher education? Higher Education Review, 8(3). Pp. 3-14.Google Scholar

  • ZAIT.A.(2006). Higher Education Marketing: Stakeholders' Perceptions, Degree of Trust and Desired Student Abilities - Case of Romania (Preliminary Raw Results). From http://ssrn.com/abstract=982306

About the article

Received: 2014-08-25

Accepted: 2015-09-01

Published Online: 2015-10-20

Published in Print: 2015-09-01

Citation Information: Review of Economic Perspectives, Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 305–326, ISSN (Online) 1804-1663, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2015-0022.

Export Citation

© 2015 Marie Slabá, published by De Gruyter Open. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in