563078

research-article2014
JSIXXX10.1177/1028315314563078Journal of Studies in International EducationCastro et al.

Article
Journal of Studies in International Education
2015, Vol. 19(2) 160181
A Model for Stakeholders 2014 European Association for
International Education
Influence on Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Internationalization: A DOI: 10.1177/1028315314563078
jsi.sagepub.com
Contribution From the
Portuguese, Brazilian, and
Dutch Cases

Rita Castro1, Maria Joo Rosa2, and Carlos Pinho3

Abstract
This article aims to discuss stakeholders influence on higher education
institutions (HEIs) internationalization, through an analysis of the relationships
established between stakeholders importance and the institutions rationales for
internationalization, the strategies developed for internationalization, and the benefits
from internationalization. Data for this study were collected in 80 Portuguese, Dutch,
and Brazilian HEIs, using a questionnaire adapted from the 2nd and 3rd International
Survey of Internationalization of the International Association of Universities. The
results obtained from a descriptivecorrelational treatment of the data allowed
developing and proposing a typology for stakeholders classification and a model for
their influence on internationalization.

Keywords
internationalization, stakeholder theory, rationales for internationalization, strategies
for internationalization, benefits from internationalization

1UniversidadeEstadual de Feira de Santana, Brazil

2CIPES - Center for Research in Higher Education Policies and DEGEI - Department of Economics,
Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Portugal
3DEGEI - Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro,

Portugal

Corresponding Author:
Rita Castro, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Avenida Transnordestina, S/N, Feira de Santana,
44033-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Email: ritasilvacastro@gmail.com

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 161

Introduction
Internationalization has assumed a preponderant role in higher education institutions
(HEIs), especially due to the academic and economic benefits deriving from it.
According to the literature (e.g., Knight, 2004; Van der Wende, 2001), international-
ization activities contribute to the promotion of the diversification of academic pro-
grams, allowing to better prepare students for a globalized world, as well as to increase
institutions revenue in times of crises and decrease available budgets for higher edu-
cation. The internationalization role has been explained through different rationales,
including the academic, cultural, political, and economic ones. Interestingly, all of
them refer to the interests and relevance that different stakeholders put in internation-
alization, highlighting their influence on internationalization development in HEIs
(De Wit, 2002; Knight, 1997, 2004, 2008).
Stakeholders importance and influence on organizations achievements have been
advocated by the stakeholder theory literature (e.g., Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson &
Preston, 1995; Fassin, 2009; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).
Furthermore, the higher education literature has also addressed the role stakeholders
may have in HEIs governance and management systems (Amaral & Magalhes, 2000,
2002; Burrows, 1999; Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, 2008).
Taking into account these considerations, it seems relevant to study stakeholders
role in higher education internationalization, to develop purpose-oriented ways to
manage the institutions relationships with their different stakeholders, aiming at
improving their internationalization level and the benefits derived from it.
Therefore, this article intends to be a contribution for the discussion of stakeholders
influence on higher education internationalization, by presenting the results of a quantita-
tive and comparative analysis of the levels of importance and influence of different stake-
holders on HEIs internationalization development in three different countries, namely,
Portugal, the Netherlands, and Brazil. Furthermore, the article proposes a typology for
stakeholders classification and a stakeholdersinternationalization relationships model.
Practical reasons underlined the choice of the three countries, namely, the fact that the
authors have a direct contact with each one of them. Nevertheless, these are quite different
countries, namely, in terms of their higher education systems dimension, legal frame-
work, and level of development of internationalization activities. Furthermore, the ratio-
nales for internationalization in each one of them present significant differences (see, for
example, Lima & Contel, 2008; Luijten-Lub, 2004; Luijten-Lub, Van der Wende, &
Huisman, 2005; Rosa, Veiga, & Amaral, 2004) that make their analysis rather interesting
and able to provide helpful insights not only for other countries but also for HEIs within
them. Although the countries do not constitute a pattern, working much more as individ-
ual cases in their own, it is believed that their comparative study may indeed add to the
knowledge about stakeholders influence on HEIs internationalization.

Stakeholders, Higher Education, and Internationalization

The stakeholder concept and the theory behind it, usually known as Stakeholder
Theory, have their origins in the field of corporate governance, namely, in the work

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

162 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Government
Local
Community
Suppliers Organizations

Owners
Environmentalists

Firm

Consumer
Special Interest Advocates
Groups

Customers
Employees

Media

Figure 1. Freemans model for stakeholders identification (Freeman, 1984).

developed by Freeman (1984). He established that organizations have stakeholders

and defined them as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organizations objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). He also pro-
posed a stakeholders model (Figure 1) based on the interactions between an organiza-
tion and its different internal and external actors, taking into consideration the
assumptions of the organization theory and corporate strategy literatures.
Freemans model for stakeholders identification emerged as a response to an
increased competitiveness, making use of the concept of strategic management. The
basic idea is that the decision-making processes and the economic value of a firm are
related to the management of the relationships with all its stakeholders. In that sense,
this theory challenges the agency theory assumptions that relate economic perfor-
mance and decision-making processes to the shareholder interests (Sundaram &
Inkpen, 2004).
Although Freemans contribution is a mainstream of the literature on stakeholders
theory, this model is subject to criticism. For instance, this representation places all

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 163

stakeholders within the same level of relationship with the firm, despite the fact that
because they are different, they will probably have different visions and interests in the
organization, leading to different relationships with it.
Departing from the initial work of Freeman, the stakeholders literature has been
developed taking into account the stakeholders identification and conceptualization,
as well as the development of classification typologies and models to provide organi-
zations with systematic ways to recognize and manage the relationships with their
stakeholders (e.g., Carroll, 1996; Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Fassin,
2009; Friedman & Miles, 2002; Goodpaster, 1991; Mitchell et al., 1997; Savage, Nix,
Whitehead, & Blair, 1991). Table 1 summarizes some of the most relevant contribu-
tions of the corporate governance literature to the understanding of stakeholders role
in organizations.
The contributions presented in Table 1, clearly show that the stakeholders theory
development has been based on an analysis of their relationships of importance and
influence toward the organizations. However, so far, none of the studies reported in the
literature has investigated and confirmed the existence of these relationships by resort-
ing to a statistical analysis of empirical data.
The concern with stakeholders role in organizations in general has also found its
way into the higher education governance field. Several works have investigated their
importance and influence in higher education governance, contributing to the develop-
ment of the concept of stakeholder in higher education, as well as to the design of
different typologies for their classification (Table 2; see, for example, the works by
Amaral & Magalhes, 2000, 2002; Baldwin, 2002; Burrows, 1999; Jongbloed et al.,
2008; Mainardes, 2010; Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo, 2010, 2011, 2012; Watson,
2007). For instance, Amaral and Magalhes (2002) defined stakeholders in higher
education as an individual or collective person with a legitimate interest in higher
education that, as such, acquires the right to intervene (p. 2).
Comparing the higher education literature with the corporate governance one, it is
possible to note that although the importance and influence of stakeholders also
emerged in the higher education context, there are different points of view regarding
stakeholders classification. HEIs are organizations that have particular social and eco-
nomic roles in society, and in that sense, the stakeholders relationships are understood
with a different perspective and value. For instance, external stakeholders do not have
the same value as the internal ones. The presence of external stakeholders in HEIs
represents the interests of the outside world in HEIs governance to make the institu-
tions more responsive to environmental needs (Amaral & Magalhes, 2002; Jongbloed
et al., 2008). Interestingly, and according to Amaral and Magalhes (2002), external
stakeholders are assuming a growing prominence relative to the internal ones.
Following the work of Freeman (1984), Mainardes (2010) developed a model to
describe the relationships that can be established between the stakeholders groups
defined according to his typology (Table 2) and the university. The model (Figure 2)
depicts the influence relationships that can be established, using arrows whose direc-
tion and thickness explain, respectively, the relationships orientation and strength.
The literature shows that stakeholders are important and influence HEIs, including
their internationalization. The specialized literature on internationalization (De Wit,

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

164 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Table 1. Some Contributions of the Corporate Governance Literature to Understanding

Stakeholders Role in Organizations.
Strategy for
Author Stakeholders definition Stakeholders typologies management

Savage, Nix, Those who have an interest
Whitehead, and in the actions of an
Blair (1991) organization and the ability
to influence it
Clarkson (1995) Those who have or claim
ownership, rights, or
interest in a corporation
and its activities
Mitchell, Agle, and Those who cover one or
Wood (1997) more of these aspects: (a)
power to influence the
company (b) legitimacy, and
(c) urgency of claim
Supportive stakeholder: High potential Involve
to cooperate and low potential to Defend
threaten Monitor
Non-supportive stakeholder: High Collaborate with
potential to threaten and low potential
to cooperate
Marginal: There are both no potential to
cooperate nor to threaten
Mixed blessing: High potential to
cooperate and high potential to
threaten
Primary stakeholders: Those who
have direct formal, social, political,
or official contractual relationships
with the company (e.g., shareholders
and investors, employees, customers
and suppliers, government) and
therefore also have a high level of
interdependence with the company and
are fundamental to its survival
Secondary stakeholders: Those who
influence and are influenced, affect, and
can be affected by the company but do
not perform operations with it, and as
such are not essential for its survival
Seven types of stakeholders classified
in three larger groups, defined
according to the number of attributes
stakeholders possess:
Latent stakeholders group (one attribute)
Dormant stakeholder: Power
Discretionary stakeholder: Legitimacy
Demanding stakeholder: Urgency
Expectant stakeholder group (two
attributes)
Dominant stakeholder: Power and
legitimacy
Dangerous stakeholder: Power and
urgency
Dependent stakeholder: Urgency and
legitimacy
Definitive stakeholder (three attributes):
power, legitimacy, and urgency

2002; Knight & De Wit, 1995) advocates that the stakeholders and their expectations
determine to a certain extent the economic, cultural, academic, and political rationales
for internationalization at institutional and national level, as well as the different poli-
cies and strategies put forward to promote higher education internationalization. The
literature (Knight, 2004, 2008) also states that whatever the rationale for internation-
alization, benefits for HEIs and systems will arise from it. Knight (1997, 1999)

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 165
Table 2. Some Contributions of the Higher Education Literature to Understanding
Stakeholders Role in HEIs.
Authors
Burrows (1999)
Amaral and
Magalhes (2002);
Jongbloed, Enders,
and Salerno (2008)
Mainardes (2010)
Note. HEI = higher education institution.
Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015
Stakeholders typologies
Governing entities (state and federal government, governing
board, board of trustees, buffer organizations, sponsoring
religious organizations)
Administration (president, senior administrators)
Employees (faculty, administrative staff, support staff)
Clienteles (students, parents/spouses, tuition reimbursement
providers, service partners, employers, field placement sites)
Suppliers (secondary education providers, alumni, other colleges
and universities, food purveyors, insurance companies, utilities,
contracted services)
Competitors (direct: private and public providers of post-
secondary education, potential: distance providers, new
ventures, substitutes: employer-sponsored training programs)
Donors (substitutes: employer-sponsored training programs)
Communities (neighbors, school systems, social services,
chambers of commerce, special interest groups)
Government (Ministry of Education, buffer organizations, state
and federal financial aid agencies, regulators research councils,
federal research support, tax authorities, social security, patent
office)
Non-governmental regulators: Foundations, institutional and
programmatic accrediting bodies, professional associations,
church sponsors
Financial intermediaries: Banks, fund managers, analysts
Joint venture partners: Alliances and consortia, corporate co-
sponsors of research and educational services
Internal stakeholders: All the members of the academic
community who participate in the daily life of the institution,
including the academic and non-academic staff and the students
External stakeholder: Groups or individuals that although not
being members of the academic community, have an interest on
the HEI
Regulator stakeholder: Influences the university but is not
influenced by it
Controller stakeholder: Has more influence on the university than
is influenced by it
Partner stakeholder: Influences the university and is influenced by
it in the same degree
Passive stakeholder: Is more influenced by the university than
influences it
Dependent stakeholder: Is influenced by the university but does
not influence it
Not stakeholder: Does not influence the university nor is
influenced by it
166 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Figure 2. Influence relationships established between stakeholders and public universities in

the Portuguese context (Mainardes, 2010).

classified in three different groups the stakeholders with a relevant role in higher edu-
cation internationalization:

Government sector: different levels of government (supra-national, national,

regional, and local)
Education sector: different types of HEIs (colleges, institutes, polytechnics, and
universities), research groups, professional and membership associations, stu-
dents, teachers, researchers, and administrators
Private sector: manufacturing, service, or trade companies

Despite its acknowledged importance in higher education, namely, regarding its

internationalization, there are few studies that analyze stakeholders role either in par-
ticular or global contexts. One example of such studies is the 3rd Global Survey of
Internationalization of the International Association of Universities (Egron-Polak,
Hudson, & Gacel-Avila, 2010) that provides a global ranking (by aggregating results
for all regions of the world) of the importance of internal and external key drivers to
internationalization (Table 3). Although this survey does not exactly refer to the key
drivers as stakeholders, they can be considered as such.
Considering the IAU survey results, and the literature on this field, it is possible to
conclude that stakeholders have an important role in HEIs internationalization.
However, there is a lack of studies on the subject, and the ones that exist present some
shortcomings. For example, no studies have explored so far the importance and influ-
ence of internal and external stakeholders on the rationales for internationalization, as

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 167

Table 3. Global Ranking of Importance of Internal and External Key Drivers for
Internationalization.

Ranking Internal key drivers External key drivers

1 Rector/director Government national-regional-state-
province
2 International Relations Office and/ Business and industry demands
or individuals responsible for
internationalization
3 Faculty members Demands from foreign HEIs
4 Students Lack of public/private fundings for
HEIs
5 Governing board members Demographic trends
6 Other administrative staff

Source. Adapted from International Association of Universities (2010).

Note. HEI = higher education institution.

well as on the development of strategies to promote it or on the benefits international-

ization can bring to institutions. In addition, the classification of Knight (1999) into
educational, government, and private sectors considers who and where the stakehold-
ers are, but does not provide any account on the relationships of influence that can be
established between different groups of stakeholders and internationalization, as
stressed by the stakeholders literature. Moreover, although empirical testing of a
model is important to establish the validity of a theory, none of the models developed
so far were empirically validated using quantitative methods. Therefore, in our view,
empirical based research on the relationships that can be established between different
stakeholders and an HEI internationalization process is still missing. Namely, it seems
worthwhile to explore and analyze quantitatively the importance of stakeholders to
internationalization, as well as their influence on the rationales for internationaliza-
tion, the strategies developed for, and the benefits obtained from internationalization.
Our analysis tries to do it, as we will show in this articles next sections.

Stakeholders Involvement in Portuguese, Brazilian, and

Dutch HEIs
The higher education systems in Portugal, the Netherlands, and Brazil are quite differ-
ent, and consequently, the importance and the level of involvement of stakeholders on
higher education also tend to be different and linked to the legal rules established in
each country for its own higher education context. For instance, in the Portuguese and
Dutch contexts, there are specific rules regarding the involvement of stakeholders in
the higher education governance. However, there are not such specific rules in the
Brazilian legal frameworks. Table 4 presents a comparison of stakeholders involve-
ment on higher education governance for the three countries under analysis.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

168 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Table 4. Stakeholders Involvement in Portuguese, Brazilian, and Dutch HEIs.

Portugal The Netherlands Brazil

Higher education Binary system: Universities and Binary system: Research
system polytechnic institutes, both
public and private
Higher education Act on higher education 62/2007. The 1997 act to modernize
legal framework
Participation Representatives of academic
and level of staff, researchers, students,
representativeness and external members with
of stakeholders recognized merit, knowledge,
and relevant experience to
the institution have mandatory External stakeholders: A
participation in the General
Council (the most important
body in terms of the
institutions governance and
management).
Internal stakeholders:
Representatives are elected
by their peers, according
to a system of proportional
representation, established in
each institutions statutes.
External stakeholders:
Representatives of this group
should be at least 30% of all
the members of the general
council.
Public and private
universities and universities universities, university
of applied sciences centers, schools,
institutes, both public and higher education, and
private technological institutes
Law 9394/1996 (law on the
the structure of university guidelines and bases for
governance education).
Internal stakeholders: 50% of HEIs have to obey
staff members (academics democratic management
and non-academics) and principles, ensuring the
50% of students in advisory existence of deliberative
body. collegiate bodies with the
participation of elements
maximum of 5 members in from the institutional,
the supervisory board. local, and regional
communities.
This participation is
established in HEIs legal
statutes taking into
account their structure
and particularities.

Note. HEI = higher education institution.

From Table 4, one can see that both internal and external stakeholders involvement
in HEIs is foreseen in the law in the three countries. However, it is possible to note that
this involvement is more legally defined in the Portuguese and Dutch contexts than in
the Brazilian one. Maybe this is due to the fact that the Brazilian higher education
system is rather young, especially when compared with the Portuguese or the Dutch
ones.
So far, few studies have analyzed stakeholders involvement in the Portuguese,
Dutch, and Brazilian higher education contexts. Examples reported in the literature
approach this theme using two different perspectives. In the case of Portugal (e.g.,
Amaral & Magalhes, 2000, 2002; Mainardes, 2010) and the Netherlands (Boer,
Maassen, & Weert, 1999; Maassen, 2000, 2002), the studies are related to higher edu-
cation governance. However, in the Brazilian case, the studies are linked to institu-
tions social responsibility (e.g., Ashley, do Nascimento Ferreira, & Reis, 2007; Bolan
& da Motta, 2007) because this countrys higher education system has a particular
social and economic approach, and the importance of stakeholders assumes a social
approach coherent with the following functions and objectives: to support the

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 169

countrys economic and social development. In fact, the interest in stakeholders roles
in Brazilian higher education became important after the advent of the evaluation of
its higher education system by the National System of Higher Education Evaluation
(SINAES; see, for example, Bolan & da Motta, 2007; Mainardes, Deschamps, &
Tontini, 2009; Mainardes & Domingues, 2010) that is based on social responsibility
and higher education quality.
Concerning the higher education governance field in Portugal, it seems that the
level of involvement of external stakeholders is becoming more significant. For
instance, Mainardes (2010) investigated the importance and influence of stakeholders
on the management of public universities and developed rankings of stakeholders
importance and influence where some external stakeholders (mainly, partner compa-
nies and professional associations) appear in top positions. More recently, Rosa and
Teixeira (2014) analyzed the introduction of external stakeholders in governance and
quality assessment processes in HEIs. They came to the conclusion that their presence
had become more visible, but not yet fully reflected in the way institutions were gov-
erned or in the way in which they managed their internal quality assurance processes
and mechanisms.
In the Dutch context, it seems that the involvement of external stakeholders is not
as preponderant as in the Portuguese context. Gornitzka and Maassen (2000) analyzed
the responses of two HEIs to external pressures and concluded that these institutions
were not able or willing to adapt their governance structure to favor external stake-
holders level of involvement.
There are few studies that focus specifically on the role of stakeholders in interna-
tionalization. And, as far as we could determine, those that did only covered the
Portuguese and Brazilian contexts. Catroga (2010) investigated the involvement of
internal stakeholders in Portuguese polytechnics and highlighted that the International
Relations Office, followed by students, governing boards, and teaching staff, has the
more important role in internationalizations development. However, the analysis has
not included external stakeholders and also did not comprise the Portuguese universi-
ties. In the Brazilian context, Miura (2006) and Lima & Contel (2008) highlighted the
role of teaching staff, students, governing boards, and rectors as the most important
key drivers for internationalization.
Considering the legal frameworks and the studies reported in the literature, it seems
that both internal and external stakeholders are starting to have an important role on
HEIs governance and, consequently, on their internationalization. However, it seems
that not much investigation has been conducted so far in these three countries.

Data and Method

Based on the ideas derived from the literature review, this article aims to analyze the
level of importance and influence of different stakeholders on the rationales for inter-
nationalization, the strategies developed for internationatization, and the benefits
obtained from internationalization in Portugal, Brazil, and the Netherlands.
The study undertaken may be defined as descriptivecorrelational because the data
are analyzed through a combination of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

170 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Descriptive statistics is used to verify the level of importance of different stakeholders

for internationalization, as well as to analyze how the HEIs in these countries position
themselves in relation to other aspects, such as their most relevant internationalization
financing sources and internationalization policies. Correlation analysis intends to
explore the existent relationships between stakeholders importance and the rationales
for internationalization, strategies developed for internationalization, and benefits
from internationalization.
The following hypothesis was then established, based on the idea developed in the
literature (De Wit, 2002; Knight, 1999; Knight & De Wit, 1995) that stakeholders
determine the whys (rationales) and the ways (strategies) for internationalization:

Hypothesis: Relationships of influence exist among the degree of importance of

stakeholders (internal and external) for internationalization and the main rationales
for internationalization, strategies developed for internationalization, and benefits
from internationalization in Portuguese, Dutch, and Brazilian HEIs.

The survey method was used and data were collected through questionnaires
adapted from the 2nd and 3rd International Survey Questionnaire on internationaliza-
tion of the IAU, published in 2005 and 2010, respectively. The adaptation considered
the particularities of the higher education systems under analysis and their environ-
ments, as well as the hypothesis to be tested. Different questions (variables) were
devised as rationales for internationalization, strategies to develop internationaliza-
tion, and benefits from internationalization. Also, different stakeholders have been
considered. Respondents (HEIs) were asked to rate stakeholders importance to inter-
nationalization, as well as their agreement level toward the proposed rationales, strate-
gies, and benefits considering their own contexts. Table 5 lists the variables considered
in the correlation analysis.
The sample comprised 80 HEIs: 22 from Portugal, 23 from the Netherlands, and 35
from Brazil. The questionnaire was sent to those responsible for internationalization in
these HEIs.

Study Results
To analyze the importance of stakeholders to internationalization, a ranking was devel-
oped based on the means of the answers, given by the HEIs of each country, to the
question on the importance of different stakeholders for their internationalization
(Table 6).
First, it is relevant to stress that all stakeholders (internal and external) included in
this study were, to a certain extent, considered to be important for HEIs. Second, it is
important to explain the differences and similarities regarding the levels of importance
and the reasons for them.
Concerning the similarities, although the higher education systems are different,
and with the exception of the European Unions (EU) high importance in the case of
Portugal, the internal stakeholders are ranked as the most important in these three

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

 Table 5. Variables Included in the Study.
Stakeholders Rationales
Internal stakeholders International profile and
Rector/president reputation
Deans Student readiness for a
Teaching staff globalized world
Researchers Knowledge and research
Students innovation
International office and/or Curriculum innovation/
individuals responsible for internationalization of the
internationalization curriculum
Other administrative staff Better capacity to attract
Government students
External stakeholders Improve academic quality
Professional associations Promote intercultural
Local community understanding
Companies Diversification of academic
Government programs
European Union Better capacity to attract
teaching staff
Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015
Improve institutional
management
Respond to public policies
Increased revenue
171
Strategies
Student mobility
Agreements/international
network
Foreign language teaching as
part of the curriculum
Faculty teacher mobility
Research internationalization
Recruitment of foreign
students
Research mobility
Foreign language courses
Visits by international
scholars
Courses exclusively aimed at
the international context
Developing dual degree
programs with foreign
institutions
Staff mobility
Curriculum
internationalization
Extra-curricular activities
Recruitment of foreign
teachers/researchers
Benefits
Student readiness for a
globalized/internationalized
world
Intercultural understanding
International profile and
reputation
Academic quality
Knowledge and research
innovation
Curriculum innovation/
internationalization of the
curriculum
Diversification of educational
programs
Better capacity to attract
students
Better capacity to attract
faculty teachers
Improve institutional
management
Diversification of income
172 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Table 6. Degree of Importance in Internationalization of Different Stakeholders in Portugal,

the Netherlands, and Brazil.

Portugal The Netherlands Brazil

High European Union Rector/director International Relations
Office
Rector/director Other administrative staff Rector/Director
International Relations Governing board Teaching staff
Office members
Governing board Students Researchers
members
Teaching staff Teaching staff Students
Medium Students Researchers Governing board members
Researchers Government Government
Government European Union Other administrative staff
Other administrative Companies Companies
staff
Low Professional associations International Relations
Office
Companies Professional associations Professional associations
Local community Local community Local community

contexts. It seems that despite the increased participation of external stakeholders on

HEIs governance bodies in these countries, they still tend to have a lower degree of
importance to internationalization than the internal ones. Furthermore, it is important
to note that the government had a medium importance in the three countries. Moreover,
it is important to stress the high importance of the International Relations Office for
Portuguese and Brazilian internationalization development.
Regarding the differences, it is important to highlight that these countries have dif-
ferent social and economic contexts and, as mentioned before, have different higher
education systems and, consequently, different organizational cultures. In that sense,
some aspects are certainly related to each countrys specific characteristics.
In the Portuguese case, the main reasons for the importance of stakeholders are, in
decreasing order, political, economic, institutional, and academic. It is important to
stress that the EUs high importance for internationalization is most probably justified
by political and economic reasons. The results of the descriptive analysis highlighted
that the EU funds are the major financial source for the financing of internationaliza-
tion (in 82% of Portuguese HEIs, these funds are considered to be more important than
governmental funds, whereas for 18% of the institutions, the importance of both
sources of financing is the same). This attribution of importance can probably be
linked to the effects of the Portuguese economic crises on higher education.
Furthermore, the EUs high degree of importance also finds an explanation in the
responses for the regions and countries seen as priorities in the institutions policies for
internationalization, which are basically in the European Continent. In this view, the

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 173

results demonstrate the preponderance that the European internationalization has in

this particular national context and confirms previous analysis reported in the litera-
ture (Rosa et al., 2004; Veiga, Rosa, & Amaral, 2006). Furthermore, it should be noted
that the high importance of the International Relations Office has also been high-
lighted by Catroga (2010).
In the Dutch context, the main reasons for stakeholders importance are, in decreas-
ing order, institutional, academic, political, and economic. It is important to note that,
in contrast to the Portuguese context, the EU has medium political and economic
importance to Dutch internationalization. In fact, the results of the descriptive analysis
stressed that the institutional budget and government funds are, respectively, more
important than EU financial sources in Dutch HEIs. Furthermore, in this case, the
emphasis put on the European continent as a priority for the HEIs policies on interna-
tionalization is not as strong as in the Portuguese case. In addition, and in contrast with
the Portuguese and Brazilian cases, the International Relations Office is considered to
have low importance to internationalization, probably because it is seen as just having
an operational support role. Interestingly though, the Other Administrative Staff is
considered to have high importance. It seems then that, at institutional level, the Dutch
internationalization is a holistic aspect that involves all the institutions actors and is
deeply embedded in the institutions life. Moreover, it is important to note the low
importance given to the local community and the professional associations, which
confirms previous results by Maassen (2002).
Regarding the Brazilian case, although the main reasons for stakeholders impor-
tance are, in decreasing order, institutional, academic, political, and economic, as it
happens in the Dutch case, the institutional factor seems to be essentially related to the
operational support role of the International Relations Office. In fact, the International
Relations Office has more importance than the stakeholders with an academic role (the
rector and teaching staff). It is important to note that 70% of the collegiate bodies
members are teaching staff. In that sense, these results are different from those
described by Miura (2006) and Lima and Contel (2008). In the case of Brazil, it is also
important to highlight that despite the important political and economic role given by
HEIs to the government in relation to internationalization financing sources and inter-
nationalization policies, this stakeholder emerges as having a medium importance for
internationalization.
To analyze the stakeholders influence on internationalization, a Spearman correla-
tion analysis was conducted to identify possible significant correlations between the
different stakeholders degree of importance to internationalization and the variables
translating the rationales for internationalization, strategies developed for internation-
alization, and benefits from internationalization. This analysis was done by country
and included all the 49 variables listed in Table 5. The results allowed identifying 191
significant correlations. Table A1 in the appendix presents these results, by establish-
ing a ranking of the most influent stakeholders for each one of the variables considered
under the rationales, strategies, and benefits groups (based on the number of statisti-
cally significant correlations emerging from the correlation analysis).
Some considerations can be made from the analysis of results presented in Table
A1. First, Portugal and Brazil are, in this order, the countries where more significant

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

174 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

correlations could be identified, revealing that apparently these influence relationships

are more evident in these countries. Second, Brazil has the largest number of stake-
holders that are correlated with rationales, strategies, and benefits. Other interesting
result has to do with the kind of influence one can envisage in stakeholders regarding
internationalization rationales, strategies, and benefits. The results presented in Table
A1 show that in the case of Portugal, it seems that stakeholders importance tends to
have more influence in the strategies developed to promote internationalization (most
correlations exist between stakeholders importance and the strategies variables),
whereas in the Brazilian and Dutch contexts, stakeholders influence is more apparent
regarding the rationales for internationalization (the majority of correlations is found
between stakeholders importance and the variables related to the rationales).
Taking into account these considerations, one can confirm the hypothesis previ-
ously established for all the three countries under analysis: There are indeed relation-
ships of influence among the degree of importance of some stakeholders (internal and
external) for internationalization and the main rationales for internationalization,
strategies developed for internationalization, and benefits from internationalization in
Portuguese, Brazilian, and Dutch HEIs.
Comparing the results presented in Table A1 with the stakeholders ranking of
importance (Table 6), it is important to note that external stakeholders role in influ-
encing internationalization rationales, strategies, and benefits is more prominent than
their perceived importance to internationalization, especially in the Portuguese but
also in the Brazilian context. In the Portuguese case, the external stakeholders have
60% of the significant correlations identified and, consequently, are more influent than
the internal ones. In the Brazilian context, the external stakeholders influence is not
that high but still they are responsible for 35% of the significant correlations identi-
fied. At this respect, it is important to stress that these results are found in a country -
Brazil - where external stakeholders involvement in HEIs governance is not clearly
established in the law. The local community, professional associations, and companies
emerge as the stakeholders with a higher number of statistically significant correla-
tions with the internationalization variables under analysis. This result goes in line
with the assumption established by Amaral and Magalhes (2002) regarding the
increasing importance of the external stakeholders role in higher education.
Interestingly though, in the Dutch case, the ranking of influence is almost similar to
the ranking of importance, confirming the preponderance of the influence of internal
stakeholders.
To further develop the analysis of stakeholders importance and influence on inter-
nationalization processes within HEIs, a cluster analysis was made with the variables
of the stakeholders group for each one of the three countries. The goal behind this
analysis was to identify groups of stakeholders with homogeneous characteristics
based on their degree of importance for HEIs internationalization processes. The
identified clusters were then tentatively classified based on an adaptation of the
Mainardes (2010) typology of classification of stakeholders influence and taking into
account the results of the descriptive (stakeholders importance ranking) and correla-
tional analysis (stakeholders influence ranking) for each national context. This

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 175

classification also includes an institutional strategy to manage these stakeholders

based on the strategies proposed by Savage et al. (1991) and taking into account the
level of importance and influence of the type of stakeholder (Table 7).
Based on the proposed stakeholders classification, a stakeholdersinternational-
ization relationships model was then developed, based on the Mainardes (2010) model
(Figure 3). This model intends to illustrate the relationships that can be established
between different stakeholders and internationalization processes within HEIs. The
type of relationship established between each stakeholder and internationalization is
depicted by an arrow, its direction and thickness representing, respectively, the direc-
tion of the influence relationship and the power of it. It is important to stress that this
model was developed taking into account the specificities of the three countries under
analysis in this article, so it cannot be assumed as a generic model of stakeholders
influence on internationalization processes. More research has to be conducted,
namely, by including other countries, before we can assume this as a generic stake-
holdersinternationalization relationships model. The model can nevertheless be seen
as a first step in this direction.

Conclusion
The main objective of this article was to analyze the importance and influence of
stakeholders on the rationales for internationalization, strategies developed for inter-
nationalization, and benefits obtained from internationalization in HEIs in Portugal,
Brazil, and the Netherlands. Although the literature refers that stakeholders role is
indeed relevant to the internationalization process occurring in HEIs, there was no
quantitative evidence until now that these relationships of influence do effectively
exist, being possible to measure them. Furthermore, this is the first study, at least to
our knowledge, where the importance and the influence of different stakeholders for
internationalization are measured. So, we do believe our results are indeed a contribu-
tion to the research in this field.
The descriptive analysis confirmed that, in general, and with exception of the high
economic and political importance of EU for the Portuguese HEIs, internal stakehold-
ers are considered more important than external ones for internationalization processes
in HEIs. However, the results of the correlation analysis for Brazil and Portugal indi-
cated that external stakeholders are more influential regarding internationalization
rationales, strategies, and benefits than the internal ones. It seems then that, at least in
these two countries, the higher the importance given to external stakeholders, the
higher is the institutions concern with the rationales for internationalization, the more
developed are internationalization strategies, and the more relevant are the benefits
from internationalization for the institutions.
This article aimed at contributing toward the discussion about stakeholders impor-
tance and influence on internationalization in HEIs. The stakeholdersinternational-
ization relationships model, developed according to the results obtained through the
analysis of the HEIs answers, is indeed a contribution to better understand how differ-
ent stakeholders influence internationalization processes in HEIs.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

 176
Table 7. Classification of Stakeholders According to Their Importance and Influence on HEIs Internationalization Processes.
Degree of
Type of importance for Reasons of Relationship with Institutional
stakeholder internationalization importance internationalization management strategy Portugal Brazil The Netherlands

Regulator High/average Economic/ Influences, but is not Collaborates with Government Government Government
politic influenced. European Union European Union
Partner Average/low Social Mutual influence, but Considers their Administrative staff Companies Companies
influences more than is expectations Local community Professional associations
influenced. Companies Local community
Professional associations
Directional High/average Academic/ Equal relation of influence Defends their interests Rector/director Rector/director Rector/director
institutional Governing Board Teaching staff Governing Board members
members Researchers Students
Students Students Teaching staff
Teaching staff International office and/or Researchers
Researchers individuals responsible for
internationalization
Dependent Low Institutional Is influenced and not Involved in the process Local community
or social or influences Professional associations
academic International office and/or
individuals responsible for
internationalization
Operational High/average Institutional Mutual relation of Incentives International office Governing board members
influence, but is and/or individuals Administrative staff

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

more influenced than responsible for
influences. internationalization

Note. HEI = higher education institution.

Castro et al. 177

Regulator Stakeholder Dependent Stakeholder

Partner Stakeholder Internaonalizaon process Operaonal Stakeholder

Not Stakeholder Direconal Stakeholder

Figure 3. Stakeholdersinternationalization relationships model.

Regarding the contributions to the development of the stakeholders theory, it is pos-

sible to state, based on these results, that the importance and influence of stakeholders
on higher education activities, namely, on their internationalization processes, depend
on the particularities of the higher education systems and institutions contexts, and
more specifically on the social, political, and economic perspectives that underlie
them.
It is important to emphasize that this article does not end the discussion on stake-
holders relevance for internationalization. Indeed, the study has some limitations that
must be acknowledged, namely, the fact that we were not able to find justifications for
some of our results, especially because this is a new study in this area and as such there
are not many other studies we can use for comparison. As such, this research is
expected to be expanded and the questionnaire used eventually applied in other
country(ies) to develop a comparative study and to test the proposed model in other
contexts.

Appendix
Table A1. Ranking of Influence of Stakeholders on Rationales, Strategies, and Benefits.
Total Number of Number of Number of
number of significant significant significant
significant correlations with correlations correlations with
Ranking of internal and external stakeholders correlations rationales with strategies benefits

Portugal
Local community 21 3 14 4
Students 18 6 6 6
Professional associations 16 3 10 3
Companies 13 6 6 1
Other administrative staff 5 1 4
Government 5 2 1 2
Governing board members 3 1 2
Rector/director 1 1

(continued)

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

178 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Table A1. (continued)

Total Number of Number of Number of

number of significant significant significant
significant correlations with correlations correlations with
Ranking of internal and external stakeholders correlations rationales with strategies benefits

Researchers 1 1
Total 83 22 42 19
Total of correlations of the internal 28 8 11 11
stakeholders
Total of correlations of the external 50 12 30 8
stakeholders
Brazil
Teaching staff 11 7 4
Other administrative staff 10 3 2 5
Professional associations 9 4 3 2
Local community 8 2 2 4
Companies 7 3 4
Researchers 7 5 2
Governing board members 5 1 1 3
Students 5 3 2
International Relations Office 4 4 1
Rector/director 2 1
Government 1 1
Total 69 34 9 26
Total of correlations of the internal 44 24 4 16
stakeholders
Total of correlations of the external 24 9 5 10
stakeholders
The Netherlands
Rector/director 9 6 1 2
Researchers 8 6 2 1
Governing board members 7 4 2 1
Students 6 3 3
Teaching staff 3 1 2
Other administrative staff 2 1 1
Local community 2 2
Professional associations 1 1
Companies 1 1
Total 39 25 5 10
Total of correlations of the internal 35 21 5 10
stakeholders
Total of correlations of the external 4 4
stakeholders
Total 191 81 56 55

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 179

References
Amaral, A., & Magalhes, A. (2000). O conceito de stakeholder e o novo paradigma do ensino
superior [The concept of stakeholder and the new paradigm of higher education]. Revista
portuguesa de educao, 13(2), 7-28.
Amaral, A., & Magalhes, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European
higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing
Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. 1-21). The
Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Ashley, P. A., do Nascimento Ferreira, R., & Reis, H. L. (2007). Sistema Nacional de Avaliao
da Educao Superior: oportunidades para a responsabilidade social na gesto estratgica
de instituies de ensino superior [Higher Education National Evaluation System: oppor-
tunities for social responsibility in higher education institutions strategic management].
Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratgia, 5(1), 23-35.
Baldwin, L. M. (2002). Total quality management in higher education: The implications of
internal and external stakeholder perceptions (Doctoral Dissertation). Graduate School in
Business Administration, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA.
Boer, H., Maassen, P., & Weert, E. (1999). The troublesome Dutch university and its Route 66
towards a new governance structure. Higher Education Policy, 12, 329-342.
Bolan, V., & da Motta, M. V. (2007). Responsabilidade social no ensino superior. Revista de
Educao [Social responsibility in Higher Education], 10(10), 204-210.
Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders.
Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5-10.
Carroll, A. B. (1996). Bus & society: Ethics & stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South-
Western College Publishing.
Catroga, M. da C. R. (2010). A internacionalizao no Ensino Superior Politcnico Portugus
[The internationalization of the Portuguese polytechnic higher education] (Doctoral thesis).
UniversidadeTcnica de Lisboa, Portugal.
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States and Europe.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113-135.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholders approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management
Studies, 39, 1-21.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly,
1, 53-73.
Gornitzka, ., & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European
higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13, 267-285.
Egron-Polak, E., Hudson, R., & Gacel-Avila, J. (2010). Internationalization of Higher
Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives: IAU 3rd Global Survey Report:
International Association of Universities, Paris.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303-324.
Knight, J. (1997). A shared vision? Stakeholders perspectives on the internationalization of
higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(1), 27-44.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

180 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(2)

Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of higher education. In Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Eds.), Quality and Internationalization in Higher
Education (pp. 13-28). Paris: IMHE Publication.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education:
Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for international-
ization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the
United States of America (pp. 5-32). Amesterdam: European Association of International
Education.
Lima, M. C., & Contel, F. B. (2008). Caractersticas Atuais das Polticas De Internacionalizao
Das Instituies De Educao Superior No Brasil [Current Features of the Internationalization
Policies of Brazilian Higher Education Institutions]. Revista Cientfica e-curriculum, 3(2).
Luijten-Lub, A. (2004). The Netherlands. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), On coop-
eration and competition: National and European policies for the internationalization of
higher education (pp. 165-192). Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.
Luijten-Lub, A., Van der Wende, M., & Huisman, J. (2005). On cooperation and competition:
A comparative analysis of national policies for internationalization of higher education in
seven Western European countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 147-
163.
Maassen, P. (2000). The changing roles of stakeholders in Dutch university governance.
European Journal of Education, 35, 449-464.
Maassen, P. (2002). Organisational strategies and governance structures in Dutch universities.
In A. Amaral, G. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National per-
spectives on institutional governance (pp. 23-41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
Mainardes, E. W. (2010). Gesto de Universidades Baseada no Relacionamento com os seus
Stakeholders [Universities Management Based on the Relationship with their Stakeholders]
(Doctoral thesis). University of Beira Interior, Covilh, Portugal.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). An exploratory research on the stakeholders
of a university. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1), 76-88.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve.
Management Decision, 49, 226-252.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and
stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50, 1861-1879.
Mainardes, E. W., Deschamps, M., & Tontini, G. (2009). Percepes dos Stakeholders sobre
a Qualidade de uma Instituio de Ensino Superior [Stakeholders Perceptions on the
Quality of an Higher Education Institution]. RECADM (Revista Eletrnica da Cincia
Administrativa), 8(1), 90-105.
Mainardes, E. W., & Domingues, M. J. (2010). A qualidade da administrao das instituies
de ensino superior: um estudo multicaso em instituies privadas que oferecem cursos de
graduao em Administrao em Joinville [The quality of the management of the higher
education institutions: multicase study in private institutions that offer degree courses in
administration in Joiville, SC]. Revista Economia & Gesto, 10(22), 9-30.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identi-
fication and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22, 853-886.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015

Castro et al. 181

Miura, I. K. (2006). O processo de internacionalizao da Universidade de So Paulo: um

estudo de trs reas de conhecimento [Internationalization process of University of S.
Paulo: three knowledge areas study] (Habilitation Thesis). Universty of So Paulo, Brazil.
Rosa, M. J., & Teixeira, P. (2014). Policy reforms, Trojan horses, and imaginary friends: The
role of external stakeholders in Internal Quality Assurance Systems. Higher Education
Policy, 27, 219-237.
Rosa, M. J., Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2004). Portugal. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende
(Eds.), On cooperation and competition: National and European policies for the interna-
tionalization of higher education (pp. 139-163). Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and
managing organizational stakeholders. The Executive, 5(2), 61-75.
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization
Science, 15, 350-363.
Van der Wende, M. C. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting
paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14, 249-259.
Veiga, A., Rosa, M. J & Amaral, A., (2006). The internationalisation of Portuguese Higher
Education: How are Higher Education Instituitions facing this new challenge? Higher edu-
cation Management and Policy, 18(1), 113-128.
Watson, D. (2007). The university and its communities. Higher Education Management &
Policy, 19(2), 21-29.

Author Biographies
Rita Castro is a PhD student in Accounting at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, and works as
a manager at the International Relations Office of the University of Feira de Santana in Brazil.
Her main fields of research are stakeholders, internationalisation of higher education and
accounting education. (ritasilvacastro@gmail.com)
Maria Joo Rosa holds a PhD in Industrial Management and is assistant professor at the
Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering at the University of Aveiro,
Portugal, and a researcher at CIPES, the Center for Research in Higher Education Policies. Her
main research topics are quality management and quality assessment in higher education institu-
tions. She is member of CHER and of the Executive Committee of EAIR. (m.joao@ua.pt)
Carlos Pinho is associate professor of economics and finance at the Department of Economics,
Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Portugal. His main research
areas of interests are in the field of Real Options and Financial Markets Monetary and Derivatives
Markets. (cpinho@ua.pt)

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL FEIRA DE SANTANA on April 9, 2015