Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relevance of Nationality and Industry for Stakeholder Salience: An Investigation Through Integrated Reports

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this research is to investigate the web of business-stakeholder relationships emerging from first integrated reports. Drawn from the stakeholder salience theory, the analysis focuses on some factors that may cause specific stakeholders to be crucial for some organizations and their ability to create value over time. More precisely, findings highlight the importance of industry membership, while entities’ nationality seems not to be a differentiating element. This study contributes to the corporate disclosure literature by analyzing an emerging reporting tool, the integrated report, and demonstrating that the link between some business characteristics and stakeholder salience seems fundamental for the representation of the impact of corporate social and environmental responsibilities on the economic performance. From a practical point of view, the impact of industry membership on corporate disclosures encourages the drafting of differentiated reporting standards across sectors, in order to improve comparability, materiality, and reliability of information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard developed and used by Statistical Agencies of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. in order to classify business entities for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data with regard to their activities and the related countries’ economies. The NAICS is generally considered a good support base for research activities (Lovelock and Wirtz 2007); for these contribution purposes, it was used since, to the best of our knowledge, no other international classification system identifies so clearly environmentally sensitive industries

Abbreviations

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

IIRC:

International Integrated Reporting Council

References

  • ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) (2011). Adoption of integrated reporting by the ASX 50. December.

  • Adams, C. A., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe. Legitimating corporate behavior? The British Accounting Review, 30(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, S., & Simnett, R. (2011). Integrated reporting: An opportunity for Australia’s not-for-profit sector. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 292–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A., Herring, P., & Pawlicki, A. (2005). EBR: The next step. Journal of Accountancy, 199(6), 71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, V., Bedard, J. C., Phillips, J., & Sutton, S. G. (2009). Understanding professional and non-professional investors’ information requirements. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from www.finrafoundation.org.

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C., Campbell, D., & Shrives, P. (2002). Content analysis in environmental reporting research. Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Glencoe Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, G. C., Hilary, G., & Verdi, R. S. (2009). How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(2–3), 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the twenty-first century (Vol. 6). Washington DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2009). Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and US. Accounting Forum, 33, 162–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutin-Dufresne, F., & Savaria, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. Journal of Investing, 13(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(7–8), 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busco, C., Frigo, M. L., Riccaboni, A., & Quattrone, P. (Eds.). (2013). Integrated reporting. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, C. S., Cooper, D. J., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (2009). Accounting, organizations and institutions: Essays in honor of Anthony Hopwood. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christofi, A., Christofi, P., & Sisaye, S. (2012). Corporate sustainability: Historical development and reporting practices. Management Research Review, 35(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core, J. E. (2001). A review of the empirical disclosure literature: Discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrill, M. T. (1990). Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(9), 723–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2006). Financial accounting theory. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. (2011). Integrated reporting: A better view? Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://www.iasplus.com.

  • Donaldson, T. (1999). Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, S., Burritt, R., & Quian, W. (2014). Salient stakeholder in corporate social responsibility reporting by Chinese mining and mineral companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Cheng, B., & Saltzman, D. (Eds.). (2010a). The landscape of integrated reporting: Reflections and next steps. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2010b). One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., & Serafeim, G. (2011). Leading and lagging countries in contributing to a sustainable society. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/leading-and-lagging-countries-in-contributing-to-a-sustainable-society.

  • Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L., & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(8), 1032–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat-OECD. (2012). Eurostat-OECD methodological manual on purchasing power parities. Luxembourg.

  • Everaert, P., Bouten, L., VanLiedekerke, L., De Moor, L., & Christiaens, J. (2007). Voluntary disclosures of corporate social responsibility by Belgian listed firms. A content analysis of annual reports. Research paper No. 29. Hogeschool: University of Brussel.

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, G. R., & Wilmshurst, T. D. (2000). The adoption of environment-related management accounting: An analysis of corporate environment sensitivity. Accounting Forum, 24(4), 344–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gago, R. F., & Antolin, M. N. (2004). Stakeholder salience in corporate environmental strategy. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenley, G. E., Hooley, G. J., Broderick, A. J., & Rud, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning differences among different multiple stakeholder orientation profile. Journal of Strategic Management, 12(3), 163–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Abeysekera, J. (2006). Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: What is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 10(2), 114–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamid, F. (2004). Corporate social disclosure by banks and finance companies: Malaysian evidence. Corporate Ownership & Control, 1(4), 118–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1994). Strategic management of organizations and stakeholders. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B., & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing stakeholder relations with environmental stakeholders: A study of UK water and electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. J. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and capital markets: A review of the empirical Italian disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 405–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IIRC and Black Sun. (2014). Realizing the benefits: The impact of integrated reporting. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from www.theiirc.org.

  • IIRC and Black Sun. (2015). The integrated reporting journey: The inside story. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from www.theiirc.org.

  • ICAA (Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia). (2011). Integrating sustainability into business practice: A case study approach.

  • IFAC (International Federation of Accountants). (2008). Financial reporting supply chain: Current perspectives and directions. New York.

  • IIRC. (2011). Towards integrated reporting: communicating value in the 21st century. Discussion paper.

  • IIRC. (2012). Capturing the experiences of global businesses and investors. The pilot programme 2012 yearbook. www.theiirc.org.

  • IIRC. (2013). The international IR framework. www.theiirc.org.

  • Initiative for Responsible Investment (IRI). (2010). From transparency to performance: Industry-Based sustainability reporting on key issues. Cambridge.

  • Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose, A., & Lee, S. M. (2007). Environmental reporting of global corporations: A content analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, O., Brown, D., Sivabalan, P., & Sundin, H. (2015). Accounting information and shifting stakeholder salience: An industry level approach. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 12(2), 172–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2005). Sustainability reporting. VBA Journal, 21(3), 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011), Integrated reporting. Performance insight through better business reporting. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from www.kpmg.com/integratedreporting.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laan, G., Ees, H. V., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves US. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A., & Weber, J. (2008). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (12th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., & Kolk, A. (2002). Strategic responses to global climate change: Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and Politics, 4(3), 275–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodhia, S. (2015). Exploring the transition to integrated reporting through a practice lens: An Australian customer owned bank perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 585–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and financial firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 12(2), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Angle, B. R., Chrisman, J. J., & Spence, L. J. (2011). Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Angle, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitnick, B. M. (2000). Commitment, revelation and the testaments of belief: The metrics of measurement of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39(4), 419–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the UK supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2008). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T., Parola, F., Satta, G., & Penco, L. (2015). Disclosure as a tool in stakeholder relations management: A longitudinal study on the Port of Rotterdam. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(3), 228–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novetich. (2010). European asset owners: ESG perceptions and integration practices. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.forum-ng.org/images/stories/nachhaltige_geldanlagen/esg_survey_2010.pdf.

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 523–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocean Tomo. (2015). Components of S&P 500 market value. http://www.oceantomo.com.

  • Odgen, S., & Watson, R. (1999). Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing stakeholder and customer interests in the UK privatized water industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 526–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 842–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlicki, A. (2014). A global framework for measuring and reporting on intellectual assets and capital. KPIs, non-financial information and corporate value creation. In Proceedings of the WICI Italy—NIBR International Seminar, Milan.

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield: Pitman Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozen Commmittee. (2008). Final report of the advisory committee on improvements to financial reporting to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington.

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). Guide to key performance indicators: Communicating the measures that matter. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from www.corporatereporting.com.

  • Radley Yeldar. (2012). The value of extra financial disclosure: What investors and analysts said. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://www.globalreporting.org.

  • Sachs, S., Maurer, M., Rűhli, E., & Hoffmann, R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility for a “stakeholder view” perspective: CSR implementation by a swiss mobile telecommunication provider. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: From the for-itself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), 541–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., & Huggins, A. L. (2015). Integrated reporting and assurance: Where can research add value? Sustainability, Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1), 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturdivantm, F. D., & Ginter, J. L. (1977). Corporate social responsiveness. Management attitudes and economic performance. California Management Review, 19(3), 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashman, P., & Raelin, J. (2013). Who and what really matters to the firm: Moving stakeholder salience beyond managerial perceptions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(4), 591–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. (2015). Secondary stakeholder influence on CSR disclosure: An application of stakeholder salience theory. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2623-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues—Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. (1997). Finding the link between stakeholder relations and quality of management. Journal of Investing, 6(4), 20–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J., & Marley, K. A. (2012). In search of stakeholder salience: Exploring corporate social and sustainability reports. Business and Society, 51(4), 626–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 survey results. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westrenius, A., & Barnes, L. (2015). Managing complex business relationships: Small business and stakeholder salience. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(6), 481–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, D. G., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (1996). Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management, 7(4), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadec, S., Evans, R., & Pruzan, P. (Eds.). (2013). Building corporate accountability: Emerging practices in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. School of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Bologna, Piazzale della Vittoria 15, 47121, Forlì, FC, Italy

      Cristina Gianfelici

    2. BilanciaRSI Value - Research Centre on Corporate Social Responsibility, Via Vincenzo Monti 8, Milan, MI, 20123, Italy

      Andrea Casadei & Federica Cembali

    Authors
    1. Cristina Gianfelici
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Andrea Casadei
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Federica Cembali
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Cristina Gianfelici.

    Additional information

    Although the research design and the present paper are the outcome of all the authors’ synergic contribution, “Conclusions” section is credited to Andrea Casadei and “Reporting Tools” section is credited to Federica Cembali, while all the other sections are credited to Cristina Gianfelici.

    Appendix 1

    Appendix 1

    Table 6.

    Table 6 List of the reporting organizations
    Full size table

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Gianfelici, C., Casadei, A. & Cembali, F. The Relevance of Nationality and Industry for Stakeholder Salience: An Investigation Through Integrated Reports. J Bus Ethics 150, 541–558 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3194-7

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3194-7

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation