In most of the collective actions, the stakeholders are concerned with the benefits to the group they belong to. How much more time stakeholders need to spend in rhetoric’s of so called ‘win-win’ situations and bluff the society, whereas in reality stakeholders spend most of their time on just ‘win’?
How do stakeholders define the “WE’? Are the stakeholders are sensitized enough to think about the world as a whole and work for ‘real’ win-win solutions? I think the problem of global warming will force the stakeholders to find the real ‘win-win’ situations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Everything has pros and cons, if you can site examples of "Win' rhetoric, then there are examples of successful "Win-Win" situations."AMUL" co-operative is one of the best examples. The inspiration of win-win also lies in the hands of leader who first mobilized the members.He is the one who works to build the institute which will introduce norms.This will reduce free-riding and increase contribution through fair and equitable rules.
both win and win win situations exists however in case of global warming there lies only one possibility and that of win win otherwise their will be no concensus, this will be due to the fact that the relevance of this issue is so important that no one will give away and take a lose position and all will like to win, hence the only possible solution is win win, which till now has not been generated and looking at the current scenario nothing of such kind is in sight
It is also argued in order to sustain a collective action over a long time it is essential that those who are rich and believe in win situation should head these actions. To what extent it is correct is debatable.
Post a Comment