How Do European SME Owner–Managers Make Sense of ‘Stakeholder Management’?: Insights from a Cross-National Study

Schlierer, Hans Jörg; Werner, Andrea; Signori, Silvana; Garriga, Elisabeth; Høivik, Heidi von Weltzien; Rossem, Annick Van; Fassin, Yves

doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1378-3

Cited by 49 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have shown that differences in national contextual factors resulted in the variation in CSR practices in general and CSR disclosure, in particular (Adams et al, ; Laan Smith et al, ; Matten & Moon, ; Jackson & Apostolakou, ). Most notably, comparative institutional studies have revealed substantial differences between the United States and Europe in terms of the effects of the national institutional context on CSR (Doh & Guay, ; Matten & Moon, ; Sison, ), while others also found significant institutional variation between European countries (Schlierer et al, ; Fassin et al, ; Knudsen et al, ). Laan Smith et al .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have shown that differences in national contextual factors resulted in the variation in CSR practices in general and CSR disclosure, in particular Laan Smith et al, 2005;Matten & Moon, 2008;Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010). Most notably, comparative institutional studies have revealed substantial differences between the United States and Europe in terms of the effects of the national institutional context on CSR (Doh & Guay, 2006;Matten & Moon, 2008;Sison, 2009), while others also found significant institutional variation between European countries (Schlierer et al, 2012;Fassin et al, 2015;Knudsen et al, 2015). Laan Smith et al (2005) conducted a comparative CSR disclosure study of Norway/Denmark and the United States and found that contextual factors (i.e., ownership structures, governance systems, and cultural systems) resulted in a significant variation in CSR disclosure…”

Section: General Contextual Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review

Ali

Frynas

Mahmood

2017

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

725

653

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a survey and content analysis of 76 empirical research articles, this article reviews the factors driving Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure in both developed and developing countries. We find that firm characteristics such as company size, industry sector, profitability, and corporate governance mechanisms predominantly appear to drive the CSR reporting agenda. Furthermore, political, social, and cultural factors influence the CSR disclosure agenda. We find crucial differences between the determinants of CSR disclosure in developed and developing countries. In developed countries, the concerns of specific stakeholders, for example, regulators, shareholders, creditors, investors, environmentalists and the media are considered very important in disclosing CSR information. In developing countries, CSR reporting is more heavily influenced by the external forces/powerful stakeholders such as international buyers, foreign investors, international media and international regulatory bodies (e.g. the World Bank). Furthermore, in contrast to developed countries, firms in developing countries perceive relatively little pressure from the public with regards to CSR disclosure. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Contextual Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review

Ali

Frynas

Mahmood

2017

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

725

653

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implicit in the role of management of a firm is the distribution of created value among a variety of stakeholders (Schlierer et al 2012). Managers must balance the interests of the firm and a diverse array of stakeholders, some of which may have interests that conflict with those of the firm (Kujala et al 2012).…”

Section: Stakeholder Responses To Inequity In the Firmstakeholder Relmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivators of Mobilization

Hayibor

Collins

2015

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the possibility that a firm's stakeholders may take damaging measures against it in response to its activities has been an underlying assumption of stakeholder theory from inception, the conditions that predispose stakeholders to act against firms remain largely unexplored in the literature. Based on work in equity theory, expectancy theory, and resource dependence theory, we present and test hypotheses concerning stakeholders' propensities to impose sanctions upon-or to supportfirms. Using a vignette-based experiment, we found strong confirmation of the criticality of fairness in the firm-stakeholder relationship: stakeholder equity perceptions were unequivocally associated with the proclivity to sanction the firm, or to engage in prosocial behaviours of benefit to it. Stakeholder expectancy perceptions and resource dependence were related to only certain forms of stakeholder action, indicating that researchers should take care to differentiate between types of stakeholder response when investigating questions surrounding stakeholder mobilization. Our results also suggest specific avenues for stakeholder dialogue that could help firms mitigate the likelihood of stakeholders taking damaging action against them.

show abstract

“…Literature suggests that an SME's good practices are often transferable across sectors, because of shared experiences and similar organisational issues e.g. lack of resources and consequent need to network with other individuals and groups to access these resources (Schlierer et al, 2012). …”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%