| Course | BUS 454 Ethical Decision Making for Business |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder analysis |
| Length | About 1,027 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 454 Module 3
Who Counts in the Sheboygan Expansion? A Stakeholder Map by Power, Legitimacy and Urgency
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
BUS 454: Ethical Decision Making for Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Counts in the Sheboygan Expansion? A Stakeholder Map by Power, Legitimacy and Urgency
Harbor Point Foods plans to expand its newer Sheboygan plant, adding two production lines, 60 jobs and a warehouse. The project would raise the plant's water use by about 40% and add roughly 45 truck trips a day on a residential road. The company has city approval in principle but must still obtain a water permit and a zoning variance for the warehouse. Neighbors have started a petition, and an environmental group has raised questions about wastewater. This paper identifies the project's stakeholders, classifies them and proposes how Harbor Point should engage each.
Identifying Stakeholders
Freeman (1984) counted as a stakeholder anyone, person or group, whose actions can shape a company's progress toward its aims or whose lives are shaped by that progress. That definition is broad by design; it includes people with no contract with the company. For the expansion, the list includes owners, the lender, current employees and the union, job seekers in the area, neighbors along the truck route, the city council, the state natural resources agency that issues water permits, an environmental group focused on Lake Michigan and the retail customers who want more supply.
A Framework for Salience
Not every stakeholder demands the same attention at the same time. Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed that managers give priority to stakeholders according to three attributes: the group's capacity to sway what the firm does, how rightful others judge its claim to be, and how pressing and important that claim feels to the people raising it. Stakeholders with all three are definitive; those with power and legitimacy are dominant; those with legitimacy and urgency but no power are dependent, relying on others to advance their claims; and so on. Salience changes as attributes are gained or lost.
Classifying the Stakeholders
The table classifies each group.
| Stakeholder | Power | Legitimacy | Urgency | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State water permit agency | Yes | Yes | Yes | Definitive |
| City council | Yes | Yes | Yes | Definitive |
| Owners and lender | Yes | Yes | No | Dominant |
| Neighbors on truck route | Growing | Yes | Yes | Dependent, becoming definitive |
| Environmental group | Some | Yes | Yes | Dependent |
| Employees and union | Some | Yes | Low | Dominant or discretionary |
| Job seekers | No | Yes | Low | Discretionary |
| Retail customers | Yes | Yes | Low | Dominant |
The Neighbors' Claim
The neighbors began as dependent stakeholders with a legitimate and urgent claim, since 45 trucks a day would pass homes, a school bus stop and a park. Their petition, now with 600 signatures, and their plan to speak at the variance hearing are giving them power. Mitchell et al. (1997) predicted exactly this dynamic: dependent stakeholders can gain power through coalitions, the legal process or the support of more powerful groups. Harbor Point should engage them now, before they become definitive through conflict.
The Water Question
The environmental group's concern is that increased wastewater, even treated, could add phosphorus to a creek that flows to Lake Michigan. The claim is legitimate and urgent, and the group's standing to comment on the permit gives it some power. The state agency will decide the permit on technical grounds, but Harbor Point's response will shape its reputation well beyond this project.
Why Engagement Is Right, Not Only Useful
Engaging the neighbors and the environmental group may speed the permit and variance, which is the instrumental case. Donaldson and Preston (1995) argued that stakeholder theory also rests on a normative claim: that groups affected by a company's actions have legitimate interests that deserve consideration for their own sake. Families along a residential road have a claim to safety and quiet whether or not they can stop the project. Engagement should therefore aim at fair outcomes, not only at approval.
An Engagement Plan
For definitive stakeholders, the state agency and city council, Harbor Point should provide full technical information early and invite questions. For the neighbors, it should hold a meeting on the truck route before the variance hearing, listen first and bring options: a new truck entrance from the county highway, which would cost about $850,000 but remove most trucks from the residential road; limits on truck hours; and a traffic study. For the environmental group, it should share the wastewater design, invite the group's engineer to review it and consider adding phosphorus removal beyond what the permit requires. Employees should hear about the jobs and schedule before the public, and job seekers should know how to apply.
Changes to the Project
Engagement should be able to change the project. If the neighbors' concerns cannot be met without the highway entrance, Harbor Point should build it; the cost is about 3% of the $28 million project and avoids years of conflict. If the added phosphorus removal is affordable, Harbor Point should commit to it publicly. The company should report back to each group on what it changed and why, and explain honestly any request it could not meet, so that stakeholders see their input was taken seriously even where the answer was no.
Monitoring After Approval
Salience shifts after approval, but obligations remain. Harbor Point should publish truck counts and wastewater results quarterly for the first two years and keep a contact person for neighbors.
Balancing Competing Claims
The stakeholders' claims conflict. Owners and retail customers want the expansion finished quickly; neighbors want fewer trucks; the environmental group wants stricter wastewater controls; job seekers want the 60 jobs. No option satisfies everyone completely, but some options satisfy most claims at modest cost. The highway entrance serves neighbors without delaying the project much. Extra phosphorus removal answers the environmental concern at a cost the project can bear. Seeking outcomes that competing groups can accept, rather than declaring winners and losers, is the approach this course emphasizes, and it is often cheaper than a prolonged fight at hearings and in the local press.
Conclusion
Mapping stakeholders by power, legitimacy and urgency shows that the neighbors and environmental group, though initially dependent, have legitimate and urgent claims that are gaining power. Engaging them early, with real options and a willingness to change the project, is both the prudent and the right course, and it turns potential opponents into partners in a project the community can accept.
References
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
BUS 454 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
A stakeholder perspective defines Aspen's BUS 454, and drawing a map of who is affected, then deciding who needs attention first, is the method in its plainest form. As your course provides the Module 3 prompt, this example maps one project. Identify stakeholders broadly, including those without contracts. Use a recognized framework to set priorities rather than listing groups equally. Classify each group and explain why. Show how salience can change, since groups gain power over time. Examine the most important claims in depth. Explain why engagement is right as well as useful. Propose specific engagement for each class, and be willing to change the project in response. Include how the company will follow through after approval.
How the BUS 454 Module 3 example is put together
The paper introduces two production lines, 60 jobs, a warehouse, more water and more trucks. Freeman's definition produces a list of nine groups. Mitchell, Agle and Wood's typology is summarized, and an eight-row table rates each group on power, legitimacy and urgency. The neighbors' section shows a petition of 600 signatures turning a dependent group toward a definitive one. The water section examines phosphorus reaching Lake Michigan. Donaldson and Preston's normative argument supports engagement for its own sake. The engagement plan offers a highway entrance costing about $850,000, limits on truck hours and a review of wastewater design. Sections on balancing claims, project changes and quarterly monitoring close it.
BUS 454 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Stakeholder analyses are assessed on completeness, correct use of a prioritizing framework, depth on key claims and a credible engagement plan. This example classifies every group with reasons and shows salience changing, which is the insight the framework offers. The APA sources are Freeman's book on the stakeholder approach, Mitchell, Agle and Wood's article on stakeholder salience and Donaldson and Preston's article on stakeholder theory. Putting a price on the truck entrance, about 3% of the project, lets the reader judge the trade-off. Committing to change the project and report back shows engagement that is more than public relations, and quarterly monitoring keeps the commitments visible. The section on balancing claims shows how to seek outcomes that competing groups can accept, the stated aim of the course.
Common BUS 454 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is a stakeholder list with no analysis. Use a framework to classify and prioritize. Another is ignoring groups without formal power; explain how they can gain it. Examine the claims that matter most in detail. Explain why engagement is right, not only strategic. Offer real options that address concerns, with costs. Be prepared to say what the company would change. Plan for follow-through after approval. Keep the table consistent in how it rates each attribute. If you analyze a real project, use public records such as permit filings and council minutes, and describe opponents' concerns fairly and in their own terms. Remember that salience changes, so your map is a snapshot that the company should revisit as the project moves forward.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More BUS 454 and Business Administration sample papers
- BUS 454 Module 1: Ethics and the Stakeholder View
- BUS 454 Module 2: Ethical Frameworks
- BUS 454 Module 4: Workplace Ethics and Rights
- BUS 454 Module 5: Corporate Social Responsibility
- BUS 454 Module 6: Marketing and Product Ethics
- BUS 454 Module 7: Crisis and Stakeholder Communication
- BUS 454 Module 8: Personal Code of Ethics
- BUS 484 Module 8: Business Plan and Pitch
- BUS 499 Module 1: Topic and Proposal
- BUS 305 Module 2: Routine and Positive Messages
- BUS 495 Module 3: Country Risk Analysis
BUS 454 Module 3 questions, answered
What does BUS 454 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's BUS 454 uses a stakeholder perspective, so a stakeholder map and analysis for a business decision is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What are power, legitimacy and urgency in stakeholder analysis?
The three attributes Mitchell, Agle and Wood proposed for deciding which stakeholders get priority: ability to influence the firm, a legitimate claim and time-sensitive importance.
What is a definitive stakeholder?
A stakeholder with power, legitimacy and urgency, whose claims managers must address promptly.
Where can I find a free BUS 454 Module 3 sample paper?
It is posted above: a plant expansion's stakeholders classified by power, legitimacy and urgency in a table, with an engagement plan that changes the project.
How do you prioritize stakeholders?
One common method rates each group on power, legitimacy and urgency; groups with all three need attention first, and priorities shift as groups gain or lose attributes.