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

Open access


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

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

  • 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_1

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

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

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

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

  • 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. 9-24

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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-H

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

  • 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: 10.1080/0954412998126

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

  • 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/s10551-007-9398-0

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • MOSAIC.(2015). Key Stakeholders. From:

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

  • 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:

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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)90223-1

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

  • 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. 26-36

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

  • ZAIT.A.(2006). Higher Education Marketing: Stakeholders' Perceptions Degree of Trust and Desired Student Abilities - Case of Romania (Preliminary Raw Results). From

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.66

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.21
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.682

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 505 301 5
PDF Downloads 173 103 0