This paper aims to provide insights into stakeholder expectations regarding the types of disclosures a firm should make, and if dissatisfied with the disclosure policy, whether it will use different intervention strategies in an attempt to induce the desired disclosure outcome.
An inductive qualitative framework is used in the study. In‐depth interviews, triangulated against relevant web site and media releases, are used to identify the salient stakeholders and the major environmental issues in Malaysia. Then an experimental approach is used based on role‐playing whereby experienced participants are introduced to hypothetical vignettes that relate to environmental issues identified.
The results indicate that the preferred form of disclosure is for the firms to “defend” the reasons behind the environmental event and/or explain what has been done to rectify the situation. With relatively few exceptions, the preferred strategies chosen by various participants align well with the influence strategies identified by Frooman. The findings confirm that although Frooman's model is useful in predicting stakeholder influence strategies, its effectiveness is tempered by the level of significance placed on the event by the stakeholders.
Although based on a small sample, the results suggest that stakeholder theory has much to offer in terms of understanding management/stakeholder behaviour and corporate environmental disclosures.
The paper extends the application of stakeholder influence strategies in the “environmental reporting” domain. Likewise, it attempts to address the scarcity of literature taking the view of a wide array of stakeholders and how they choose to influence the firm. Finally, it confirms that stakeholder theory can be extended to aid the understanding of events in non‐western developing economies such as Malaysia.
Elijido‐Ten, E., Kloot, L. and Clarkson, P. (2010), "Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1032-1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011092547Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited