Who matters to UK and German firms? Modelling stakeholder salience through corporate social reports
Amaeshi, Kenneth (2007) Who matters to UK and German firms? Modelling stakeholder salience through corporate social reports. Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. (Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)).
WRAP_Amaeshi_wp22707.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/wo...
Drawing from a longitudinal study of stakeholder salience in the UK and Germany, using data from corporate social reports and relying on the varieties of capitalism theoretical framework, we found that investors and employees came top on UK list while collaborative networks (including suppliers and alliances) and management were top on German list of important stakeholders. This finding suggests that stakeholder salience, to a large extent, reflects dominant characteristics of UK and Germany capitalist systems, respectively and gives further credence to the embedded nature argument of corporate stake-holding practices.
|Item Type:||Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)|
|Subjects:||H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Corporate governance -- Great Britain, Corporate governance -- Germany, Social accounting -- Great Britain, Social accounting -- Germany, Capitalism, Stockholders -- Attitudes -- Great Britain, Stockholders -- Attitudes -- Germany|
|Series Name:||Working papers (University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)|
|Publisher:||University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation|
|Place of Publication:||Coventry|
|Number of Pages:||38|
|Status:||Not Peer Reviewed|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|References:||Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K. and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values, The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5):507-525 Aguilera, R. and Jackson, G. (2003). The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants, Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M. and Rupp, D. E. (2006). Corporate governance and social responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(3)147-158 Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Amaeshi, K. M. and Adi, B. (2007). Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in Utlish. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1):3-18 Anderson, C. J. and Imperia, G. (1992). The corporate annual report: A photo analysis of male and female portrayals. Journal of Business Communication, 29:113-128 Ball, A., Owen, D. L. and Gray, R. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9:1-23 Belal, A. R. (2002). Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management: a review of UK firms’ social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9:8-25 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books. Beveridge, O. M. (1963). Endangered public relations. New York:McGraw-Hill Bonoma, T. V (1985). Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal of Marketing Research, 22:199-208 Borsch, A. (2004). Globalisation, shareholder value, restructuring: the (non)-transformation of Siemens. New Political Economy, 9(3):365-387 Brown, J. and Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: an overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15:103-117 Brown, N. and Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information – a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1):21-41 Burgess, J. (1990). The production and consumption of environmental meanings in the mass media: a research agenda for the 1990s. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 15:139-161 Buzby, S. L. and Falk, H. (1978). A survey of the interest in social responsibility information by mutual funds. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 3(3/4):191-201 Buzby, S. L. and Falk, H. (1979). Demand for social responsibility information by university investors. The Accounting Review, LIV(1):23-37 Cooper, D. J. and Essex, S. R. (1977). Accounting information and employee decision making. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 2(3):201-217 Cormier, D., and Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1):43-62 Cormier, D., Magnan, M., and van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14(1):3-49 Crane A, and Livesey S. (2003). Are You Talking to Me? Stakeholder Communication and the Risks and Rewards of Dialogue. In Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking vol II: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance, Andriof J, Waddock, S, Rahman S S, Husted B (eds). Sheffield: Greenleaf; 39-52. Crouch, C, (2005). Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, Oxford University Press Crouch, C. (2006) Modelling the Firm in its Market and Organizational Environment: Methodologies for Studying Corporate Social Responsibility. Organization Studies, 27:1533-51 Dahan, N., Doh, J., and Guay, T. (2006).The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective. Human Relations, 59(11):1571-1600. Dando N, and Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance: minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3): 195-200. David, C. (2001). Mythmaking in Annual Reports. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.2001; 15: 195-222 Delaney, D. (2001). Making Nature/Marking Humans: Law as a Site of (Cultural) Production, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(3):487–503. Ferree, M. M. and Hall, E.. (1990). Visual Images of American Society: Gender and Race in Introductory Sociology Text-books. Gender and Society 4:500-33 DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160 Donaldson T, and Preston L E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of management review 20:65-91 Dore, R. ( 2000). Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism, Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dougherty, D. and Kunda, G. (1991). Photograph analysis: a method to capture organisational belief systems. In Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), Symbols and Artefacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 185–206. Driekes, M. and Antal, A. B. (1985). The usefulness and use of social reporting information. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1):29-34 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4):532-50 Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233- 236 Gago R F, Antolin M N. 2004. Stakeholder salience in corporate environmental strategy. Corporate Governance 4(3):65-76 Gallant, D. (1988, July). The wacky world of Sid Cato. Institution Investor, pp. 67-70 Geppert, M., Matten, D., and Walgenbach, P. (2006). Transnational institution building and the multinational corporation: An emerging field of research Human Relations, 59: 1451-1465. Giddens, A. (1984).The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Goffman, E. (1979).Gender Advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3):481-510 Gray, R. (2001). Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1):9-15 Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and Accounting, Organizations and Society: privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27:687-708 Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., Zadek, S. (1997). ‘Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 325-365 Gray, R., Kouhy, R., and Lavers, S. (1995a). Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2:47- 77 Gray, R., Kouhy, R., and Lavers, S. (1995b). Methodological themes: constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2:78-101 Gray, R., Owen, D., & Maunders, K. (1988). Corporate social reporting: emerging trends in accountability and the social contract. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 1(1), 6–20 Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press. Gulati, R. (1998).Alliances and networks, Strategic Management Journal, 19(4): 293-317 Gulati, R., Nohria, N., and Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 203-215 Guthey, E. and Jackson, B., (2005). CEO Portraits and the Authenticity Paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 42:5 1057 Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D.(Eds) (2001). Varieties of Capitalism – The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In: Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis, P. (Eds) Culture, media, language (Hutchinson, London) pp128 – 138 Hammersley, M. (2005). Ethnography: potential, practice, and problems. Qualitative Research Methodology Seminar Series, sponsored by the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton, January, 2005 Hershman, A., and Knecht, G. B. (1981, June). The costly new look in annual reports. Duns Review, pp. 62-63 Hollingsworth, R., Boyer, R. (Eds.), 1997. Contemporary Capitalism. The Embeddedness of Institutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management – new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27:55-68 Hopwood, A. G. (1994). Accounting and everyday life: An introduction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3):299-301 Hopwood, A. G. and Miller, P. (Eds.). (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Hussey, J. and Hussey, R. (1997). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Macmillan: London Jackson, G. (2005). Stakeholders under pressure: corporate governance and labour management in Germany and Japan. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(3):419-428 Jose, A. and Lee, S. (2007). Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A Content Analysis based on Website Disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4):307-321 Kang, N. (2006). A Critique of the “Varieties of Capitalism” Approach. ICCSR working paper series, number 46 Nottingham University Business School http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/pdf/ResearchPdfs/45-2006.pdf Kochan, T. A. and Rubinstein, S. A. (2000). Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership. Orgnization Science, 11(4):367-386 Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5):279-291 Kolk, A., Walhain, S., and van de Wateringen, S. (2001). Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global 250: exploring the influence of nationality and sector. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1):15-28 Korhonen, J. (2002). The dominant economics paradigm and corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 9, 67–80 Korten, D. C (2004). The responsibility of business to the whole http://www.flora.org/library/mai/responsibility.html visited May 09, 2007 KPMG (2005). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/060403/kpmgsurvey2005_en.pdf visited May 09, 2007 Krippendorff, K (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, London Langlois, C.C., and B.B. Schlegelmilch (1990) Do Corporate Codes of Ethics Reflect National Character? Evidence from Europe and the United States’, Journal of International Business Studies 21.4: 519-39. Lawrence, T. B. and Suddaby, R. (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies, 2nd Edition: 215-254. London: Sage. Lindblom, C.K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure, paper presented to the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, NY Lober, D. J., Bynum, D., Campbell, E. and Jacques, M. (1997). The 100 plus corporate environmental report study: A survey of an evolving environmental management tool. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6(2):57-73 Lotila, P. (2004). Communicating corporate social responsibility – reporting practice in retailing. Turku School of Economics and Business Administration discussion and working paper series. ISSN: 1459-7632 (PDF) 0357-4687 (nid) Lutz, C. A. and Collins, J. L. (1993). Reading National Geographic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Maignan, I. (2001) ‘Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 30: 57-72. Matten, D and Moon, J. (forthcoming). ’Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR - A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review Milne, M. J. and Chan, C. C. C. (1999). Narrative corporate social disclosures: how much of a difference do they make to investment decision-making? The British Accounting Review, 31(4):439-457 Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D. 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853-86 Munro, R. (1996). Alignment and identity work: the study of accounts and accountability. In Munro, Rolland and Mouritsen, Jan (eds.), Accountability- Power, Ethos & the Technologies of Managing. London: Thompson Business Press Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D., and Gray, R. (2006). Do financial markets care about social and environmental disclosure?: Further evidence and exploration from the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(2):228-255 Neu, D., Warsame, H., and Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organisations, and Society 23(3):265-282 O_Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), 406–436. O_Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557. O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: a case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30:279–296 Ogden, S. and Clarke, J. (2005). Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: Corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(3):313-345 Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C. and Bowerman, M. C. (2000). The new social audits: accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1):81-98 Owen, D.L., Swift, T. and Hunt, K. (2001).Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Accounting Forum, 25(3):264-282 Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London: Routledge Pfeffer J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Boston, MA:Pitman Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29:635-652 Powell W. W., and DiMaggio, P J. (1991). The New Institutionalism of Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Power, M. (1991). Auditing and environmentalism expertise: between protest and professionalism. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4:30-42Aguilera, R. V. and Jackson, G. (2003). The Cross-national Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants, Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 447–465. Preston, A. M. and Young, J. J. (1996). Imag[in]ing annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(1):113-137 Preston, A. M. and Young, J. J. (2000). Constructing the global corporation and corporate constructions of the global: a picture essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25:427-449 Proctor, J. D. (1998).The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical Realist Responses, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (3), 352–376. Rivelli, W. (1984). Photography: The key to a successful annual report.|
Actions (login required)