Different Talks with Different Folks: A Comparative Survey of Stakeholder Dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.
- 902 Downloads
Although theoretical underpinnings of stakeholder dialog (SD) have been extensively discussed in the extant literature, there is a lack of empirical studies presenting evidence on the SD initiatives undertaken by firms. In this article, we provide information about 294 SD initiatives collected through a content analysis of the sustainability reports published by large firms in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. In addition to a country-based description of the different forms, stakeholder categories, and topics of the SD initiatives, we explore the relationship between SD and characteristics of national business systems. Overall, we find firms undertake few SD initiatives, using low-involvement forms of dialog, and focusing on one category of stakeholders per initiative. Results suggest that the explicit approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR) favors the quantity of SD initiatives, but neglects the importance of the level of involvement and diversity of stakeholders participating at the dialog. Finally, we find public policies on CSR have a substantial influence on SD in national business systems with an implicit approach to CSR. Public policies based on a shared discussion involving multiple social actors encourage SD initiatives that use different forms of dialog and are characterized by high level of involvement. Our findings offer contributions to the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of SD and its relationship with CSR.
Keywordsstakeholder dialog sustainability reporting corporate social responsibility international study
Corporate social responsibility
Stakeholder Diversity Index
Form Diversity Index
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Accountability: 2007, Accountability rating, (Accountability, London).Google Scholar
- Adams, C. A. and G. Harte: 1999, Towards Corporate Accountability for Equal Opportunities Performance, (Certified Accountants Education Trust, London).Google Scholar
- Adams, C. A., W. Y. Hill and C. B. Roberts: 1995, Environmental, Employee and Ethical Reporting in Europe, (Certified Accountants Educational Trust, London).Google Scholar
- Bertelsmann Foundation and GTZ: 2007, The CSR Navigator – Public Policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe (Bertelsmann Foundation & GTZ, Eschborn). http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de. Accessed 3 October 2009.
- CNN Money: 2009, Global 500 – Annual Ranking of the World’s Largest Corporations. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/countries/Germany.html. Accessed 8 October 2009.
- Epstein, M. J. and M. J. Roy: 2003, ′Improving Sustainability Performance: Specifying, Implementing and Measuring Key Principles′, Journal of General Management 29(1), 15-31.Google Scholar
- European Commission: 2003, SMEs in Europe 2003 (Enterprise Publications, Luxembourg).Google Scholar
- European Union (2002) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development. Employment and Social Affairs Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- Federal Statistical Office: 2008, Statistical Yearbook 2008, (Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, (Pitman Publishing Inc, Massachusetts).Google Scholar
- Frooman, J.: 1999, ‘Stakeholder influence strategies’, Academy of Management Review 24, 191-205.Google Scholar
- Habisch, A. and J. Moon: 2006, ′Social Capital and Corporate Social Responsibility′, in: Jonker, J. and M. de Witte: Eds., The challenge of organising and implementing CSR, (Palgrave, London), 63-77.Google Scholar
- Hess, D.: 2007, ‘Social Reporting and New Governance Regulation: The prospects of achieving Corporate Accountability through Transparency’, Business Ethics Quarterly 17(3), 453-476.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Future e. V.: 2007, Sustainability Reporting in Germany. Results and Trends in the Ranking 2007, (Institute for Ecological Economy Research and Future e. V., Berlin).Google Scholar
- KPMG: 2005, International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, (KMPG Global Sustainability Services, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
- KPMG: 2008, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008, (KPMG International, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
- Lawrence, A. T.: 2002, ′The drivers of stakeholder engagement: reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell′, in: Sutherland Rahman, S., S. Waddock, J. Andriof, and B. Husted: Eds., Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility, Engagement (Sheffield: Greenleaf).Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 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
- Observatory of European SMEs: 2002, European SMEs and social environmental responsibility (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
- OECD: 2009, Factbook - Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, (OECD, Paris).Google Scholar
- Patelli, L. and A. Prencipe: 2007, `The Relationship Between Voluntary Disclosure and Independent Directors in Presence of a Dominant Shareholder', European Accounting Review 16(1), 5–33.Google Scholar
- Payne, S. L., J. M. Calton (2002) Towards a Managerial Practice of Stakeholder Engagement: Developing Multi-Stakeholder Learning Dialogues. In: S. Sutherland Rahman, S. Waddock, J. Andriof, B. Husted (Eds.) Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility, Engagement. Greenleaf, Sheffield.Google Scholar
- Perrini, F., S. Pogutz, and A. Tencati: 2006, ‘Corporate social responsibility in Italy: state of the art’, Journal of Business Strategies 23(1), 1-44.Google Scholar
- Pleon: 2004, Geheime Mission? Deutsche Unternehmen im Dialog mit kritischen Stakeholdern. Eine Umfrage unter den 150 grössten Unternehmen [Secret Mission? German Companies in Dialogue with Critical Stakeholders. A Survey Among 150 Largest Companies] (Pleon, Bonn).Google Scholar
- Spence, L., A. Habisch and R. Schmidpeter: Eds.: 2004, Social Capital and Responsibility - The World of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (PalgraveMcMillan, Hampshire).Google Scholar
- Tonkin, D. J. and L. C. L. Skerratt: 1991, Financial Reporting 1991-1992: A Survey of UK Reporting practice, (ICAEW, London).Google Scholar
- Weber, R. P.: 1988, Basic Content Analysis, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 7-049, (Sage, Beverly Hills, London).Google Scholar
- Whitley, R. (1999), Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
- Williams, R.C.: 2007, The Cooperative Movement, (Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire).Google Scholar