Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocity in Firm–Stakeholder Dialog: Timeliness, Valence, Richness, and Topicality

Journal of Business Ethics volume 183, pages 429–451 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Scholars of stakeholder management have long grappled with the question of how to communicate with stakeholders to enhance cooperation and reduce conflict. We build on insights from the literature on stakeholder dialog to highlight the importance of four elements of firm–stakeholder dialog processes: timing, valence, richness, and topicality of firms’ responses to stakeholder engagements. We demonstrate a link between these elements of the firm–stakeholder dialog process and changes in stakeholder cooperation or conflict with the firm, as well as contingent tradeoffs among them. Specifically, we show that the relative importance of these elements is contingent upon stakeholder type and status. Government actors prioritize richness and topicality over timeliness and valence. Economic actors, by contrast, prioritize timeliness and valence. Civil society stakeholders prioritize timeliness, valence, and topicality over richness. Low-status actors across sectors deprioritize topicality and richness while high-status actors demand attentiveness to all four elements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. TSX Mining Sector Sheet (as of October 12, 2011) http://www.tmx.com/en/listings/sector_profiles/mining-pdac.html.

  2. FACTIVA comprises over 28,000 information sources from over 157 countries as well as almost 600 continuously updated newswires of which 147 specifically cover the global “Metals and Mining” sector.

References

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Mit Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-006-9021-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D., Oren, N., & Nets-Zehngut, R. (2014). Sociopsychological analysis of conflict-supporting narratives: A general framework. Journal of Peace Research, 51(5), 662–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314533984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, P. K., Hicks, J., Krivokapic-Skoko, B., & Sherley, C. (2015). Mining operations and corporate social responsibility: A case study of a large gold mine in regional Australia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(3), 531–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20, 356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2012). Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: ‘Ceo-Speak’ after an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-011-1065-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdegué, J. A., Escobal, J., & Bebbington, A. (2015). Explaining spatial diversity in Latin American rural development: structures, institutions, and coalitions. World Development, 73, 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., & Fosfuri, A. (2009). The impact of symbolic and substantive actions on environmental legitimacy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1349063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, M. (2015). Size matters: The perils of counting protest events. University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2001). When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing changes in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 566–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Michele Kacmar, K., Turnley, W. H., & Bruce Gilstrap, J. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, D., Bond, J., Oh, C., Jenkins, J. C., & Taylor, C. L. (2003). Integrated data for events analysis (IDEA): An event typology for automated events data development. Journal of Peace Research, 40(6), 733–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, R. (2011). A stakeholder approach to issues management. Business Experts Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-005-7443-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, Jw. (2016). Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridoux, F. M., & Vishwanathan, P. (2020). When do powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests? Business & Society, 59(2), 232–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brønn, P. S., & Brønn, C. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: What is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). Assessing the impact of stakeholder dialogue: Changing relationships between Ngos and companies. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(3–4), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/Pa.229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and Ngos. Business Ethics, 17(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2008.00518.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business-Ngo relationships through stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-012-1319-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable. 2019. Statement on the purpose of a corporation. Retrieved from https://Opportunity.Businessroundtable.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2019/08/Business-Roundtable-Statement-On-The-Purpose-Of-A-Corporation-With-Signatures.Pdf

  • Ceglarz, A., Beneking, A., Ellenbeck, S., & Battaglini, A. (2017). Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway. Energy Policy, 110, 570–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J., & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Martens, M. L., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choguill, M. B. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amr.1995.9503271994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Livesey, S. M. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. (2017). Not all sparks light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical events in contested markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 561–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, D., Berens, G., & Li, T. (2013). The impact of interactive corporate social responsibility communication on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-013-1957-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efrat-Treister, D., Cheshin, A., Harari, D., Agasi, S., Moriah, H., Admi, H., & Rafaeli, A. (2019). Correction: how psychology might alleviate violence in queues: Perceived future wait and perceived load moderate violence against service providers. PLoS ONE, 14(7), E0220395–E0220395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efrat-Treister, D., Daniels, M. A., & Robinson, S. L. (2020). Putting time in perspective: How and why construal level buffers the relationship between wait time and aggressive tendencies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(3), 294–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D. (2005). Helping people help themselves: From the World Bank to an alternative philosophy of development assistance. University Of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D. (2006). Organizational perception management. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738. https://doi.org/10.2307/256313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esman, M. J., & Uphoff, N. (1984). Local organisations: Intermediaries in rural development. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2011). A dynamic perspective in freeman’s stakeholder model. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-011-0942-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, E., Chen, B., & Bernstein, M. S. (2016). Empath: Understanding topic signals in large-scale text. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems.

  • Fink, L. 2022. Larry Fink’s 2022 letter to ceos: The power of capitalism. Retrieved 22 January, 2022, from https://www.Blackrock.Com/Corporate/Investor-Relations/Larry-Fink-Ceo-Letter

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (2010). The issue network: Reshaping the stakeholder model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/Cjas.150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frynas, J. G. (2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. International Affairs, 81(3), 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganson, B., He, T. L., & Henisz, W. J. (2022). Business & peace: Impact of firm-stakeholder strategies on conflict risk. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., Davidson, W. N., & El–Jelly, A. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1199–1216. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittell, J. H. (2006). Relational coordination: Coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. Relational perspectives in organizational studies: A research companion (pp. 74–94). Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. (2012). Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 709–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. S. (1992). A Conflict-Cooperation Scale for WEIS Events Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002792036002007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation-stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groth, M., & Gilliland, S. W. (2006). Having to wait for service: Customer reactions to delays in service delivery. Applied Psychology, 55(1), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenter, H., Emmerik, I. H. V., & Schreurs, B. (2014). The negative effects of delays in information exchange: Looking at workplace relationships from an affective events perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(4), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T. (2015). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society, 54(1), 9–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Albert, N. (2017). Strong reciprocity in consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallin, C. A., Andersen, T. J., Ooi, C. S. 2014. How stakeholder sensing and anticipations shape the firm’s strategic response capability. In: Strategic Management Society 34th Annual International Conference. Sms 2014.

  • Hamann, R., & Kapelus, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in mining in Southern Africa: Fair accountability or just greenwash? Development, 47(3), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2021). Harmful stakeholder strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-019-04310-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.2464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S. (2012). Equity and expectancy considerations in stakeholder action. Business & Society, 51(2), 220–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S. (2017). Is fair treatment enough? Augmenting the fairness-based perspective on stakeholder behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S., & Collins, C. (2016). Motivators of mobilization. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J. (2016). The dynamic capability of corporate diplomacy. Global Strategy Journal, 6(3), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial and operational returns to external stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006400707757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. B., Bettencourt, L. A., & Wenger, S. (1998). The relationship between waiting in a service queue and evaluations of service quality: A field theory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 15(8), 735–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, J. (2007). Matching public interaction skills with desired outcomes. International Journal of Public Participation, 1, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., Yue, L. Q., & Rao, H. (2010). Trouble in store: Probes, protests, and store openings by Wal-Mart, 1998–2007. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 53–92. https://doi.org/10.1086/653596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Finance Corporation. (2015). Establishing foundations to deliver community investment. International Finance Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.2268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & Mclaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2017). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108, 203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karake, Z. A. (1998). An examination of the impact of organizational downsizing and discrimination activities on corporate social responsibility as measured by a company’s reputation index. Management Decision, 36(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810209011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, D., Owen, J. R., Gotzmann, N., & Bond, C. J. (2011). Just relations and company-community conflict in mining. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-010-0711-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash Vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-N., Bach, S. B., & Clelland, I. J. (2000). Symbolic or behavioral management? Corporate reputation in high-emission industries. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., & Lowe, W. (2003). An automated information extraction tool for international conflict data with performance as good as human coders: A rare events evaluation design. International Organization, 57(3), 617–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, M. A. (2016). A communication perspective on organisational stakeholder relationships: Discursivity, relationality and materiality. Communication Research and Practice, 2(3), 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, R., Whiteman, G., & Banerjee, B. (2013). Conflict and astroturfing in niyamgiri: The importance of national advocacy networks in anti-corporate social movements. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613479240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A. B. (2020). The dialogic ladder: Toward a framework of dialogue. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101870. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pubrev.2019.101870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A., & Kent, M. L. (2018). Dialogic engagement. The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 61–72). Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.-D.P. (2011). Configuration of external influences: The combined effects of institutions and stakeholders on corporate social responsibility strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-011-0814-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leetaru, K. 2016. Can we forecast conflict? A framework for forecasting global human societal behavior using latent narrative indicators. University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign

  • Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Issues management and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00381867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotila, P. (2010). Corporate responsiveness to social pressure: An interaction-based model. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, E. G., & Kraatz, M. (2009). Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amj.2009.37308247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, M.-H. (2015). Radical repertoires: The incidence and impact of corporate-sponsored social activism. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2013). Keeping up Appearances: Reputational Threat and Impression Management after Social Movement Boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 387–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213500032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, M.-H., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2015). A dynamic process model of private politics activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 654–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 853–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics, 15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2006.00460.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mroz, J. E., & Allen, J. A. (2017). An experimental investigation of the interpersonal ramifications of lateness to workplace meetings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 508–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, H., & Rauh, C. (2018). Reading between the lines: Prediction of political violence using newspaper text. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 358–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munichor, N., & Rafaeli, A. (2007). Numbers or apologies? Customer reactions to telephone waiting time fillers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nartey, L., Henisz, W. J., & Dorobantu, S. (2018). Status climbing versus bridging: Multinational stakeholder engagement strategies. Strategy Science, 3(2), 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (Csr): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-008-9662-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing Csr stakeholder engagement: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-013-1913-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odziemkowska, K., & Dorobantu, S. (2021). Contracting beyond the market. Organization Science, 32, 776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odziemkowska, K., & Henisz, W. J. (2020). Webs of influence: Secondary stakeholder actions and cross-national corporate social performance. Organization Science, 32, 233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Edward Freeman, R., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (Csr) operable: How companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8594.2006.00265.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petkova, A. P., Rindova, V. P., & Gupta, A. K. (2013). No news is bad news: Sensegiving activities, media attention, and venture capital funding of new technology organizations. Organization Science, 24(3), 865–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/Smj.919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Edward Freeman, R., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. The Academy of Management Journal, 46, 631–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sauter-Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Yue, L. Q., & Ingram, P. (2011). Laws of attraction: regulatory arbitrage in the face of activism in right-to-work states. American Sociological Review, 76(3), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411409698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-005-5355-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehbein, K., Logsdon, J. M., & Van Buren, H. J. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-012-1237-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rettab, B., Brik, A. B., & Mellahi, K. (2008). A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: The case Of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1287/Orsc.1050.0175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C. W., Agypt, B., Williams, J., Kello, J. E., Mccausland, T., & Olien, J. L. (2014). Lateness to meetings: Examination of an unexplored temporal phenomenon. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-007-9573-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “Begins At Home.” Business & Society, 42(2), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650303042002002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., Gomez, L., Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y.-P., & Dietrich, S. (2019). Do Csr messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ Csr efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-017-3464-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., & Neu, D. (2021). Twitter-based social accountability processes: The roles for financial inscriptions-based and values-based messaging. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-021-04952-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., Ren, C., & Guo, C. (2021). Responding to diffused stakeholders on social media: Connective power and firm reactions to csr-related twitter messages. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(2), 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-013-1826-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in interpretation: A sociological view. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell, G. R. (1991). Opportunism and trust in the negotiation of commercial contracts: Toward a new cause of action. Vand l Review, 44, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: the perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (2007). Fighting over gold in the land of Dracula. The New York Times. 2007-01-03.

  • Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1991). A communication-information model of competitive response timing. Journal of Management, 17(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, D., & Kelly, W. R. (1977). Conflict intensity, media sensitivity and the validity of newspaper data. American Sociological Review. 105–123.

  • Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation and Ceo pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 535–556.

    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(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2013). What happens when the honeymoon is over? The limited effect of impression management. Academy of Management Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.5465/Ambpp.2013.158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2015). Csr communication: An impression management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2014.956106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (1994). The effects of filled waiting time and service provider control over the delay on evaluations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theunissen, P., & Noordin, W. N. W. (2012). Revisiting the concept “Dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pubrev.2011.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants in American democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, E., & Pelon, R. (2011). Sharing mining benefits in developing countries. World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Choi, J., & Li, J. (2008). Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science, 19(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/Orsc.1070.0271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amj.2009.0548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstock, D. (1999). Building trust in divided societies. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(3), 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D., & Deephouse, D. L. (2011). Avoiding bad press: Interpersonal influence in relations between CEOs and journalists and the consequences for press reporting about firms and their leadership. Organization Science, 22(4), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., Fabig, H., & Boele, R. (2002). Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of shell and The Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016542207069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G. (2009). All my relations: Understanding perceptions of justice and conflict between companies and indigenous peoples. Organization Studies, 30(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608100518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J., & Douglas Barrett, J. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasmi, Y., Schanz, H., & Salim, A. (2006). Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural resource management. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(6), 538–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, L. Q., Rao, H., & Ingram, P. (2013). Information spillovers from protests against corporations: A tale of walmart and target. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 669–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213511243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandvliet, L., & Mary, A. (2009). Getting it right: Making corporate-community relations work. Greenleaf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Shapiro, D. L. (2012). Managing the message: the effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amj.2010.0608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2001). The impact of accidents on firms’ reputation for social performance. Business & Society, 40(4), 416–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jeffrey Harrison for his editorial guidance and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive engagement throughout the review process. We are also thankful for the feedback and suggestions provided by Adam Grant, Mary Hunter (Mae) McDonnell, and Kate Odziemkowska, as well as that from seminar attendees at Said Business School, London Business School, Rice University, the University of Queensland, the National University of Singapore and the Wharton School. We thank Anne Jamison and Xuchong Shao for their help with thematic content coding, TSX Datalinx for providing missing stock price data, and Adam Garson, Anastasia Gracheva, Arthur Xu, Bertram Ieong, Boyan Gerasimov, Brianna Wilson, Christoph Suter, Daniel Mizsei, Dong Jin Han, Ivan Koutsarov, Jervis Hui, Kevin Koplan, Lavinia Seow, Louis Balocca, Mi Hyun Lee, Neha Karmeshu, Priyanka Anand, Rishav Kanoria, and Seung-Jae Lee for over 2500 hours of superb research assistance.

Funding

The research leading to these results received funding from the National Science Foundation Social & Economic Sciences (SES-103955) as well as Wharton Global Initiatives, Wharton Social Impact Research Fund, and Santander Universidades.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lite J. Nartey

    Present address: INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

    Witold J. Henisz

  2. Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, USA

    Sinziana Dorobantu

Authors
  1. Lite J. Nartey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Witold J. Henisz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sinziana Dorobantu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Witold J. Henisz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Witold Henisz served as a witness in the international arbitration case Gabriel Resources Ltd. and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) Ltd. v. Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/15/31) on behalf of Gabriel Resources. His testimony was also solicited by the government of Romania. His testimony as a witness summarized his research for the development of a teaching case and the conclusions of that case (see http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C4706/DS14001_En.pdf). The financial arrangement began in June, 2018 and concluded in December 2019. Field work that formed the basis for the testimony was complete in December 2011.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nartey, L.J., Henisz, W.J. & Dorobantu, S. Reciprocity in Firm–Stakeholder Dialog: Timeliness, Valence, Richness, and Topicality. J Bus Ethics 183, 429–451 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05063-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05063-8

Keywords

search

Navigation