Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse how secondary stakeholders influence managerial decision-making on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure. Based on stakeholder salience theory, we empirically investigate whether differences in environmental disclosure among companies are systematically related to differences in the level of power, urgency and legitimacy of the environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with which these companies are confronted. Using proprietary archival data for an international sample of 199 large companies, our results suggest that differences in environmental disclosures between companies are mainly associated with differences between their environmental stakeholders' legitimacy. The effects of power and urgency are of an indirect nature, as they are mediated by legitimacy. This study improves our understanding of CSR disclosure by demonstrating that, next to the welldocumented effect of company characteristics, stakeholder characteristics are also important. Besides, it provides scarce empirical evidence that not only primary stakeholders, but also secondary stakeholders are influential with regards to management decision-making. And more specifically, it offers insight into why some stakeholder groups are better able to influence disclosure decisions than other. The results also have important practical implications for managers of both environmental NGOs and large companies. For managers of environmental NGOs the results provide evidence of the most successful tactics for having their environmental information demands satisfied by companies. For company management the results provide insights into the most important stakeholder characteristics, on the basis of which they may develop strategies for proactively disclosing environmental information.

The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports

“…In the recent development of accountability and reporting processes, we have seen not only a transition from financial to nonfinancial reporting but also a changeover from a mono‐stakeholder (shareholders) to a multistakeholder model of strategic management (of which reporting is an essential part; Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, ). Very important international standards and guidelines (e.g., AA1000, GRI Standards, IR framework) have led this change towards an efficient nonfinancial disclosure and stress the importance of a full consideration and real engagement of stakeholders (Boesso, Favotto, & Michelon, ; Boesso & Kumar, ; Mitchell, Agle, Chrisman, & Spence, ; Thijssens, Bollen, & Hassink, ). Jones () has tried to enhance and enrich Freeman's Stakeholder Theory by offering an Instrumental Stakeholder Theory “built on an integration of the stakeholder concept, economic concepts (agency theory, transaction cost economics, and team production theory), insights from behavioural science, and ethics.…”

Who should take the responsibility? Stakeholders' power over social responsibility issues in construction projects

“…This research shows district councils in Hong Kong act as the agents for communities to advocate legitimate requirements in construction projects. In much literature, NGOs are regarded as one of the most important driving forces for SR introduction and implementation (Thijssens et al, 2015). In Hong Kong, there are numbers of NGOs established for almost every social issue with different scales and influences.…”

Changes in stakeholder dynamics and salience during a mining disaster

“…Secondary stakeholders hold an indirect stake in the organisation yet can still be influential in that they can influence or affect, or be influenced or affected by, the organisation (Thijssens, Bollen & Hassink, 2015). However, they are not essential to the survival of the organisation (Clarkson, 1995).…”