Modelling bi-directional research: a fresh approach to stakeholder theory

Purpose – While Freeman's stakeholder management approach has attracted much attention from both scholars and practitioners, little empirical work has considered the interconnectedness of organisational perspectives and stakeholder perspectives. The purpose of this paper is to respond to this gap by developing and empirically testing a bi-directional model of organisation/stakeholder relationships. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual framework is developed that integrates how stakeholders are affected by organisations with how they affect organisations. Quantitative data relating to both sides of the relationship are obtained from 700 customers of a European service organisation and analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling technique. Findings – The findings provide empirical support for the notion of mutual dependency between organisations and stakeholders as advocated by stakeholder theorists. The results suggest that the way stakeholders relate to organisations is dependent on how organisations relate to stakeholders. Originality/value – The study is original on two fronts: first, it provides a framework and process that can be used by researchers to model bi-directional research with other stakeholder groups and in different contexts. Second, the study presents an example application of bi-directional research by empirically linking organisational and stakeholder expectations in the case of customers of a UK service organisation.

Re-thinking stakeholder management in construction: theory & research

From its roots in strategic management theory, stakeholder management has been adopted by the construction management academic community and applied as a valid paradigm around which research work has been generated aiming to improve project effi ciencies and effectiveness. However, academics have argued that stakeholder management should move away from purely theoretical discussions and engage more with the realities of construction project work. This paper re-appraises the stakeholder management concept for the construction domain by re-thinking some of the fundamental principles and ideals present within the more general stakeholder theory literature. It engages with issues which researchers have arguably failed to acknowledge and calls for a re-evaluation of construction stakeholder management research by presenting a review around four distinctive themes: the moral obligations of engaging with stakeholders against the business and efficiency driven imperatives of construction organisations; the contrast between theoretical abstractions and empirically grounded research; the tensions between theoretical convergence versus calls for multiple and divergent perspectives on stakeholder management and the practicalities of conducting stakeholder management in the construction domain. Such a critical re-appraisal of stakeholder management thinking both generates new lines of enquiry and promises to help inform and shape current and future industry practice.

Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to seek to shed light on the practice of incomplete corporate disclosure of quantitative Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and investigates whether external stakeholder pressure influences the existence, and separately, the completeness of voluntary GHG emissions disclosures by 431 European companies. Design/methodology/approach – A classification of reporting completeness is developed with respect to the scope, type and reporting boundary of GHG emissions based on the guidelines of the GHG Protocol, Global Reporting Initiative and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Logistic regression analysis is applied to examine whether proxies for exposure to climate change concerns from different stakeholder groups influence the existence and/or completeness of quantitative GHG emissions disclosure. Findings – From 2005 to 2009, on average only 15 percent of companies that disclose GHG emissions report them in a manner that the authors consider complete. Results of regression analyses suggest that external stakeholder pressure is a determinant of the existence but not the completeness of emissions disclosure. Findings are consistent with stakeholder theory arguments that companies respond to external stakeholder pressure to report GHG emissions, but also with legitimacy theory claims that firms can use carbon disclosure, in this case the incomplete reporting of emissions, as a symbolic act to address legitimacy exposures. Practical implications – Bringing corporate GHG emissions disclosure in line with recommended guidelines will require either more direct stakeholder pressure or, perhaps, a mandated disclosure regime. In the meantime, users of the data will need to carefully consider the relevance of the reported data and develop the necessary competencies to detect and control for its incompleteness. A more troubling concern is that stakeholders may instead grow to accept less than complete disclosure. Originality/value – The paper represents the first large-scale empirical study into the completeness of companies’ disclosure of quantitative GHG emissions and is the first to analyze these disclosures in the context of stakeholder pressure and its relation to legitimation.

The future of stakeholder management theory: a temporal perspective

We propose adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory, and assess the implications thereof for firm-level competitive advantage. We argue that a firm’s competitive advantage fundamentally depends on its capacity for stakeholder management related, transformational adaptation over time. Our new temporal stakeholder management approach builds upon insights from both the resource-based view (RBV) in strategic management and institutional theory. Stakeholder agendas and their relative salience to the firm evolve over time, a phenomenon well understood in the literature, and requiring what we call level 1 adaptation. However, the dominant direction of stakeholder pressures can also change, namely, from supporting resource heterogeneity at the firm level to fostering industry homogeneity, and vice versa. When dominant stakeholder pressures shift from supporting heterogeneity towards stimulating homogeneity in industry, the firm must engage in level 2 or transformational adaptation. Stakeholders typically provide valuable resources to the firm in an early stage. Without these resources, which foster heterogeneity (in line with RBV thinking), the firm would not exist. At a later stage, stakeholders also contribute to inter-firm homogeneity via isomorphism pressures (in line with institutional theory thinking). Adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory has far reaching implications for this theory’s practical relevance to senior level management in business.

Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance

Purpose – The purpose of the research was to discover the process of social and environmental report assurance (SERA) and thereby evaluate the benefits, extent of stakeholder inclusivity and/or managerial capture of SERA processes and the dynamics of SERA as it matures. Design/methodology/approach – This paper used semi-structured interviews with 20 accountant and consultant assurors to derive data, which were then coded and analysed, resulting in the identification of four themes. Findings – This paper provides interview evidence on the process of SERA, suggesting that, although there is still managerial capture of SERA, stakeholders are being increasingly included in the process as it matures. SERA is beginning to provide dual-pronged benefits, adding value to management and stakeholders simultaneously. Through the lens of Freirian dialogic theory, it is found that SERA is starting to display some characteristics of a dialogical process, being stakeholder inclusive, demythologising and transformative, with assurors perceiving themselves as a “voice” for stakeholders. Consequently, SERA is becoming an important mechanism for driving forward more stakeholder-inclusive SER, with the SERA process beginning to transform attitudes of management towards their stakeholders through more stakeholder-led SER. However, there remain significant obstacles to dialogic SERA. The paper suggests these could be removed through educative and transformative processes driven by assurors. Originality/value – Previous work on SERA has involved predominantly content-based analysis on assurance statements. However, this paper investigates the details of the SERA process, for the first time using qualitative interview data.

Exploring the impact of social axioms on firm reputation: a stakeholder perspective

This study proposes a model of how deeply held beliefs, known as ‘social axioms, moderate the interaction between reputation, its causes and consequences with stakeholders. It contributes to the stakeholder relational field of reputation theory by explaining why the same organizational stimuli lead to different individual stakeholder responses. The study provides a shift in reputation research from organizational-level stimuli as the root causes of stakeholder responses to exploring the interaction between individual beliefs and organizational stimuli in determining reputational consequences. Building on a conceptual model that incorporates product/service quality and social responsibility as key reputational dimensions, the authors test empirically for moderating influences, in the form of social axioms, between reputation-related antecedents and consequences, using component-based structural equation modelling (n = 204). In several model paths, significant differences are found between responses of individuals identified as either high or low on social cynicism, fate control and religiosity. The results suggest that stakeholder responses to reputation-related stimuli can be systematically predicted as a function of the interactions between the deeply held beliefs of individuals and these stimuli. The authors offer recommendations on how strategic reputation management can be approached within and across stakeholder groups at a time when firms grapple with effective management of diverse stakeholder expectations.