Search results

The paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.

The paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.

The paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.

The paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

Societal developments and stakeholder awareness place responsibility and legitimacy high on corporate agendas. Increased awareness heightens focus on stakeholder relations and dialogue as key aspects in corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate identity and corporate communication scholarship, but the question remains how can dialogue be initiated and maintained? The purpose of this paper is to establish a framework for conceptualizing dialogue.

Through a review of CSR, corporate identity, corporate communication and stakeholder literature, a framework is developed taking into account the different stakes held by key stakeholder groups, i.e. consumers, investors, employees, non‐governmental organization and suppliers. Based on the discursive terms of form and script, we argue that different stakes condition different dialogical types.

The paper argues that the stakeholder orientations of the CSR, corporate identity and corporate communication disciplines can aid in strengthening dialogue. It is thus suggested that dialogue may be strengthened by constructing a framework which links the stakes held by key stakeholder groups to specific dialogue forms and scripts.

The practical implication of articulating stakeholder dialogue as scripted interaction is that organizations seeking to engage stakeholders strategically must understand and respect conventions and expectations.

The paper's contribution is to expand the notion of dialogue within communication research and to provide organizations with a framework for understanding stakeholder involvement in identity relevant issues of responsibility and legitimacy.

This paper aims to investigate how relational connectivity can enhance accountability through non-financial reporting regulation in Europe. The paper contributes to the mandatory disclosure literature and provides practical implications for the application of the EU Directive 2014/95/EU.

A case study research methodology is used, analyzing how a listed Italian insurance company embraces a dialogic communication approach with stakeholders along 2018.

From a theoretical standpoint, this paper enhances the scholarly understanding of the relevance and role of the concept of relational connectivity as a mean for effectively enhancing accountability, providing some prerequisites for effectively implementing relational connectivity. From a practical perspective, results address the criticism related to the directive 2014/95/EU guidelines in effectively helping the organization toward enhancing accountability. Through a case study, results show how companies can achieve in practice the goal of enhancing corporate accountability.

The paper is original, as it addresses the topic of relational connectivity applied to the EU Directive 2014/95/EU. Results contribute to the development of the understanding of the mandatory disclosure in a dialogic perspective. Additionally, the paper addresses a case study showing how the analyzed company used relational connectivity to engage an effective dialogue with stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to progress operations management theory and practice by organising contributions to knowledge production, in industrial sustainability, from disparate researcher communities. It addresses the principal question “What scholarly dialogues can be explicated in the emerging research field of industrial sustainability?” and sub-questions: what are the descriptive characteristics of the evidence base? and what thematic lines of scientific inquiry underpin the body of knowledge?

Using an evidenced-based approach, a systematic review (SR) of 574 articles from 62 peer-reviewed scientific journals associated with industrial sustainability is conducted.

This paper distinguishes three prevailing dialogues in the field of industrial sustainability, and uses Kuhn’s theory of paradigms to propose its pre-paradigmatic scientific status. The three dialogues: “productivity and innovation”, “corporate citizenship” and “economic resilience” are conjectured to privilege efficiency strategies as a mode of incremental reductionism. Industrial sustainability espouses the grand vision of a generative, restorative and net positive economy, and calls for a future research trajectory to address institutional and systemic issues regarding scaling-up and transition, through transformative strategies.

The review is limited by the nature of the inquiries addressed in the literatures by specific researcher communities between 1992 and 2014.

This study performs the first SR in the field of industrial sustainability, synthesises prevailing scholarly dialogues and provides an evaluation of the scientific status of the field.

This paper reports the results of a recent research study into the use of the Internet for communicating corporate financial information to stakeholders. Senior officers in a sample of smaller listed companies in the UK were interviewed about their use of the Internet for reporting corporate financial information, and about the ways in which they identify corporate stakeholders and their needs. It was found that assessment of stakeholder requirements is haphazard, but is informed in many cases by an intention to correct long‐standing inequities in the provision of corporate information. Because the assessment of needs is largely intuitive, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the Internet as a mechanism for communication of corporate financial information. However, it is clear that the additional medium of communication offered by the Internet has not so far radically changed the essential nature of the dialogue between company and stakeholder, which remains asymmetrical.

This paper aims to explore how stakeholders are voluntarily granted influence in corporate decision making.

The stakeholder governance practices of 46 companies were explored in a multiple comparative case analysis, drawing on publicly available sources.

The research finds that stakeholders are granted a voice regarding operational, managerial as well as strategic issues. The power granted to stakeholders varies from non‐participation to co‐decision making. The majority of engagements found are a combination of low power and low scope of participation, which are limited in their potential to align the views of those inside and outside the corporate boundaries.

The data used in this research relied on publicly available sources, such as company reports, articles and web sites.

By seeing an array of different stakeholder governance mechanisms managers can reflect on their own approach to stakeholders and see how other companies use stakeholder engagement for scenario planning and innovation.

The paper is the first to empirically analyse a broad range of companies regarding their voluntary stakeholder engagement mechanisms. This design allows the creation of a heuristic for stakeholder governance as well as for identifying clusters.

Explores the central role that private information on corporate intangibles plays in the private corporate governance role of financial institutions (FIs). The institutional fund managers’ (FMs) private understanding of many qualitative or intellectual capital factors driving corporate performance was the basis for wide‐ranging corporate governance influence concerning financial performance and conventional Cadbury‐style corporate governance issues. This was primarily a private, implicit corporate governance process by FIs and their FMs during good corporate performance. Also reveals how the nature of FM corporate governance influence became more interventionist with adverse changes in corporate performance factors, in FI‐side influence factors and in environmental circumstances. The qualitative intangible factors, especially board and top management qualities, were central to this more proactive form of intervention. Finally, discusses the case results within the research literature on the corporate governance role of FIs, identifies new directions for research and discusses policy implications briefly.

This paper aims to describe the emerging practice of joint management‐stakeholder‐committees (JMSCs) in which corporate executives take decisions in collaboration with stakeholders.

To identify firms involving stakeholders in their governance arrangements, the authors analysed 51 companies regularly participating in Business in the Community's Corporate Responsibility Index in the UK. The data provided by the index as well as corporate reports were then analysed to evaluate the impact of JMSCs on corporate decision‐making.

The research finds that JMSCs strongly influence corporate governance mechanisms such as monitoring and measurement as well as the policy development of firms.

The analysis builds on corporate responses given to the questionnaire sent by the Corporate Responsibility Index as well as corporate reports. Future research is encouraged to triangulate findings with stakeholder opinions on the effectiveness of JMSCs.

JMSCs prove to be an effective tool to involve stakeholders in corporate decision‐making processes. Owing to their effectiveness JMSCs are more likely to create trust between firms and their stakeholders.

The paper is the first empirical investigation into the effectiveness of engaging stakeholders in joint management‐stakeholder committees, demonstrating the impact and effectiveness of such engagement.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Shell Nigeria’s Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMoU) promotes corporate-community accountability as a basis for fostering sustainable community development in the Niger Delta.

Shell Nigeria’s GMoU stand-alone reports were analysed through the lenses of accountability and transparency theoretical frameworks to explore the extent to which GMoU, as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative, is dialogically embedded and practised. Meaning-oriented content analysis was deductively used to isolate pertinent themes and generate findings from the background theoretical literature.

The authors find that Shell discursively appropriates the meaning of accountability and transparency in a manner that allows it to maintain its social legitimacy and the asymmetric power relations between itself and host communities whilst restricting communities’ agency to hold it accountable. Shell does this by interpreting the notion of participation restrictively, selectively deploying the concept of transparency and accountability and subtly exerting excessive control over the GMoU. Thus, the GMoU’s potential to contribute to sustainable community development and positive corporate-community relation is unlikely tenable.

Accountability and transparency are core and critical to corporate-community relations and for achieving community development CSR objectives, but are often taken for granted or ignored in the CSR literature on the Niger Delta of Nigeria. This paper addresses this gap in the literature by using accountability and transparency lenses to unpick GMoU model and contribute to studies on CSR practices by oil multinational corporations (MNCs) in developing countries. Indeed, the use of these lenses to explore CSR process offers new insights as to why CSR practices have failed to contribute to sustainable community development despite increased community spending by oil MNCs.