Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 138, Issue 3, pp 417–435 | Cite as

Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting

  • Irene M. Herremans
  • Jamal A. Nazari
  • Fereshteh Mahmoudian
Article

Abstract

The concept of sustainability was developed in response to stakeholder demands. One of the key mechanisms for engaging stakeholders is sustainability disclosure, often in the form of a report. Yet, how reporting is used to engage stakeholders is understudied. Using resource dependence and stakeholder theories, we investigate how companies within the same industry address different dependencies on stakeholders for economic, natural environment, and social resources and thus engage stakeholders accordingly. To achieve this objective, we conducted our research using qualitative research methods. Our findings suggest that the resource dependencies on different stakeholders lead to development of different stakeholder relationships and thus appropriate resources within the company to execute engagement strategies that are informing, responding, or involving. Our research explains why diversity exists in sustainability disclosure by studying how it is used to engage stakeholders. We find that five sustainability reporting characteristics are associated with the company’s stakeholder engagement strategy: directness of communication, clarity of stakeholder identity, deliberateness of collecting feedback, broadness of stakeholder inclusiveness, and utilization of stakeholder engagement for learning. Our study develops the literature by providing insight into companies’ choices of stakeholder engagement strategy thus explaining diversity in sustainability reporting based on the characteristics and relationships with specific stakeholders.

Keywords

Resource dependence Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder relationships Sustainability reporting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was made possible through a Grant from the Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE) at the University of Calgary and funding provided by CMA-Alberta. We appreciate the insightful suggestions and comments that we received from the two anonymous reviewers and the editor. We would also like to acknowledge the helpful comments from Linda Ambrosie and reviewers of the Academy of Management Conference and the European Accounting Association Congress.

References

  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal, P., & Kistruck, G. (2006). Seeing is (not) believing: Managing the impressions of the firm’s commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamish, P. W., & Banks, J. C. (1987). Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bewley, K., & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 1(1), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brower, J., & Mahajan, V. (2013). Driven to be good: A stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 39–52). Sheffield: Green Leaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyer, J. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ERCB. (2011). Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules. Alberta, Canada: Energy Resources Conservation Board.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  14. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  15. Frooman, J. (2010). The issue network: Reshaping the stakeholder model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27(2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business and Society, 44(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Critical points of CSR-related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(3), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, Ó. (2010). A study of determinant factors of stakeholder environmental pressure perceived by industrial companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 164–181.Google Scholar
  19. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., & Schwartz, C. (2010). Different talks with different folks: A comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46–60.Google Scholar
  23. Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7–8), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hess, D. (2007). Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 447–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2005). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. St. Paul, MN: South-Western Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. KPMG. (2008). International survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG International.Google Scholar
  33. KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG International Cooperative.Google Scholar
  34. Livesey, S. M., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by the body shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization and Environment, 15(3), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Logsdon, J. M., & Lewellyn, P. G. (2000). Expanding accountability to stakeholders: Trends and predictions. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  41. Morris, M. H., Allen, J., Schindehutte, M., & Avila, R. (2006). Balanced management control systems as a mechanism for achieving corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(4), 468–493.Google Scholar
  42. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Onkila, T. (2011). Multiple forms of stakeholder interaction in environmental management: Business arguments regarding differences in stakeholder relationships. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(6), 379–393.Google Scholar
  46. Onkila, T., Joensuu, K., & Koskela, M. (2014). Implications of managerial framing of stakeholders in environmental reports. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(3), 134–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organization: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  49. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50(1), 189–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2009). Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: The ownership structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(2), 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Provan, K. G., Beyer, J. M., & Kruytbosch, C. (1980). Environmental linkages and power in resource-dependence relations between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 200–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. PWC. (2011). Creating value from corporate responsibilityDoes your reported data get the respect it deserves? PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. https://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/corporate-sustainability-climate-change/assets/creating-value-from-corporate-responsibility.pdf
  54. Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability—Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rehbein, K., Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J., I. I. I. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rogers, E. W., & Wright, P. M. (1998). Measuring organizational performance in strategic human resource management: Problems, prospects, and performance information markets. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schouten, E. M. J., & Remmé, J. (2006). Making sense of corporate social responsibility in international business: Experiences from Shell. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sillanpaa, M. (1998). The body shop values report—Towards integrated stakeholder auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13), 1443–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stratos, Inc. (2003). Gaining momentum—Corporate sustainability reporting in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Stratos, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Stratos, Inc. (2005). Gaining momentum—Corporate sustainability reporting in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Stratos, Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks—Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471–481.Google Scholar
  65. Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (1998). Buffering and bridging as environmental strategies of firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(5), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weber, J., & Marley, K. A. (2012). In search of stakeholder salience: Exploring corporate social and sustainability reports. Business and Society, 51(4), 626–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams, S. J., & Adams, C. A. (2013). Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability perspective. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(3), 449–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  71. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene M. Herremans
    • 1
  • Jamal A. Nazari
    • 2
  • Fereshteh Mahmoudian
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Haskayne School of BusinessUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Beedie School of BusinessSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations