Assessing the reporting of stakeholder reciprocity in the Australian banking industry

Abstract

Purpose

Companies are increasing the amount of their voluntary disclosures to inform stakeholders about organisational performance. Despite criticism that these are simply “public relations” exercises, there has been little formal evaluation of stakeholder reporting, especially in Australia. In addition, the important aspect of stakeholder reciprocity, where not only stakeholder satisfaction but also their contribution to the organisation is evaluated and reported, has not been examined. This study aims to examine both of these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was conducted using the non‐financial performance indicators of Australia's top five banks, as available in both annual reports and web sites, to examine the nature of stakeholder reporting and the extent to which stakeholder reciprocity is disclosed.

Findings

The results of the study indicate that there is neither consistency in the reporting of key performance indicators, nor is there consistency in reporting across both stakeholder satisfaction and stakeholder contribution. Stakeholder satisfaction dominates and little effort has been directed to evaluate and report on stakeholder contribution. The study also indicates that, other than shareholders, the top five Australian banks have identified customers and employees as their primary key stakeholders.

Originality/value

Despite widespread acknowledgement of the importance of stakeholder dialogue for the enhancement of stakeholder relationships, stakeholder reciprocity and the extent to which it is disclosed is an area that has been insufficiently examined. Thus, the originality and value of the study lie in its examination of corporate disclosures of stakeholder reciprocity.

Citation

Cuganesan, S. and Khan, H. (2008), "Assessing the reporting of stakeholder reciprocity in the Australian banking industry", Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/14013380810889538