Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sleeping with the Enemy? Strategic Transformations in Business–NGO Relationships Through Stakeholder Dialogue

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Campaigning activities of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have increased public awareness and concern regarding the alleged unethical and environmentally damaging practices of many major multinational companies. Companies have responded by developing corporate social responsibility strategies to demonstrate their commitment to both the societies within which they function and to the protection of the natural environment. This has often involved a move towards greater transparency in company practice and a desire to engage with stakeholders, often including many of the campaign organisations that have been at the forefront of the criticisms of their activity. This article examines the ways in which stakeholder dialogue has impacted upon the relationships between NGOs and businesses. In doing so, it contributes to the call for more ‘stakeholder-focused’ research in this field (Frooman in Acad Manag Rev 24(2): 191–205, 1999; Steurer in Bus Strategy Environ 15: 15–69 2006). By adopting a stakeholder lens, and focusing more heavily upon the impact on one particular stakeholder community (NGOs) and looking in depth at one form of engagement (stakeholder dialogue), this article examines how experiences of dialogue are strategically transforming interactions between businesses and NGOs. It shows how experiences of stakeholder dialogue have led to transformations in the drivers for engagement, transformations in the processes of engagement and transformations in the terms of engagement. Examining these areas of transformation, the article argues, reveals the interactions at play in framing and shaping the evolving relationships between business and its stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Waddock (2001) argues for a similar conception in her work on stakeholder dialogue, claiming that firms are increasingly moving towards engagement strategies focused upon processes of mutual responsibility, information-sharing, open and respectful dialogue and an ongoing commitment to problem-solving.

  2. Focus groups included the following: One each was run with businesses and NGOs, and then a workshop was organised that brought together all parties in two parallel focus group discussions, one on trust and the other on outcomes and impacts from dialogue.

References

  • Ahlstrom, J., & Sjostrom, E. (2005). CSOs and business partnerships: Strategies for interaction. Business, Society and the Environment, 14, 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, Waddock, J. S., Husted, B., & Sutherland Rahman, S. (Eds.). (2003). Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, B. (2002). ‘Green alliances’ of business and NGOs. New styles of self-regulation or ‘dead-end roads’? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belou, S., Elkington, J., Hester, K. F., & Newell S. (2003). The 21st century NGO. In The market for change.

  • Bendell, J. (2000). Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1998). For whom should corporations be run?: An economic rationale for stakeholder management. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). Assessing the impact of stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 210–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning; changing relationships between companies and NGO’s. Business Ethics a European Review, 17(1), 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2011). Banging on open doors? stakeholder dialogue and the challenge of business engagement for UK NGOs. Environmental Politics, 20(6), 918–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1993). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, E., & Kearins, K. (2007). Exposing students to the potential and risks of stakeholder engagement when teaching sustainability: A classroom exercise. Journal of Management Education, 31(4), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daub, C. H., & Scherrer, Y. (2005) The growing importance of stakeholder dialogues in generating knowledge and realizing sustainable development. In L. Preuss (Ed.) Whose business what ethics?. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of EBEN-UK, Royal Holloway, University of London.

  • de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business & Society, 47(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1998). Social movements: An introduction. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S., & Clark, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giugni, M. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, H. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems, 32(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtbrugge, D., & Berg, N. (2004). How multinational corporations deal with their socio-political stakeholders: An empirical study in Asia, Europe and the US. Asian Business and Management, 3(3), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J., & Nijhof, A. (2006). Looking through the eyes of others: Assessing mutual expectations and experiences in order to shape dialogue and collaboration between business and NGOs with respect to CSR. Corporate Governance, 14(5), 456–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2003). Towards effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourula, A., & Laasonen, S. (2010). Nongovernmental organizations in business and society, management and international business research: Review and implications from 1998 to 2007. Business and Society, 49(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFrance, J., & Lehmann, M. (2005). Corporate awakening—Why (some) corporations embrace public-private partnerships. Business, Strategy and the Environment, 14, 216–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. T. (2002). The drivers of stakeholder engagement: Reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. In Andriof, J. et al. (Eds.) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement, (pp. 185–200). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

  • Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present: Social movements and individual needs in contemporary society. London: Hutchinson Radius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, C. C. J. M., Choi, C. J., & Chen, S. (2004). Global Strategic partnerships between MNEs and NGOs: Drivers of change and ethical issues. Business and Society Review, 109, 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphree, D. W., Wright, S. A., & Ebaugh, H. R. (1996). Toxic waste siting and community resistance: How cooptation of local citizen opposition failed. Sociological Perspectives, 39(4), 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D., & Bendell, J. (1997). In the company of partners: Business, environmental groups and sustainable development post Rio. Bristol: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A., de Bruijn, T., & Honders, H. (2008). Partnerships for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts and strategic options. Management Decision, 46(1), 152–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., & O’Dwyer, B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The reporting and assurance dimension. In A. Crane, et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 384–409). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S. L., & Calton, J. M. (2002). Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement: Developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. In J. Andriof, et al. (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility, engagement (pp. 121–136). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, B. (2005). ‘Business-NGO partnerships’, Ethical Corporation report. London: Ethical Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. (2010). The politics of partnership: A critical examination of non profit-business partnerships. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Dow, M., & Neath, G. (2006). Learning together: New partnerships for new times. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 420–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: From the ‘stakeholder theory of the firm’ to three perspectives on business-society relations. Business, Strategy and the Environment, 15, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland Rahman, S., & Waddock, S. (2003). Introduction. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 9–12). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3), 349–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valor, C., & Merino de Diego’s, A. (2009). Relationship of business and NGOs: An empirical analysis of strategies and mediators of their private relationship. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(2), 110–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2010). Business-NGO interactions in a multi-stakeholder context. Business and Society Review, 115(3), 249–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2001). Integrity and mindfulness: Foundations of corporate citizenship. In J. Andriof & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Management School, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield, UK

    Jon Burchell

  2. Hull University Business School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, UK

    Joanne Cook

Authors
  1. Jon Burchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanne Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanne Cook.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burchell, J., Cook, J. Sleeping with the Enemy? Strategic Transformations in Business–NGO Relationships Through Stakeholder Dialogue. J Bus Ethics 113, 505–518 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1319-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1319-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation