Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Talks with Different Folks: A Comparative Survey of Stakeholder Dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 31 December 2010

Abstract

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.

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

Abbreviations

SD:

Stakeholder dialog

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

SDI:

Stakeholder Diversity Index

FDI:

Form Diversity Index

References

  • 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 

  • Albareda, L., J.M. Lozano, A. Tencati, A. Midttun, and Francesco Perrinin: 2008, ‘The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses’, Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 347-363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albareda, L., A. Tencati, J.M. Lozano and F. Perrini: 2006, ‘The government’s role in promoting corporate responsibility: a comparative analysis of Italy and UK from the relational state perspective’, Corporate Governance 6(4), 386-400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 32(3), 794-816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. and R. Salomon: 2006, ‘Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance’, Strategic Management Journal 27(11), 1101-1122.

    Article  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.

  • Boesso, G. and K. Kumar: 2009, ′Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US′, Accounting Forum 33, 162-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, V. M. and Y. K. Shetty: 1974, ‘Motivations for Corporate Social Action’, The Academy of Management Journal 17(4), 767-771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J. and J. Cook: 2006a, ‘Assessing the impact of stakeholder dialogue: changing relationships between NGOs and companies’, Journal of Public Affairs 6, 210-227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J. and J. Cook: 2006b, ‘It′s Good to Talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes’, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(2), 154-170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J. and J. Cook: 2008, ‘Stakeholder dialogue and organizational learning: changing relationships between companies and NGOs’, Business Ethics: A European Review 17(1), 35-46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. and P. Bouvain: 2008, ‘Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany’, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 299-317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Coombs, J. and K. M. Gilley: 2005, ‘Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation’, Strategic Management Journal 26, 827-840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, K.: 2000, ‘Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it’, Business and Society 39(2), 210-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C.: 2002, ‘The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures - a theoretical foundation’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15(3), 282-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, B. J. and D. M. Cobbin: 1996, ‘A Content Analysis of Codes of Ethics in Australian Enterprises’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(1), 37-55.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. Lavers: 1995, ‘Methodological Themes. Constructing a Research Database of Social and Environmental Reporting by UK Companies, Accounting’, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2), 78-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M.: 2007, ‘Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 74, 315-327.

    Article  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 

  • Habisch, A. and M. Wegner: 2005, ′Germany - Overcoming the Heritage of Corporatism′, in: Habisch, A., J. Jonker, M. Wegner and R. Schmidpeter: Eds., Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe, (Springer, Heidelberg).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hackston, D. and M. J. Milne: 1996, ‘Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(1), 77-108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammann, E., Habisch, A. & Pechlaner, H.(2009) ‘Values that create value: socially responsible business practices in SMEs - empirical evidence from German companies’, Business Ethics: A European Review 18(1), 37-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. R.: 2005, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies: An Empirical Exploration’, Journal of Business Ethics 61, 79-99.

    Article  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 

  • Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‘Shareholder value, stakeholder management and social issues: what’s the bottom line?’, Strategic Management Journal 22, 125-139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L. and J. R. Cohen: 2007, ‘The association between disclosure, distress, and failure’, Journal of Business Ethics 75(1), 301-314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, S. S.: 1999, ′The Ethics of ′Going Green′: The Corporate Social Responsibility Debate′, Business Strategy and the Environment 8, 203-210.

    Article  Google 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 

  • International Monetary Fund: 2009a, World economic outlook database April 2009, (International Monetary Fund, Italy).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund: 2009b, World Economic Outlook Database October 2009, (International Monetary Fund, Germany).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kassinis, G. and N. Vafeas: 2006, ‘Stakeholder Pressures and Environmental Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 49(1), 145-159.

    Article  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 

  • Maignan, I. and D. A. Ralston: 2002, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Representations’, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3), 497-514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcuccio, M. and I. Steccolini: 2005, ‘Social and Environmental Reporting in Local Authorities. A new Italian Fashion?’, Public Management Review 7(2), 155-176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. and J. Moon: 2008, ‘“Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility′, Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404-424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, D.: 2004, ‘Global Stakeholders: corporate accountability and investor engagement’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 12(2), 191-201.

    Article  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 

  • Morsing M. and M. Schultz: 2006, ‘Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies’, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4), 323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L. and J. Fairbrass: 2008, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: CSR: Models and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue’, Journal of Business Ethics 83, 745-758.

    Article  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 

  • Owen, D. L., T. Swift and K. Hunt: 2001, ′Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting′, Accounting Forum 25(3), 264-282.

    Article  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 

  • Pedersen, E. R.: 2006, ‘Making Corporate Responsibility: CSR) Operable: How Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice’, Business and Society Review 111(2), 137-163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F.: 2006, ‘SMEs and CSR Theory: Evidence and Implications from an Italian Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics 67, 305-316.

    Article  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).

  • Russo, A. and A. Tencati: 2009, ‘Formal vs. Informal CSR Strategies: Evidence From Italian Micro, Small, Medium-sized, and Large Firms’, Journal Of Business Ethics 85, 339-353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillanpää, M.: 1998, ′The Body Shop Values Report - Towards Integrated Stakeholder Auditing′, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1443-1456.

    Article  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 

  • Steurer, R.: 2010, ‘The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public policies on CSR in Europe’, Policy Sciences, 43, 49-72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, T.: 2001, ′Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders′, Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1), 16-26.

    Article  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 

  • Van Buren, H., III: 2001, ‘If Fairness is the Problem, is Consent the Solution? Integrating ISCT and Stake- holder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(3), 481– 499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G., L. Trevino and P. Cochran: 1999, ‘Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: A management commitments, external pressures and corporate ethics practices’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 539-552.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Christian Social Ethics in Business and Society, Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Auf der Schanz 49, 85072, Eichstaett, Germany

    André Habisch & Christoph Schwartz

  2. School of Business, Benedictine College, 1020 North 2nd Street, Atchison, KS, 66002, U.S.A

    Lorenzo Patelli

  3. ALTIS-Postgraduate School Business and Society, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via San Vittore 18, 20123, Milan, Italy

    Matteo Pedrini

Authors
  1. André Habisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lorenzo Patelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matteo Pedrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Pedrini.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0715-7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M. et al. Different Talks with Different Folks: A Comparative Survey of Stakeholder Dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.. J Bus Ethics 100, 381–404 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0686-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0686-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation