INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of the 20th century, models were classified to a marginal class, because this profession was considered as an inappropriate for “decent” women. However, nowadays not only the standards of behavior have changed, but also the market of the fashion industry itself. With the trend for fast fashion, when brands renew collections several times a season, the demand for the models for advertisement is increasing. Therefore, today model industry develops rapidly and becomes more attractive for working for a great number of young girls and boys. According to analysts, in 2019 the revenue of the industry will be nearly 1047.2 million dollars, when in 2005 it was only 814.8 million dollars (Solodkiy, 2016).

Currently, on account of this active growth not only of the industry as a whole, but also the number of participants of the market, the system of work and relationship between its' main participants - models and agencies (mother and host) is becoming increasingly difficult. The mother agency is responsible for agreements with host agencies and promotion of models on the market. For the work mother agency receives a certain percentage of models' income. Though, due to growth of digitalization (media and entertainment industries lead with 62%) (Bughin, 2017) another way of models' promotion appears: as a freelancer. Opinions about this approach are differ. Some believe that to get a job through a mother agency is more secure and reliable, while other models begin to gradually promote themselves though social media without paying commission to a third party.

The primary aim of this research is to identify the role of mother agency in model's career. And to be consistent we represent our research as an exploratory study. Drawing on the stakeholder theory, we explore various types of roles of mother agency in the model's career by considering mother agencies, Asian agencies and models' point of views. Further, we connect the role with specificity of the markets to offer a unique solution for each market.

Following research questions appear from the stated aim: “What is the role of mother agency in model's career? Who plays the key role in decision making?”, “What are the features of work (as a model) in Asian countries?” and “Is it possible to replace mother agency's duties with an online platform? Why?”.

Thus, to reach the aim of the research, the list of objectives was compiled:

1. to observe the situation on the Russian and Asian (Japan, China, South Korea) markets;

2. to examine the model-agency relationship in case of the stakeholder theory;

3. to study the cultural dimensions between Russia and Asian countries and to explore expatriate's situation in Asian countries in more detail;

4. to develop the methodology of the research;

5. to analyze received data;

6. to draw up recommendations for mother agencies, bookers and models themselves.

The relevance of this thesis is determined by absence of any similar researches concerning modeling sphere, particularly relationship between models and their mother agencies. The results of this work will be valuable for owners of model agencies, bookers and directly the models themselves as it will assess the current situation in the market of model agencies and will provide some solutions to improve the work of agencies. Moreover, this research dispels doubts of model about independent work and promotion in the Asian market.

The thesis has been organized in the following way. The first section is devoted to cultural differences of Russia and Asia and countries' specifics. The following section is concerning stakeholder theory: its' definition and approaches of stakeholders' analysis. Mitchell's and Freeman's methods are discussed in more detail. The third section is methodological, where described data collection through the interview and data processing. The last section contains the results of the study and conclusions following with suggestions about the role of mother agency and possible ways of model's promotion.

To start with, it is necessary to highlight the basics of the modeling sphere. The Figure 1 shows the chain of the main participants of the model market, which consists of 5 units:

- Scout - a person, who discovers and recruit aspiring, potential models. This element is not always in the chain due to the following reason: sometimes the future model decides to do modeling before any scout found her and she/he is looking mother agency by her/him-self. Therefore, this element has a gray arrow.

- Model - a person, who promotes, display or advertise commercial products.

- Mother agency - an agency, which responsible for agreements with international agencies and model's promotion.

- International agency - an agency, which is located in another country and responsible for castings provision and jobs for a model, when she/he is in town.

- Client - brand/company, which receives services from international agency.

Figure 1. The chain of the main participants of the model market

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Nowadays, fast fashion retailing increases its prevalence on the market worldwide. This is manifested in two factors: the short production time of goods and fashionable product design. This type of retailing makes companies to hire a large number of designers, use expensive labor and expedited shipping methods when necessary. Despite the seeming disadvantage in terms of costs, many companies manage to get additional benefits (Cachon, 2011). Online fashion shopping also goes up as the market as a whole. There are 6 categories of online buyer: price shoppers, fashionistas, emotional buyers, discovery buyers, shopping fans, and strategic buyers. So, retailers have to adapt in different ways to each of these categories (Ladhari, 2019).

Fashion appears in many parts of the world, as evidenced by the large number of fashion weeks that are held now not only in Paris and New York, but also, for example, in Hong Kong and Beijing. The transfer of production to Asia actually changed not only the geography of fashion, but also the relationship between where the goods are produced and national creativity. Thus, production within Asian countries is increasing. And today China known as “factory of the world”, nevertheless, local designers seek recognition as independent creators (Reinach, 2011). Also, China's planned economy has a huge impact on the retail market, judging by the experts opinions, its result could be an increase in the speed of technology and social networks, the impact of the Asian fashion system, and the recognition of Shanghai as a new world fashion capital (Chreмtien-Ichikawa, 2015).

Japan also develops its market. Some changes in consumer behavior have led to the continued strong presence of the fast fashion business in Japan on the retailers' market. Deregulation of the labor market, the increase in precarious working conditions and the consequent decline in disposable incomes have led to a rethinking of consumer behavior and an increase in demand for clothing at a reasonable price (Assmann, 2018). In addition, it is noted that in recent times, the Asian fashion system has been shaped by its relationship with Western fashion, which has had a profound impact on its culture and its connection to aesthetics. Thus, the boundaries of the fashion world are gradually erased, as Western and Eastern cultures blend (Reinach, 2012).

1. CROSS-CULTURAL INTERACTION. CULTURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASIA AND RUSSIA

McKinsey & Company published their last report (November 20018) on The State of Fashion, written in partnership with the Business of Fashion (BoF), in which they analyzed the current fashion industry sales-growth expectations. As can be seen from the bar chat (Figure 2) Asia-Pacific region is going to be a leader of consumption fashion goods. Moreover, China is expected to overtake the United States as the largest fashion market in 2019. The wealth of China's nearly 1.4 billion people saw rapid increase, creating new consumer groups who have capacity to spend on sports, entertainment, clothes and shoes, news website Quartz reported, adding it's shaping the way the fashion industry operates. With more than half of global online retail sales, and countless digital and tech innovations, Asia is no longer waiting for Western companies to step up. Asian players will assert their power and leadership even more through pioneering innovations and glob- al-scale investment and expansion.

Figure 2. Fashion industry sales-growth expectations, % range*

* Based on the source: McKinsey Global Fashion Index (November 2018)

According to Lewis (1996), culture is the collective programming of the thinking of a group of people, which affects the behavior of a person and the community to which he belongs. Culture is the product of millions of minds, filtered by hundreds of generations and presented in the form of enduring values, beliefs and communication patterns. Knowing the features of this programming, you can build a communication model that will allow successfully communicate with representatives of other cultures.

The thinking and behavior of different nations will never be the same. However, a small adaptation to another culture will help avoid unintended insults and possible conflicts. At the same time, you need to know the measure and not try to hide their national characteristics.

Each culture has its own logic, its own view of the world. We may even have different priorities in food, clothing, etc. For example, look at the differences in the interpretation of time and space in different cultures.

It is known that the famous methods of Japanese management have not received development in Europe and the United States. As an element of organizational culture, they really showed their high efficiency in Japan and contributed to increasing the satisfaction of employees of Japanese firms. However, trying to transfer this experience to American and Western European enterprises did not work out. This suggests that what is acquired within the framework of a national culture is both supported and developed by it, and if transferred to a different one it may lose this support and ultimately fail. Nevertheless, the globalization of the economy with particular relevance raises the question of the transfer of the most effective methods of organizational activity to a different cultural environment. In this paper we will consider two main models for measuring differences in cultures: the most known Hofstede model and the model proposed by the researchers of the GLOBE project.

1.1 The GLOBE study

The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) is a research project involving more than 160 researchers from the fields of sociology and management Sciences. The project analyzed the responses of more than 17,000 middle managers from 62 countries around the world (Javidan, House, Dorfman, 2004).

Doing development of the questionnaire, the researchers distinguished between real practice and value orientations. To determine the practices of behavior and institutional practices in society, they asked questions such as “how is it”, and to determine the values that reflect the desires and aspirations of respondents were asked questions such as “how it should be”.

The main goal of the GLOBE was to develop a theory to understand and predict the impact of cultural dimensions or variables on the effectiveness of leadership and organizational cultures in society. The study identified nine dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, human orientation, institutional collectivism, group collectivism, assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, future orientation, results orientation, performance orientation. The description of these measurements is given in Table 1.

As can be seen from the Figure 3 the Asian countries (China, South Korea, Japan) is placed to one societal cluster «Confucian Asia», while Russia to another block «Eastern European». The first one has a tendency to be high performers, expecting impeccable performance; they focus on the good of the group rather than the individual, and are highly devoted to their families. The same time Eastern Europe societies strongly support colleagues and promote gender equality; there are less achievement oriented than other societies yet rely on rules and laws to keep order.

Table 1

Dimensions of culture: the GLOBE project*

*Source: Adapted from Javidan et al., 2005.

Figure 3. Country Clusters According to GLOBE*

* Based on the source: Adapted from House et al., 2004.

1.2 Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede analyzed data collected in 53 offices of IBM Corporation. Questionnaires were sent to staff at all levels. Despite the fact that the data were collected in the 1970s, many studies prove that these data are still relevant. Moreover, Hofstede in his book Culture's Consequences (2001), cites more than 200 comparative studies supporting his findings.

Hofstede's approach to the study of organizational culture based on six variables:

1) power distance;

2) individualism;

3) masculinity;

4) the desire to avoid uncertainty;

5) long-term orientation;

6) indulgence.

The first variable, called the distance of power, refers to the degree of inequality between people, which the population of a given country considers permissible or normal. At the same time, a low degree is characterized by relative equality in society, and a high one is vice versa.

The second variable is characterized by individualism, or the degree to which people in a given country prefer to act as individuals, rather than as members of a group. The high degree of this variable implies that a person, being in conditions of free social relations in society, takes care of himself and his relatives in the family, bears full responsibility for all his actions. The other pole of this variable is collectivism or a low degree of individualism. In collectivist societies, since childhood, people are inculcated with respect for the groups to which they belong, usually the family or organization. There is no difference between the members of the group and those who are outside it. Group members expect it to protect them and be held accountable for them if they get in trouble. For this, they are required to be loyal to their group throughout their lives. In individualistic societies from childhood they are taught to think of themselves in terms of "I", and not part of "Us". It is expected that once standing up, the individual will no longer receive protection from his group, and the group will not be responsible for him. Therefore, he should not show deep loyalty to the group.

The third variable also has two poles: masculinity and femininity, reflecting how people of this culture relate to values such as "perseverance" and "self-confidence", "high level of work", "success and competition", which are associated almost everywhere more with the role of men. These values ??are different from "tender" values such as "life comforts", "maintaining warm personal relationships", "caring for the weak and solidarity", associated primarily with the role of the woman. It is about the prevalence in society of patterns of behavior inherent in either the males or the females. The role of women is different from the role of men in all countries, but in "hard" societies this difference is more than in "gentle" ones.

The fourth variable is called the "desire to avoid uncertainty" and can be defined as the degree to which people in a given country prefer structured situations as opposed to unstructured ones. Structured situations are ones with clear and precise rules on how to behave. These rules can be formalized or can be supported by tradition. In countries with a high degree of desire to avoid uncertainty, people tend to show great excitement and anxiety, feverishness in work. In the opposite case, people behave and work more calmly and systematically. In countries with a high degree of desire to avoid uncertainty, the prevailing view is that everything unusual is dangerous. With a low degree of desire to avoid uncertainty, everything unusual causes cognitive curiosity.

The fifth variable is measured by a long-term or short-term orientation in the behavior of members of society. Long-term orientation is characterized by a look into the future and is manifested in the desire for savings and accumulation and perseverance in achieving goals. Short-term orientation is characterized by a look into the past and the present and is manifested through respect for traditions and heritage, through the fulfillment of social obligations.

The six variable is essentially a measure of happiness, satisfaction of life's simple pleasures. Societies with high rates of assumption are defined as allowing relatively free satisfaction of basic and natural human desires related to the enjoyment of life and. Low indicators for this parameter characterize societies that control the satisfaction of needs and regulate it with the help of strict social norms.

The data obtained by Hofstede on the measurement of these variables in various countries is presented in Figure 4.

The effectiveness of interpersonal communication depends on the degree of adequacy of semantic perception, since this is related to the correct interpretation of information, the communicative attitude of the partner and the prediction of subsequent stages of communication. With intercultural communication, each culture is a system of codes that extends to everyday relationships, social and cultural norms, etc. These code systems of cultures, as a rule, are not comparable with each other or, at best, are only limited comparable. In this regard, in the process of communication, the problem of coding and decoding information becomes important. The contradictions of such different representations can easily lead to conflict.

Figure 4. Results of measurement of culture variables*

* Based on the source: The Hofstede insights network (https://www.hofstede-insights.com)

Every culture has developed a number of specific behavioral stereotypes in various situations. There is also a difference in views on values. In reality, culture gives many opportunities to build a personality. If we add here the difference in language, then we will see various pictures of the world. People have so many differences that paradoxically brings them together. Different cultures have different rules for sharing information. The difference in national cultures and behavior originates from the history of the formation of a national community and traditions that have developed over the centuries among various peoples. This is reflected in the habits and skills of communicative behavior, as well as in a certain logic and stereotype of behavior among representatives of a particular culture. Thus, in business and personal contacts, the ability of representatives of different cultures to take into account the peculiarities of the culture with which the communication takes place is of great importance.

Having analyzed the cultural difference between Asia and Russia, we can conclude that despite the fact that Asian countries are located at one point on map, they all still have different cultural dimensions both with Russia and among each other. Thus, this paper should consider not one particular country in its research but examine the issue from the perspectives of several Asian countries to recognize the most common trend.

2. STAKEHOLDER THEORY

2.1 The stakeholder concept

The activities of modern business are multipurpose, and the desire for profit will be complemented by a number of non-economic goals, reflecting the many interrelations of business and its environment. The hierarchy of business goals is directly related to the number of interest groups. The results of the analysis of the economic literature indicate the existence of different typologies of interested business groups, as well as factors determining the nature of real business interaction with stakeholders. At the same time, the fundamental task of developing a typology of interest groups, which makes it possible to effectively solve the problem of ranking them, remains unresolved.

Stakeholders are defined as persons or organizations that may influence the company or are influenced by the company (Freeman, 1984). The emergence of the concept of interested parties is usually associated with the realization that a business model focused solely on meeting the interests of owners or shareholders cannot cope with the amount and quality of changes that occur in the modern business environment. The basic position of this concept is that the company should take into account the interests of interested parties. In this case, the justification of this norm can be given both from a moral and from a strategic point of view. Managers who can truly take into account the interests of various stakeholders are more likely to lead the company to success and achieve strategic goals. Whereas those who do not know how to do this will put the company's viability in doubt. Consequently, timely failure to identify or dissatisfaction with changing expectations of interested parties can be attributed to the company's strategic risks, which should be the subject of close attention of its managers.

Attention is drawn to the classification of business groups represented by one of the largest scientists in the field of social responsibility - M. Clarkson, founder and first director of the Center for Corporate Social Affairs and Ethics at the Faculty of Management, University of Toronto, into two groups - primary and secondary.

The group of primary stakeholders includes the most important, without the constant participation of which the business cannot exist. These include shareholders and investors, employees, consumers, suppliers, as well as a group of public stakeholders, i.e. government and local communities creating infrastructure and markets that issue laws and regulations that are binding. Secondary stakeholders are not involved in direct interaction with the business and are not necessary for its existence; these include, for example, the media and interest groups.

M. Clarkson (1995) proposed separation of stakeholders into voluntary risk bears and involuntary risk bearers. Also, according to him, as voluntary risk bearers, stakeholders “bear the risk” as a result of investing some form of capital in a company - human, financial, or some other. As unwitting risk bearers, stakeholders are at risk due to the company's activities or actions.

Lately, he drew a distinction between primary (principal) stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary are those of interested parties, without whose continuous participation the company will not be able to exist. These include shareholders and investors, workers, consumers, suppliers, as well as a group of public stakeholders creating infrastructure and markets that issue laws and regulations that are binding. Secondary stakeholders include the media, community organizations and various “interest groups”, as well as ordinary residents of local communities. These stakeholders, according to Clarkson, “are not involved in transactions with the corporation and are not necessary for its existence” (Clarkson, 1995).

Such a classification corresponds to the rational logic of setting management priorities: from more important interest groups to less important ones.

2.2 Approaches of analysis

2.2.1 Freeman model

Prior to the release of Freeman's work in 1984, in 1980 Michael Porter put forward a theory in which he outlined that the structure of a chosen industry activity determines a strategy, ignoring the influence of stakeholders on the development of a strategy. Freeman took the Porter model for five competing forces (competitiveness, relative power of suppliers and consumers, the threat of the emergence of new players and substitutes) as a basis and added another value - the relative power of the interested party to prevent or promote corporate strategy.

In 1999, Frooman developed an understanding of strategies based on the influence of stakeholders and modeled this concept as an auxiliary tool for managers in understanding and managing the organization's stakeholders. In his work Frooman (1999) combined the theory of resource dependence and Freeman's the theory of stakeholders. The central idea of ??the theory of resource dependence is that "the need of organizations for resources enables other individuals or groups of individuals to gain control over them". Based on this concept, Freeman generates four types of stakeholder influence strategies: retention, consumption, direct and indirect; and four types of relationships between firms and stakeholders: power in the hands of the firm, high interdependence, low interdependence, power in the hands of stakeholders.

According to Jeff Frooman (1999), the retention strategy is to deny the provision of resources to stakeholders in order to influence and change the specific behavior of the firm. In other words, an interested party may threaten in stopping access to their resource (which in turn is important, even if we replace it, for the other side), rather than cause fluctuations and disrupt the stability of the organization's behavior. Stakeholders acting on the basis of a consumption strategy can supply a resource, but under certain conditions. Both strategies are designed to change the behavior of an organization. Stakeholders use a retention strategy when the balance of power is on their side, while the consumption strategy is applied subject to an even distribution of power between the two parties. Interested parties can directly manipulate the flow of resources of the company using the two strategies described, this is the third type according to Freeman's typology, a direct strategy.

An indirect strategy involves interaction through agents who have direct links with the company.

Table 3 illustrates the presentation of this Freeman typology. He concluded that the balance of power determines the strategy that the interested party will use. If the firm has more authority, the stakeholder uses an indirect strategy, entering into cooperation and forming alliances with more powerful agents. Conversely, if the power is in the hands of the stakeholder, he contacts and works directly with the organization.

Table 3

Typology of impact strategies and resource relationships*

* Source: E. Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, 1984

The traditional list of stakeholders includes owners, consumers, consumer protection groups, competitors, the media, workers, interest groups, environmentalists, suppliers, government agencies, community organizations (Freeman, 1984).

In the literature there are various classifications of stakeholders, allowing to understand their diversity. The simplest classification of stakeholders involves their division into internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. The criterion for this classification is the position of stakeholders in relation to the company. This is a fairly conventional criteria, because in a modern economy various hybrid relation between a company and its employees or suppliers are possible. In addition, the purpose of this division is not very clear.

The company becomes involved in relationships with various stakeholders. In relations with the company, stakeholders have their clearly defined roles. First, stakeholders are a source of expectations that determine the desirability or undesirability of a company's activities depending on the conditions of a particular practical situation. Secondly, stakeholders feel the results of the company's behavior. Thirdly, stakeholders assess how well companies meet their expectations and how the company's behavior affects them. The concept of stakeholders states that they, on the one hand, influence the company and, on the other hand, are influenced by the decisions or actions of the company. That is, two sides of exposure with the same stakeholders (Freeman, 1984).

The potential list of business stakeholders, according to Y. Fassin (2009), can be divided into three groups. Firstly, the actual stakeholders, with real positive and loyal interests in the activities of the company. This group includes owners, consumers, employees, local communities. The legitimacy of the participants in this group is normative; their relations with business, described in terms of "strength" and "influence", are generally mutually balanced. Secondly, advocates of interest who, without having their own interest in the business, act in defense of real stakeholders. This group includes trade unions defending the interests of workers; consumer societies that protect their interests; activist groups advocating for the interests of local communities and the environment. The legitimacy of the participants in this group is derivative. This group has the power to influence the business, while the business is not able to have a serious impact on them. Thirdly, the guards of interest, who, being independent regulatory agents, do not have their own interest in the activities of a business, but are able to influence its activities. Examples include the state, judicial institutions, certification bodies, the media. Their legitimacy is mixed, the balance of power and influence is also biased in their favor.

As a result, in the opinion of Fassin (2009), the firm bears corporate social responsibility only in relation to real stakeholders, but not in relation to “defenders” and “guards”. In turn, the “guardians of interest” group itself is capable of actively influencing the formation of the social responsibility of a particular firm. Thus, the typology of the author reflects the differences in the nature of the interaction of the company with potential stakeholders, allows you to describe the specific role and influence of representatives of other groups. However, in this approach, there is no accurate ranking mechanism necessary for making management decisions. Narrowing the circle of stakeholders does not facilitate the task, since there are no clear criteria for prioritizing both among real stakeholders and among the other participants in the relationship.

Summarizing the analysis of existing typologies of interested groups, we can draw the following conclusions. First, of all the diversity of interest groups, only a part can be attributed to the most important for business activities. Secondly, the authors identified those interest groups that are likely to be more or less important when the organization moves from one stage of development to another. Thirdly, it is suggested that the type of strategy of interaction with each interest group will depend on the relative importance of this group for the organization.

2.2.2 Mitchell, Agle and Wood model (The Salience Model)

R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood proposed a classification of stakeholders based on the different ratios of the three attributes (Figure 5): power, defined by the authors, as the perceived ability of the interested party to influence the company; legitimacy, which was understood as the perception of the requirements of the parties concerned, as appropriate, relevant, proper; urgency - the degree to which the requirements of interested parties are perceived as calling for immediate action.

Note that, unlike the previous approaches to the classification of stakeholders, Mitchell, Agle and Wood took into account the subjective perception of stakeholder managers. As emphasized in (Mitchell, 1997), “strength, legitimacy and urgency are socially constructed phenomena and can be perceived in different ways by stakeholders and managers.”

According to Mitchell (1997), a ranking model of stakeholders is introduced. From the point of view of the authors, managers will prescribe high importance to those interested parties who have all three attributes, and medium importance to those interested who have any two attributes. Stakeholders with only one attribute will most likely be regarded as latent by managers, and their requirements or statements as insignificant. All who do not have any of the possible attributes (strength, urgency or legitimacy) are not interested parties for the company.

The model is a management tool for identifying and prioritizing the organization's stakeholders, which was developed on the basis of Freeman's stakeholder theory. The result of the analysis on this model is more deeply studied and accurate data.

Figure 5. Stakeholder system by Mitchell, Agle, Wood*

* Based on the source: R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood: Toward a Theory of Stakeholder, 1997 Pages 853-886

The authors of the concept have identified three of the most significant properties of the stakeholders, on the basis of which the classification takes place. Cost to clarify that the degree of significance is determined based on the presence of one, two or three attributes. Mitchell, Agle and Wood offer attributes such as legitimacy, power and urgency.

- Legitimacy. According to the authors of the concept, legitimacy should be considered “a generalized perception that the actions of an object are desirable, performed properly, correspond to the social system of norms, values ??and beliefs”. This definition implies that legitimacy is a desirable social good.

- Power. It is the degree in which “a participant in a relationship has or can gain access to the physical, material, normative (prestige, respect) means of the other party in order to “impose” the fulfillment of his ideas, interests, desires”. It is noted that the availability of these resources is not a constant value, which indicates a passing sign of power: it can be obtained or lost.

- Urgency. In this concept, the authors understand the urgency, as “the degree in which the interests of stakeholders require immediate attention / satisfaction”.

The degree of importance of stakeholders depends on a combination of all three components. The authors note that legitimacy and power are key attributes of a comprehensive model for identifying stakeholders.

After identifying the fundamental attributes of the stakeholders, they were all combined, based on this, seven classes of stakeholders were developed.

A person or group of persons possessing one of the three attributes falls into the category of latent (hidden) group. Due to limited resources, managers often do not pay much attention to this class, since in this model they have low significance. The latent group includes inactive or dormant stakeholders, discretionary and demanding. An inactive group has the ability to influence a company, however, due to rare interactions, they have no real interest in applying their power (there are exceptions). Discretionary stakeholders have only legitimacy, but nothing more; they have little effect on the firm and, therefore, they do not require a high degree of attention. Possessing only urgency, a group of requiring stakeholders is distinguished by the ability to bother and cause irritation.

Despite the low degree of significance of the latent group, do not forget about them altogether. As mentioned earlier, these groups are not constant, they can acquire other attributes, and become more relevant and relevant in the interaction.

Expectant stakeholders are those who possess two of the three attributes in any combination. In contrast to the passivity of the latent group, the expectant stakeholders are marked by higher activity. The presence of two properties is a sign of the deep involvement of the waiting group, which indicates the responsibility of the manager to treat them more seriously and attentively. This group includes categories of dominant, dependent and dangerous stakeholders. The dominant group has the power and legitimacy, so they will always influence the organization's activities. The categories in question belong to the primary stakeholders of the Clarkson (1995) classification, which was considered earlier, since they can play a significant role in maintaining the firm's position in the market. Managers need to meet their interests and not deprive them of attention. Possessing urgency and legality, the stakeholder falls into the group of dependent. The lack of a sufficient level of power may be the reason for neglecting this category of leadership due to lack of resources (for instance, time) for decent and sufficient attention.

The third group, dangerous stakeholders, are individuals or a group of persons who have the power and urgency to satisfy their interests. Although their requirements are not official and not documented, they can achieve the fulfillment of their requests through authority. Managers need to identify a dangerous group in advance in order to prevent unfavorable for the company requirements. This can be done by trying to change their class, that is, to restrict access to existing attributes (legitimacy or urgency).

The seventh and most significant category is the group of definitive stakeholders. This group is characterized as powerful, legally acting and having urgent execution of the requirement. Dominant and dependent stakeholders are comparable in importance. Nevertheless, managers must take into account the urgency attribute and fulfill their demands more quickly.

A fundamental feature of the Mitchell, Agle and Wood model is that no attribute is fixed in time. That is, any requests or requirements may be legal, documented for a limited period of time; or a stakeholder may have power at one time, but lose it later. Dynamism is determined by the following characteristics of the model:

- each of the three attributes may vary;

- ascription of attributes is not objective, it is based on human perception;

- the stakeholder may not be aware of the presence of any property.

The dynamic nature of this concept suggests that groups with low significance can rise to a higher value, acquiring attributes, and vice versa. Table 2 shows a visual classification of stakeholders according to this concept.

Table 2

Classification of stakeholders by the Mitchell model*

*Source: R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood: Toward a Theory of Stakeholder, 1997 P. 853-886

The table above illustrates this - stakeholders with one attribute lack the two other attributes that would lend them enough rights, authority, voice or exercise to be highly salient and so on.

The authors of the concept define the significance of the stakeholder, “as the degree of prioritization of the interested person with respect to the requirements and interests put forward.” Although the criteria of authority, legitimacy and urgency are declared as an objective variable, the authors emphasize that the perception and assessment of the ownership of a particular property - a process that depends to a large extent on the personal qualities and convictions of the manager.

Model Mitchell, Agle and Wood was subjected to practical testing. Empirical studies have confirmed the relationship between the presence of attributes and the degree of importance of the stakeholder. However, the conclusions made regarding the priority of each attribute were different. So, Agle defines urgency as the most accurate "predictor" of the significance of a person or group of persons; Parent and Deephouse (2007) put forward the criterion of power; Magness (2008) considers legitimacy to be the basis for determining the degree of significance.

Without taking into account some of the shortcomings and limitations, the significance identification model is in great demand today, as a tool for rationalizing work with stakeholders.

At the same time, Mitchell, Agle and Wood highlight the dynamic nature of the relationship between managers and stakeholders (the dynamic nature of stakeholder-manager relations) and emphasize that, first, the attributes of stakeholders are not static, but variable, which means that they able to change over time for various reasons.

Nevertheless, comparing the theories described above, Freeman's stakeholder analysis approach is more convenient for the study of the modeling sphere as the number of the main market participants is small. Also, model of Mitchell, Agle and Wood compares 3 characteristics of stakeholders (power, legitimacy, urgency) requires more time and effort. The salience model assumes that characteristics studied are either present or absent, but in reality, they may vary. Also, for this study, the most important criterion for a stakeholder to study is the power. In this case, the theory of Freeman, which is one of the first and most popular in the scientific community, would be the best option.

2.3 Fault's price and limitations of the theory

Before determining the role and needs of each stakeholder, the attention to possible mistakes that may arise as a result of an incorrect analysis should be paid. S. Perminov (2013) highlighted four types of common mistakes.

Firstly, faults in the relationship with the subordinates. In this case, underestimated subordinate roles can lead to drop in profitability and inability to make changes in the company. This situation may arise when a company grows and becomes a network. Its creators may experience a sense of loss of control. This is due to the fact that several breaks in the management pyramid occur simultaneously in a number of networks, which means office workers are cut off from the company, since interaction with them occurs through the heads of the territorial offices that have only the control function. Also, as a result of such breaks, the opportunity for introducing something new and sometimes simply necessary changes is reduced.

Secondly, mistakes due to incorrect assessment of the market as a whole. Imaginary market super profitability, which may be supported by erroneous or exaggerated statistics about the growth of the industry, leads to a situation where companies can hardly buy their costs.

Thirdly, wrong evaluation of investors' expectations. For instance, some companies that focus on seizing the market are buying other companies without an exhaustive financial analysis. Thus, investors are in no hurry to invest in such projects, since they can be regarded as risky. The only correct decision in this case is the revision of the chosen strategy, but as experience shows, most companies continue to act according to the old scheme, assuming that the difficulties are temporary. As a result, the future of such a company becomes uncertain.

The last one is wrong approach to working with direct external stakeholders. Ignorance of the client and confidence that the quality of the product is more important than its promotion cause depreciation of investments. In such situations even the uniqueness of the product does not help, since the product itself is not recognizable, consumer not explained how good this product.

In addition, it is worth noting a few limitations of the stakeholder theory. Robert Phillips (2003) studied them in great detail and believes that most of them are associated with different interpretations of the theory itself. In his work, Phillips (2003) analyzed the main critical statements in the direction of stakeholder theory and answered them.

One of the most common opinions is that it serves as an excuse for unscrupulousness of managers due to agency problem, which comes from the need of managers to increase welfare, may arise. So, some consider stakeholder theory to be immoral because it ignores this agency relationship and they see risk in sharing decision making, because dishonest managers could act in their own interests, explaining their actions as supposedly beneficial to one of the stakeholders' parties. However, for stakeholder theory this is nothing more than an alternative.

Another criticism concerned with a specific objective function of the firm as it cannot be provided by stakeholder theory. This theory is rather abstract and cannot provide a clear procedure for making management decisions on a daily basis. It only helps to define the obligations of the stakeholders and helps managers to realize the need to take into account the interests of them. It is impossible to predict what the interests of all parties will be in the end and how they will be taken into account in the future due to differences in the methods of company organizations. Then, due to existing uncertainty conditions, “standard objective function dictates action in a way that is more specific than stakeholder theory” (Phillips, 2003). Nevertheless, stakeholder theory raises distributive and procedural issues of “fruits of organizational success (or failure)”.

From this follows the judgement that the essence of stakeholder theory lies in the distribution of financial results. Although the theory considers how much each group gets, the question of who is allowed to take part in decision making is no less important. Therefore, the theory treats these two issues equally.

Summarizing the above, mistakes in determining stakeholders are possible, the difficulty is to detect them in time and to take all necessary measures to reduce potential losses of the company. As for the limitations, the theory can be interpreted in completely different ways, consequently the number of possible drawbacks can be infinite.

METHODOLOGY

As mentioned in the introduction, digitalization increases the number of work options in modern society, and the model industry is no exception. To answer the research questions posed earlier we defined the following propositions concerning the revealed gap:

1. Mother agency does not play a significant role in model's career. There is an option that more depends on the model or on the international agency. Other significant participants of the whole process of working with models can also be identified.

2. Mother agency plays the key role in decision making. If the model is assigned to the agency, then he or she does not have complete freedom to choose the directions of business trips, international agencies, possible works in general.