Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Stakeholder Groups of Public and Private Universities in the Czech Republic – Identification, Categorization and Prioritization Cover

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

Review of Economic Perspectives
Volume 15 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
By:   
Open Access
|Oct 2015
References

References

  1. ALTMAN, D.G. (1991).. London: Chapman & Hall
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. AMARAL. A., MAGALHÃES.A. (2002). The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance..2002 (2). Pp. 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-9946-7_1
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. ANDERSON L. IRIGGS. A. R. J.. BURTON. N. (2001).London: Paul Chapman Publishing
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. BRYSON. J. M. (2004). What to do when Stakeholders Matter? Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques..6(1). pp. 21-53.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. BRYSON. J. M. (2011).. San Francisco: John Wiley &Sons.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. BURROWS, J. (1999). Going Beyond Labels: A Framework for Profiling Institutional Stakeholders..70(4). Pp. 5-10.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. BURTON. C. (2001). The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement.13(2). Pp. 9-24
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. BUYSSE, K., VERBEKE, A. (2003). Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective.. 24 (5). Pp. 453-470.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. CHINYIO. E. et al. (2010).. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. CLARKSON.M. (1994).Centre for Corporate Social Performance and Ethics, University of Toronto: Toronto.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. CLARKSON.M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance.20 (1). Pp. 92-117.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. EESLEY. C., LENOX.M. (2006). Firm Responses to Secondary Stakeholder Action.. 27(8). Pp. 765-781
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. EURYDICE (2008).. Brussels: Eurydice. ISBN 978-92-79-08524-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. FIALA. R., PROKOP. M., ŽIVĚLOVÁ, I. (2012). The relationship between interorganizational trust and performance.55(4). Pp. 89–98.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. FRANZ, R. (1998). Whatever you do, don‘t treat your students like customers!. 22(1). Pp. 63-69. DOI: 10.1177/105256299802200105
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. FREEMAN. R. E. (1984).. Massachusetts. USA: Pitman Publishing Company.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. FREEMAN. R. E. (2010).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. HILLMAN. A. J., KEIM. G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?22(2). Pp. 125-139. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-H
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. JOHNSON, G., SCHOLES, K., WHITTINGTON, R. (2008).Harlow: Financial Times / Prentice Hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. KANJI, G. K., TAMBI, M. B. A. (1999). Total quality management in UK higher education institution.. 10(1). Pp. 129-153. DOI: 10.1080/0954412998126
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. KOTLER, P., FOX, K. (2002).. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. 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.79 (3).Pp. 299-310. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. LICATA, J., FRANKWICK, G. (1996). University marketing: a professional service organisation perspective.. 7(2). Pp. 1-16.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. LUMBY. J., FOSKET. N. H. (1999).London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. MAINARDES. W. E..ALVES.H.. RAPOSO.M. (2010). An Exploratory Research on the Stakeholders of University..10 (1). pp. 76-88.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. MAINARDES. W. E..ALVES.H.. RAPOSO.M.(2013). Identifying Stakeholders in a Portuguese university: a case study.. . 2013 (362). pp. 429-457.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. MAINARDES. W. E..RAPOSO.M., ALVES.H.. (2012). Public university students’ expectations: an empirical study based on the stakeholders theory.. 2012 (35). pp. 173-196.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. MARIĆ.I. (2013). Stakeholder analysis of higher education institutions.11(2).Pp. 217-226
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. MIROIU. A., ANDREESCU. L. (2010). Goals and Instruments of Diversification in Higher Education.2(2). Pp. 89-101
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. MOSAIC.(2015). Key Stakeholders. From:
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. OECD. 2013.. OECD Publishing. ISBN 978-92-64-20105-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. PARIS. K.A. (2003).Madison. WI: Office of Quality Improvement. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved on July 25. 2007 from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. PARK.T. (2011). Academic Capitalism and its Impact on the American Professoriate.6(1). Pp. 84-99.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. PEREIRA, M. A. C., SILVA DA, M. T. (2003). A Key Question for Higher Education: Who are the customers?. Atlanta. pp. 1-16.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. PLESSIS. du N., GERBER. K. (2009). Marketing communication. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa Ltd.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. ROSENMAYER.T. (2014). Using Data Envelopment Analysis: a Case of Universities..14(1). Pp. 34–54. DOI: 10.2478/revecp-2014-0003
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. ROWLEY, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract..5(1). Pp. 7 – 14.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. ROWLEY.J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract..5(1). Pp. 7 – 14.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. SLANTCHEVA, S. AND LEVY, D. (2007).. New York: Macmillan.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. SMITH, L., CAVUSGIL, T. (1984). Marketing planning for colleges and universities..17(6). Pp. 104-117. DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(84)90223-1
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. SVĚTLÍK, J. (2006).. Praha: ASPI.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. WAGNER. N., HASSANEIN. K., HEAD. M. (2008). Who is responsible for E-Learning Success in Higher Education? A Stakeholders' Analysis..11(3).Pp. 26-36
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. WEAVER, T. (1976). What is the good of higher education?, 8(3). Pp. 3-14.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. ZAIT.A.(2006).). From
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2015-0022 | Journal eISSN: 1804-1663 | Journal ISSN: 1213-2446
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 305 - 326
Submitted on: Aug 25, 2014
Accepted on: Sep 1, 2015
Published on: Oct 20, 2015
Published by: Mendel University in Brno
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
stakeholder,
university,
stakeholder management,
stakeholder group
JEL:
I29,
M19,
M39
Related subjects:
Business and economics,
Political economics,
Economic theory, systems and structures

© 2015 Marie Slabá, published by Mendel University in Brno
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 15 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
Previous article
Next article