Search results

Stakeholder capitalism (SC) advocates that organisations should focus on creating long-term value for all key stakeholders rather than maximising short-term profits for shareholders. This paper aims to explore whether and how business organisations have applied stakeholder capitalism principles (SCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic and how these efforts were communicated in integrated reports.

This study is based on the content analysis of the text extracted from the integrated reports of 22 companies categorised as excellent in the 2020 EY Excellence in Integrated Reporting Award 2020. The research material consisted of paragraphs that reflected how the company observed the SCPs in practice.

The stakeholder responsibility principle was the most represented by the examined companies, followed by the principles of continuous creation, stakeholder engagement and stakeholder cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled the necessity of implementing innovative solutions to counteract the virus's spread. It has also spurred the need for two-way digitalised communication between the executives and stakeholders. The new situation also required collaborative approaches in the forms of partnerships, joint initiatives and programmes to ensure employee safety and help communities recover from the social and economic impacts of the pandemic.

This study links SC with integrated reporting (IR) and contributes to the literature by providing new insights into how SCPs have been applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. This discussion suggests that whereas these principles determine how the companies must act to satisfy stakeholders expectations, integrating reporting may help develop a report that is stakeholder-oriented and which responds to their information needs.

Stakeholder theory understands business in terms of relationships among stakeholders whose interests are mainly joint but may be occasionally conflicting. In the latter case, managers may need to make trade-offs between these interests. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of managerial decision-making about these trade-offs.

This paper draws on the ordonomic approach which sees business life to be rife with social dilemmas and locates the role of stakeholders in harnessing or resolving these dilemmas through engagement in rule-finding and rule-setting processes.

The ordonomic approach suggests that stakeholder interests trade-offs ought to be neither ignored nor avoided, but rather embraced and welcomed as an opportunity for bringing to fruition the joint interest of stakeholders in playing a better game of business. Stakeholders are shown to bear responsibility for overcoming the perceived trade-offs through the institutional management of social dilemmas.

For many stakeholder theorists, the nature of managerial decision-making about trade-offs between conflicting stakeholder interests and the nature of trade-offs themselves have been a long-standing point of contention. The paper shows that trade-offs may be useful for the value creation process and explicitly discusses managerial strategies for dealing with them.

Transaction cost economics sees a broad spectrum of governance structures spanned by two types of economic adaptation: autonomous and cooperative. Stakeholder theorists have drawn much inspiration from transaction cost economics but have not paid explicit attention to the centrality of the idea of adaptation in this literature. This study aims to address this gap.

The authors develop a novel conceptual framework applying the distinction between the two types of economic adaptation to stakeholder theory.

The authors argue that the idea of cooperative adaptation is particularly useful for describing the firm’s collaboration with primary stakeholders in the joint value creation process. In contrast, autonomous adaptation is more relevant for firms interacting with secondary stakeholders who are not directly engaged in joint value creation and may not have formal contractual relationships with the firm. Accordingly, cooperative adaptation can be seen as vital for resolving team production problems affecting joint value creation, whereas autonomous adaptation addresses how the firm maintains legitimacy within the larger stakeholder environment.

Similar to its significance for transaction cost economics, the distinction between the two types of adaptation equips stakeholder theory with a new systematic understanding of a potentially broad spectrum of firm–stakeholder collaboration forms.

The paper aims to explore the effect of stakeholder pressure on the disclosure of key performance indicators (KPIs) and the patterns of this disclosure in large public interest entities (PIEs).

The study is based on the content analysis of the disclosures provided by 169 large (PIEs) operating in Poland in 2019. The data was hand-collected from the companies’ non-financial statements. The research hypotheses were empirically tested with the use of linear regression.

The explanation for the disclosure of KPIs can be found in stakeholder theory, operationalized by stakeholder pressure linked to industry. In line with the expectations, business-related KPIs are disclosed by companies operating in industries with high pressure from investors, environment-related KPIs are presented by companies operating in environmentally sensitive industries and companies operating in industries with high pressure from employees disclose society-related KPIs. According to the results of the study, reporting on employee-related KPIs is accompanied by environmental and social KPI disclosures.

The study contributes to the literature on corporate non-financial disclosures as it provides new insights into non-financial KPI disclosures in a new and relatively unexplored institutional setting established by the Directive 2014/95/EU. While researchers recognize the stakeholders’ environmental and social concerns, there is nevertheless a lack of understanding of their implications for KPIs in measuring social practice. The research fills that gap by addressing the specific impact of different stakeholder groups on the disclosure of KPIs.

Companies must no longer just report on corporate sustainability (CS) performance but also demonstrate that they are aligning their strategies with sustainability. However, suitable management control systems (MCS) are required to implement a sustainability strategy. Thereby, sustainability reporting (SR) can also be employed for control purposes. On the other hand, existing MCS can be used to develop SR that goes beyond accountability. Accordingly, this paper explores how this interplay can be designed.

For the study, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with persons from ATX and DAX companies. Since the interplay should be examined from a holistic control perspective, the authors used the MCS package of Malmi and Brown as an analysis framework.

Nowadays, merely focusing on reporting is too narrow a view. It is therefore not surprising that the investigation was able to reveal various possible linkages between MCS and SR that span the full range of the MCS package of Malmi and Brown.

Future research should also consider non-listed companies to investigate potential differences and take a closer look at the proposed reciprocal nature of the interplay.

The findings expand the knowledge of how companies can use SR for control purposes and how existing MCS can help develop a reporting that goes beyond accountability.

The study contributes by highlighting the potential of SR to control CS performance from a holistic MCS perspective and likewise the impact of existing MCS on reporting. In addition, different theoretical perspectives are used to explain why the interplay can be designed differently in practice.