Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate organisational accountability to less economically powerful stakeholders in the absence of formal corporate social reporting (CSR) guidelines. In addition, this study emphasises the role of administrative and institutional reforms in empowering stakeholders in a developing country context, namely, Bangladesh.

Consistent with prior literature, this qualitative study collected data through semi-structured interviews with 23 representatives from NGOs, media, civil society, customers, regulators, trade union leaders and employees who are considered as less economically powerful stakeholders. This paper draws on the demand for administrative reforms along with an institutional support structure (Owen et al., 1997) to enhance CSR and corporate accountability.

The empirical evidence shows that there is a need for a stand-alone mandatory CSR to achieve stakeholder accountability. It also shows that there are demands from “stakeholders to right to know” about the company’s social and environmental performance along with stakeholder engagements. There is a perceived demand for administrative reform along with institutional supports that can contribute to the CSR development in Bangladesh. These administrative reforms would encourage transparent corporate social and environmental practices. Given the socio-economic and vulnerable environmental conditions of Bangladesh, stakeholders in this study suggested contextually relevant CSR guidelines towards greater accountability.

This paper is one of the few engagement-based studies which explore the perceptions of less economically powerful stakeholders towards CSR developments in an emerging economy – Bangladesh. The findings of this study using the theoretical lens of accountability with administrative and institutional reforms lead us to conclude that companies in Bangladesh have low level of CSR towards stakeholder accountability and stakeholder engagements.

The paper contributes to the CSR literature by highlighting the needs of CSR from the stakeholder’s accountability perspective.

This study examines the association between Chief Executive Officer (CEO) power and the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure, as well as the moderating role of stakeholder influence on this association.

Using a sample of 986 Bangladeshi firm-year observations, this study uses a content analysis technique to develop a 24-item CSR disclosure index. The ordinary least squares regression method is used to estimate the research models, controlling for firm-specific factors that potentially affect the levels of CSR disclosure.

The study findings indicate that CEO power is negatively associated with the level of CSR disclosure, and that the negative effects of CEO power on the level of CSR disclosure are attenuated by stakeholder influence. CEO power is documented as reducing the positive impact of CSR disclosure on a firm’s financial performance, with this negative impact attenuated if stakeholders have greater influence on the firm.

This study suggests that CEO power and stakeholder influence are important factors in determining firms’ incentives to disclose CSR information. Both CEO power and stakeholder influence need to be considered in the CSR – firm performance nexus, given the mixed findings documented in the literature.

This study makes a significant contribution to the literature on CSR practices by documenting that firms with a powerful CEO have lower levels of CSR disclosure, and that stakeholder influence affects CSR disclosure in the emerging economy context.

The purpose of this paper is to explore stakeholders' expectations in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR)–related corporate governance practices. The paper aims to understand how stakeholders' expectations potentially translate into the disclosure of information about CSR-related corporate governance practices.

The evidence for this study was collected using semi-structured in-depth personal interviews with 18 stakeholders. These include representative of multinational buying companies who source garments from Bangladesh, international as well as local NGOs, news media personnel, senior government officials, trade union leaders and social audit firm.

This paper finds evidence of stakeholders' dissatisfaction with the disclosures of governance information which tended to be viewed as limited and symbolic in nature. It also finds an apparent disconnection between stakeholder expectations and corporate disclosures.

This paper finds an alternative media of disclosures, for communicating social responsibility related governance information to the stakeholders, which has so far, been neglected by the social accounting researchers.

The purpose of this research paper is to show empirical evidence that supports a set of research proposition that was synthesized based on knowledge seeking and stakeholder literature. These propositions, which are related to the knowledge seeking strategies adopted by knowledge seekers and the knowledge stakeholder settings that exist in firms, are explored using the data collected from focus group discussions.

Data collected from focus group discussions were interpreted through qualitative content analysis, resulting in discussions and findings that deliver strategies for knowledge seekers who quest for tacit knowledge.

Empirical data from this study reveals strategies, ascertained from the context of three knowledge stakeholder including; powerful stakeholders, legitimate stakeholders and urgent stakeholders, each of which may be adopted in seeking tacit knowledge.

The study proposes to tackle the issue of human centric knowledge seeking from the perspective of stakeholder theory in organization context. Knowledge stakeholders, such as external customers and internal supportive staffs and co‐workers, are bearers of tacit knowledge and so identifying the knowledge stakeholders is crucial to leverage their knowledge for the firm's benefit.

This study presents an in‐depth investigation of non‐governmental organisations' (NGO) perceptions of CSD (corporate social disclosure) in Ireland. It commences the process of addressing a lacuna in the CSD literature, whereby the perspectives of non‐managerial stakeholders have been largely ignored. In particular, it responds to O'Dwyer call for research to examine the nature and extent of stakeholder demand for CSD in Ireland in order to inform the future development of accountable Irish CSD practices.

Evidence is collected from in‐depth interviews with senior representatives of major Irish NGOs. The paper focuses on the nature of NGO demand for administrative reforms encompassing types of CSD and the prospects for supporting institutional reforms aimed at further empowering less powerful stakeholder groups.

A demand for the development of stand‐alone, mandated, externally verified CSD mechanisms predominates the perspectives. This is motivated by a desire to see stakeholder “rights” to information enforced given Irish companies' apparent resistance to engaging in complete and credible CSD. A number of perceived obstacles to the development of institutional mechanisms designed to support any desired CSD developments are exposed. These encompass: active corporate resistance to discursive dialogue, corporate resistance to voluntary information disclosure, a compliant political elite unwilling to confront the corporate sector on social and environmental issues, and a fragmented NGO community which has difficulty in raising public awareness about corporate social and environmental impacts. Evidence of antagonism between certain NGOs and elements within the Irish corporate sector is also illuminated.

The paper reflects on these perspectives and considers their implications for the development of accountable CSD mechanisms in Ireland.

Adds to the literature on CSD.

The purpose of this article is to examine conflicts of interest (COI) in qualitative social research with multiple and often powerful stakeholders such as organisations and funders.

The article offers an explorative qualitative analysis of a selected group of Danish doctoral students' experiences and negotiations of COI in their qualitative, multiple stakeholder research. The point of departure is that while potential and readily identifiable sources of COI, such as funding institutions, are important to disclose this may provide inadequate insight into stakeholders' actual – and potentially undue – influence on the research during the research process. This calls for a focus on research practice. Finally, the current neoliberal policy changes affecting universities provide the backdrop for the study.

Focusing on negotiations around COI in practice, the analysis illuminates the complex reality of negotiating different – and sometimes conflicting – expectations and interests when conducting long-term qualitative studies. It also shows examples of stakeholders' attempts to potentially, and unduly, influence doctoral students' research. Finally, it suggests that stakeholders and researchers alike can be both powerful and potentially vulnerable when engaging in qualitative research.

The article contributes to the existing literature by explicitly focusing on COI in qualitative social research, and by exploring experiences and negotiations of COI in practice.

In this chapter, we explain why firms selectively responding to the most powerful, legitimate, and urgent demands of their stakeholders will not bring about sustainability and offer suggestions on what we should do in light of this shortcoming. Sustainability issues tend to be wicked problems that require cooperation across parties and over time to define and resolve. Stakeholder pressures can bring sustainability to the fore, but government intervention is necessary to drive meaningful action to resolve such issues. Without government intervention, self-interested stakeholders can pressure firms to move away from the complex, long-term challenges of wicked problems. Yet, stakeholder pressure is also necessary, as without it, industries may self-regulate in self-serving ways. Our analysis thus suggests that collaboration between business, government, and other stakeholders is necessary to resolve the wicked problems of sustainability. We therefore urge the stakeholder literature to move beyond its libertarian underpinnings by (re)incorporating government into models of effective corporate governance.

The purpose of this study is to present an in-depth examination of stakeholder engagement processes in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the perspective of NGO managers to enhance accountability and the effectiveness with which aid services are delivered. Specifically, demand-side (downward) accountability and the implications of an accountability system that is predominantly supply-side (upward) focused are explored.

This study draws on evidence gathered from 25 in-depth interviews with representatives of leading NGOs in Nigeria to explore and uncover the nature of stakeholder engagement and accountability processes in their respective organisations. This study shows prospects for entrenching organisational reform that balances power and influence that benefits the less economically powerful demand side of the stakeholders. A relevant aspect of stakeholder theory was used to frame the analysis.

The study reveals an overlay of a blanket engagement system and a seeming reluctance of NGOs to disclose critical information to the demand-side stakeholders (DSS), and suggests ways to meet sustainability demands and address the militating concerns. A perceived lack of understanding and prospects or outcomes of demand-side accountability are central to this; however, engagement outcomes that account for impact rather than output are explored and reported. The findings suggest that proper accountability involves adequate stakeholder engagement which is a prerequisite and paramount for sustainability.

This study primarily delineates NGO managers’ views on NGO engagement and accountability dynamics. Future research may explore the perspectives of downward stakeholders themselves. The study highlights the concern for NGOs to maintain a defined stakeholder engagement process that resists external forces that may impact on their operations and derail their mission, resulting in duplication of services.

The study shows the implications of donors’ influence on accountability practices which can be improved by re-structuring supply-side stakeholders to significantly include DSS accountability requirements in the key performance indicators of NGOs in developing countries. The authors present a nuanced perspective to aid delivery and access that ensures improved services and more effective, impactful and sustainable aid which is of practical relevance to NGOs and their accountability mechanism.

This study deepens the understanding of the dynamics of stakeholder engagement and accountability processes and shows that the most effective way to deploy aid funds to meet sustainability goals is to draw on the experiences and local knowledge of the DSS. This would require an effective and results-driven dialogue among all the stakeholders involved. The proposed engagement and management framework contribute to theory and practice by fostering multi-stakeholder cooperation, DSS accountability and the advancement of sustainable development

The purpose of this paper is to explore corporate social and environmental reporting (CSER) practices and motivations in Bangladesh.

Using a mixed-methods approach, the paper attempts to understand what corporate social and environmental issues Bangladeshi firms are reporting and why. The paper first explores the motivations for CSER in line with O’Dwyer’s (2003) proposed classifications of proactive and reactive motivations through interviews and frames its findings using stakeholder theory. To provide a more holistic view, content analysis adapted from CSR Asia (2008) categorization (broadly guided by GRI) was conducted to enhance findings from engagement-based interviews with managers.

The paper finds that “community investment and development” and “governance codes and policies” received the highest amount of disclosure, while the least amount of disclosure was found in the “workplace/human rights” category. Although a philanthropic tone was found behind “community investment”, such as poverty alleviation activities, disclosure in this area is mostly motivated by proactive rationales with enlightened self-interest and image-building activities. In terms of reactive motivations underpinning CSER, the paper finds that companies also report reactively to reduce pressure from powerful stakeholders such as international buyers and government agencies. Contrary to other studies regarding reactive motivations, the authors argue that a director’s proactive motivation is the prime determinant of CSER in a developing country. They also argue that low-level disclosures on workplace environment/human rights need to be given more importance by policymakers, management and other relevant stakeholders.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study is one of the few engagement-based field studies that uses a mixed-methods approach to seek managerial perspectives in an attempt to understand CSER practices in an emerging country context.

To study relationships between focal organisations and their stakeholders in a generic way, beyond the agency/transaction cost approach usually used in business research. The domain was political parties and their stakeholders.

Study participants were officials and activists in five major Irish political parties. They were asked to nominate their most important stakeholders, to rate these stakeholders on salience as represented by power, legitimacy and urgency and to describe extent and intensity of their party engagement with these stakeholders.

Stakeholders considered more important to the organisation receive higher levels of engagement from the parties than those stakeholders thought to be less critical. The results suggest that high levels of stakeholder engagement can yield beneficial electoral results for political parties. The importance of looking after “internal stakeholders” is also supported. The three attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency do not seem to describe completely the salience of stakeholders to all organisations in a generic sense. The adequacy of the three attributes is most supported in mainstream organisations with a focused pragmatic orientation toward “winning”. However, it appears that more ideologically oriented organisations may assign higher salience to stakeholders who fit their ideology, as opposed to those who possess power, legitimacy and urgency.

The ideological dimension of stakeholder salience which emerged in this study is worthy of further exploration, especially in its implications for actual stakeholder engagement and behaviour with respect to corporate social responsibility.

In the business arena – the study suggests that high levels of stakeholder engagement can yield beneficial results. It also demonstrates the importance of looking after internal stakeholders.

Discovery of dynamics between a focal organisation and its stakeholders in a more generic way than offered in traditional business research.