Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
The Limitations of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A Philosophy at Odds with Its Surroundings Read chapter Read first chapter

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Stakeholder Politics: Why Knowing More Can Also Mean Doing Less

Author : Ivan Hilliard

Published in: Coherency Management

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter starts by analyzing the pros and cons of a stakeholder approach. It looks at different communication tools, principally non-financial reporting, used to manage the dialogue companies maintain with different stakeholder groups. It explains the limits of this type of tool and why they fail to improve overall responsible behavior. It then identifies why any organization serious about their approach to social responsibility must change current stakeholder dialogue practices and outlines how they can do so in a more coherent way.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Organizational Autocracy: How the Democratic Wave Passed Over the Organization
next chapter Organizational Squares: How Straight Lines Limit Vision
Footnotes
1
They interestingly note that this definition highlights the confusion that sometimes exist between stakeholder management and business ethics, as with the former, the success of one company will invariably impact negatively on a competitor, whereas with the latter, positive performance should have a positive effect on other competitors in the same sector.
 
2
As indicated by the use of the descriptive adjective framework.
 
3
GRI reports have now been published by organization representing 37 different sectors of the economy, ranging from Universities and Non-profit organizations to Waste management and Financial Services (GRI Database, n.d.).
 
4
The same applies to most stakeholder communication and dialogue. It is rare to find a corporate responsibility initiative without continual nods to the idea of sustainability and sustainable development.
 
5
Due to the importance of stakeholder theory within the world of responsible management, any organization claiming a heightened sense of responsibility to multiple stakeholders, yet not carrying on a regular dialogue with such groups, would be questioned. Scholars and practitioners alike would find it hard to accept such a declaration and would likely insist upon additional information to enable them to understand such an organization. It would not have meaning for thought or be clearly perceivable.
 
6
Not just suppliers of materials, but also capital, energy, logistics etc.
 
7
This is not a one-way relationship, where the organization looks for stakeholders who share its philosophy and way of doing business, and if that is not the case, seeks to impose their responsible policies upon them. Each organization is at the center of its own network, but must be aware that their stakeholders have their own network view of the world. This is important both due to the need for relationships of genuine respect, but also due to the important knowledge each one can provide to the organization.
 
8
There are exceptions, of course, such as the American clothing and outdoor equipment firm, Patagonia, who genuinely try to balance their different stakeholder concerns, while being honest enough to admit that they often fail to do so effectively. The fact that they are an exception speaks for itself.
 
9
Yet the mechanisms and knowledge exist both internally and through working with knowledge brokers such as NGOs, civil groups, and international agencies.
 
10
Do plastics that the organization uses to package its products end up in the sea? Yes. Does it require dialogue with future generations to understand this? No. Is the organization taking responsibility for this and genuinely trying to eliminate it?
 
11
A friend you never see or talk to because they are always too busy working, in the normal sense of friendship, stops providing any of the value usually associated with friendship—companionship, opportunities to talk over problems, someone to share hobbies and interests with, etc.
 
12
Human existence would long have since petered out if most people were only capable of being a good parent or a good defender of their community or a good provider.
 
Literature
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122.CrossRef
Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure, success and a reconceptualization. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(5), 557–588.CrossRef
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable? London: Earthscan.
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.CrossRef
Bowen, F. E., Cousins, P. D., Lamming, R. C., & Farukt, A. C. (2001). The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Management, 10(2), 174–189.CrossRef
Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.CrossRef
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review Archive, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRef
Cramer, J. (2005). Company learning about corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(4), 255–266.CrossRef
Creech, H., & Willard, T. (2001). Strategic intentions: managing knowledge networks for sustainable development. Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 127–141.CrossRef
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The new transnationalism: Transnational governance and democratic legitimacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.CrossRef
Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701–719.CrossRef
Elias, A. A., & Cavana, R. Y. (2000). Stakeholder analysis for systems thinking and modeling. Conference paper, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5), 1092–1107.CrossRef
Fonseca, A. (2010). How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the International Council on Mining and Metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 355–370.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (pp. 189–207). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173–178). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Garcia-Castro, R., & Francoeur, C. (2016). When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 406–424.CrossRef
Graham, M. (2002). Democracy by disclosure: The rise of technopopulism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2002). Sustainability reporting: Who’s kidding whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 81(6), 66–70.
GRI. (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines, Version 3.1. Global Reporting Initiative.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.CrossRef
Hawken, P. (2009). The ecology of commerce. The Top 50 Sustainability Books, 1(116), 91–94.
Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization and Environment, 27(4), 328–346.CrossRef
Huang, C.-L., & Kung, F.-H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435–451.CrossRef
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2000). Is it ethical to use ethics as strategy? In Business challenging business ethics: New instruments for coping with diversity in international business (pp. 21–31). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.CrossRef
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management, 7(3), 297–317.CrossRef
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.CrossRef
Kim, S., Park, J.-H., & Wertz, E. K. (2010). Expectation gaps between stakeholders and web-based corporate public relations efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 corporate web sites. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 215–221.CrossRef
Kitchin, T. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A brand explanation. The Journal of Brand Management, 10(4), 312–326.CrossRef
Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & De Jong, M. (2010). The Contested politics of corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.CrossRef
Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437–459.CrossRef
Milne, M. J., Ball, A., & Gray, R. (2008). Wither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the institutionalization of corporate sustainability reporting. American Accounting Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Morsing, M. (2006). Drivers of corporate social responsibility in SMEs. International Conference on CSR in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Copenhagen Business School.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 57–64.
Paquette, S., & Wiseman, E. (2006). Knowledge for sustainable development: The role of knowledge networks and organizational learning. AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, 215.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.CrossRef
Polonsky, M. J., & Jevons, C. (2006). Understanding issue complexity when building a socially responsible brand. European Business Review, 18(5), 340–349.CrossRef
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), 6–28.CrossRef
Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–59.
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.CrossRef
Rees, W. E. (2002). Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 22(4), 249–268.CrossRef
Tam, H. (1998). Communitarianism: A new agenda for politics and citizenship. New York: New York University Press.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 57–69.CrossRef
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., et al. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266–9271.CrossRef
Williams, C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Metadata
Title
Stakeholder Politics: Why Knowing More Can Also Mean Doing Less
Author
Ivan Hilliard
Copyright Year
2019
Book
Coherency Management

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13522-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-13523-2

Copyright Year: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13523-2_5