The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies Laura Maria Ferri a, *, Matteo Pedrini b, Viviana Pilato b
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ALTIS e Graduate School Business & Society, Via San Vittore 18, 20123 Milan, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Universita Italy b
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ALTIS e Graduate School Business & Society, Via San Vittore 18, 20123 Milan, Italy Faculty of Economics, Universita a

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 15 July 2014 Received in revised form 7 October 2015 Accepted 26 January 2016 Available online xxx

The emphasis on the role of stakeholder dialogue in managerial systems has recently increased in the extant literature, but empirical evidence on the determinants of stakeholder dialogue initiatives is still fragmented. This paper applies institutional theory to analyze the stakeholder dialogue practices realized by companies. It proposes a broader perspective on its pattern of development. The study is based on an analysis of 2797 SD initiatives realized by 418 companies listed in the FTSE4Good Global index on December 31st 2011 from 20 different countries (in Europe, North America, and Asia). The findings confirm the existence of distinctions among the stakeholder dialogue realized by companies in different national institutional contexts. Thus, it is suggested that SD should not be intended only as a voluntary, but firms should recognize it as a necessary managerial practice to build a broad information base useful to align sustainability performance and managerial systems to the institutional context where the company operates. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stakeholder dialogue Corporate social responsibility Institutional theory Europe North America Japan

1. Introduction Recent studies have debated the role of stakeholder engagement in integrating sustainability managerial systems from both an internal (Betts et al., 2015; Asif et al., 2013) and an extended organizational point of view (Seuring and Gold, 2013). According to stakeholder theory, a broader set of interests than shareholders' expectations surrounds organizations and the ability to meet stakeholders' demands is crucial to sustain firm legitimacy, resources availability, and competitive success (Surroca et al., 2010). Hence, the understanding of stakeholders' expectations and their subsequent integration into managerial systems is fundamental to €ngen and Zobel, 2014; drive firm sustainability performances (Rana Asif et al., 2013). The managerial role of stakeholder engagement has been supported by Greenwood (2007) who posited that it is not only a signal of responsibility toward the society, but it is also an activity through which the firm strengthens its relationships with stakeholders “in order to further corporate objectives” (p. 325). In

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 027234 8365; fax: þ39 027234 8388. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.M. Ferri), [email protected] (M. Pedrini), [email protected] (V. Pilato).

the same line of thought, other scholars in the stakeholder management field have focused on the strategic value of stakeholder engagement (Heikkurinen and Bonnedahl, 2013; Matos and Silvestre, 2013). According to these works, stakeholder engagement practices are also motivated by a need to manage risk, gain competitive advantage, better respond to stakeholders' expectations, and improve managerial control. Acknowledging the role of stakeholder engagement as a managerial practice, the present study focuses on stakeholder dialogue (SD) here defined as the interactive process of overcoming traditional communication and developing a progressive form of engagement and understanding with stakeholders, thereby transitioning to reciprocal engagement and learning (Burchell and Cook, 2013). Most of the efforts exerted around this practice have been devoted to the investigation of “how” and “why” companies should effectively operationalize SD, whereas frameworks exploring the determinants of SD approaches are absent. Studies have dealt with the process firms follow to dialogue with stakeholders, from their selection (Poplawska et al., 2015), to the mechanisms that allow filtering of the information and decisionmaking (Pedersen, 2006), and the conditions for its effectiveness €ngen and Zobel, 2014). Although centred on the internal (Rana organizational dimension of SD, these studies draw some

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100 0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

2

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

suggestions about the role and relevance of some external factors. Among others, Unerman and Bennett (2004) investigated the impact of internet SD on more democratic corporate accountability processes. They put forward the importance of meeting the stakeholders' moral standards as a key development for future empirical research. Pedersen (2006) demonstrated that SD is guided by a firm decision-making process, but the author also underlined the importance of integrating it into the surrounding context. Moving from these suggestions, this paper applies institutional theory to the study of SD. Recent studies have applied institutional theory to the sustainability realm, exploring how firms' approaches to social and environmental issues vary in contexts with different institutional characteristics (among others: Fifka and Pobizhan, 2014; Brammer et al., 2012; Matten and Moon, 2008; Albareda et al., 2007). However, little attention has been devoted to verifying whether such results hold true when sustainability principles and strategies are applied to organizational practices (Ferri et al., 2014). Thus, this paper proposes a broader perspective that will help clarify whether the pattern of development of SD depends upon the institutional characteristics of the context in which the companies operate. In so doing, the paper offers interesting insights into what factors should be considered when implementing SD. These factors must be appropriate to the surrounding contexts, and therefore, functional to provide useful information for an effective decision-making process. In order to reach this aim, 418 sustainability reports published in 2011 by companies listed in the FTSE4Good Global Index were content analyzed for a total of 36,828 scrutinized pages. This allowed the identification, classification, and comparison of 2797 SD practices realized by companies operating in different institutional contexts according to the literature (Albareda et al., 2007; Matten and Moon, 2008, 2012; Tokoro, 2007). The research offers two notable contributions. First, it contributes to the theoretical development of SD as a managerial practice. Starting from the lack of studies building on the existing managerial theoretical framework (Habisch et al., 2011), the study helps understand whether the patterns of SD also depend on the institutional context rather than exclusively on internal organizational determinants. Thus, the study furthers the understanding of the contribution SD can provide to improve management decisions and processes. Second, the paper aims at providing a contribution to the understanding of the actual dialogue between companies and their stakeholders. The review of the extant literature has shown that few studies have built on large, cross-national databases, and research has predominately adopted a theoretical perspective while empirical studies are generally missing (Habisch et al., 2011). In this sense, the paper contributes to filling the gaps between theory and practice. The paper is structured as follows. The next section outlines the theoretical background starting with a literature review of the institutional context related to sustainability in North America, Europe, and Japan. Afterward, the adopted research method and the results of the statistical analysis are described. The last two sections discuss the results in light of the theoretical background and draw the conclusions, highlighting the major understandings and limitations of the study. Implications for both scholars and practitioners are also offered. 2. Theoretical background Institutional theory has risen as a powerful theoretical framework to explain the convergence of firms' behavior toward similar practices due to influences in the external context, such as social setting, norms and regulations, political environment, history and

tradition (Matten and Moon, 2012). The extant literature suggests that institutional theory is useful to explore sustainability behaviors in different contexts. These studies stressed that social and environmental actions do not only respond to voluntariness and business-driven objectives, but also to institutional pressures coming from the context (Doh et al., 2010). Although scholars and practitioners have been underlining the role of SD as a powerful mechanism for sustainability (among others: Pedersen, 2006; Unerman and Bennett, 2004), no similar stream of research has been developed so far. Hence, based on these studies and according to the identification of SD as a crucial element in social and environmental strategies and reporting (Rinaldi et al., 2014), it is reasonable to postulate that different behaviors in SD may exist depending on the institutional context where it is carried out (Pedersen, 2006). The following paragraphs discuss the results of the review of the literature about the relationships between the institutional contexts and social and environmental behaviors. This provides a foundation for the research hypotheses to be verified through the data analysis. In light of the above-mentioned literature, the analysis starts from the following hypothesis: HP1. SD varies in the different institutional contexts in which companies operate. 2.1. North American institutional context Aaronson and Reeves (2002) evidenced a lack of governmental policies promoting sustainability in the North American context, in contrast to the European one. The authors argued that the difference is based on the respective contexts. Thus, they suggest that it is necessary to consider institutional elements in studies on sustainability. Later Matten and Moon (2008) theorized the existence of two different institutional contexts in North America and Europe. The North American context has been discussed as representative of the “explicit” approach, indicating that the commitment to social and environmental practices is the result of the corporate perception of how these issues combine social and business values. From a political point of view, the North American institutional context is characterized by minimal intervention from the government in the economy, so that sustainability is responsive to stakeholder pressures and business aims. This characteristic shapes the North American firms' behavior toward society and the environment (Maignan and Ralston, 2002). North American studies of SD evidence it contributes to achieve strategic goals. Barnett (2007) pointed out that North American firms manage SD to increase their stakeholder influence capacity in order to increase financial performance and deliver value to shareholders. Again, Habisch et al. (2011) concluded that SD in North America is the outcome of a strategic decision and the object of formalized communication. In light of the above-mentioned literature frameworks, the following hypothesis has been explored: HP2. SD by North American companies focuses more on businessrelated issues than SD in the other institutional contexts. 2.2. European institutional context Matten and Moon (2008) discussed the European institutional context as representative of the implicit approach. According to the authors, it refers to the business responsibility for collective societal and environmental needs agreed and assigned to companies in relation to the social role of business rather than defined by the strategic intent of the company. Regarding the European institutional context, another focal contribution was proposed by Albareda et al. (2007). The authors

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

showed that the European institutional context is not homogenous because different types of governmental pressures shape diverse institutional contexts around social and environmental issues. Analyzing governmental pressures in Europe, the authors proposed four cross-national models of governmental pressures. The first is the Partnership Model, which comprises Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway. This model is based on the idea of co-responsibility between administration, companies, and social organizations, is key to solving socio-employment challenges. The second is the Business in the Community Model, which is limited to the United Kingdom. It refers to soft intervention policies to encourage company involvement in governance challenges affecting the community. The third model is the Sustainability and Citizenship Model, which includes Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and Switzerland. Here, governments support companies to function as social agents, with corporate citizenship as the key strategy adopted to support their action in this sphere. The last
Model, which comprises Mediterranean counmodel is the Agora tries. On the basis of this literature, the following hypothesis was developed: HP3. Within the European context, SD varies depending on the governmental sustainability models in which it operates. 2.3. Japanese institutional context Due to the dominance of Western-oriented studies, a rich critical framework on sustainability issues in the Asian area does not exist (Rupp et al., 2006), and earlier research has underlined the need to acquire insights into this area (Choi and Aguilera, 2009). A relevant contribution has been provided by Tokoro (2007) who stated that neither the European nor the US models apply to Japanese companies. Traditionally, Japanese businesses have been considered as the basis of the society to which an individual belongs, which leads to a relationship between firms and society based on solidarity and harmony (Choi and Aguilera, 2009; Fukukawa and Moon, 2004). Accordingly, sustainability is promoted through established public guidelines (gyosei-shido), rather than enforced through norms and laws (gyosei-tetsuzuki) (Choi and Aguilera, 2009; Fukukawa and Moon, 2004). Thus, this leaves space for firms to interpret in favor of their own advantage (Witt and Redding, 2011; Wokutch and Shepard, 1999; Wokutch, 1990). For this reason, sustainability in Japan has developed around those needs promoted by the government and sensitive to society. These needs are simultaneously perceived as strictly related to the business, such as labor relations, working conditions, and the environment (Choi and Aguilera, 2009). Moreover, the succession of serious environmental pollution incidents and scandals regarding organizational environments has led companies to integrate those aspects in order to reduce business downturn. On the other hand, this has increased international pressure on the Japanese government and institutions regarding environmental and labor conditions (Fukukawa and Teramoto, 2009; Fukukawa and Moon, 2004; Wokutch, 1990). Following the discussed literature, the study investigated the following hypothesis: HP4. SD by Japanese companies focuses more on societal needs than SD in the other institutional contexts. 3. Methods This section provides an in-depth description of the research process implemented to run the study. Since the research process was complex, the following discussion explains the many steps that were undertaken in order to guarantee the solidity and significance

3

of the study. After clarifying how the sample was selected and classified, the discussion moves to a description of the two-step data analysis. First, a content analysis of the reports was run, followed by a comparison among the different sub-samples identified based on the institutional contexts in the literature. 3.1. Sample selection and classification The sample selection started from the 696 large listed firms included in the portfolio of the FTSE4Good Global Index on 12/31/ 2011. Listed companies were chosen in accordance with the extant literature, which suggests that they are more subjected to institutional pressures and highly representative of the institutional contexts (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008; Habisch et al., 2011). Furthermore, the choice of the index was taken in order to observe the behavior of those companies “demonstrating strong Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices” at the international level. Within the portfolio of the FTSE4Good Global Index, only companies with sustainability reports referring to 2011 have been considered for the study. Thus, the final sample is made up of 418 companies from 20 different countries. In line with the objectives of the study, the firms were grouped on the basis of both the institutional contexts in which they operate according to the above discussed theoretical background (see Table 1) and the industry of operation (see Table 2). 3.2. Content analysis and variables The content of the 418 collected reports (36,828 pages) was analyzed to codify a variety of information about each of the SD initiatives realized by the firms in the sample. Content analysis has been repeatedly adopted in research using sustainability reports (e.g., Campbell, 2007; Branco and Rodrigues, 2008; Holder-Webb, 2007). At the end of the content analysis, the database included a total of 2797 SD initiatives realized by the 418 analyzed firms. The distribution of the initiatives in the different institutional settings is presented in Table 1. Following Habisch et al. (2011), when a SD initiative was identified in a report, it was then coded according to three relevant dimensions: the used forms, the involved groups of stakeholders, and the discussed topics. The used forms were coded with a unique categorical variable. The involved groups of stakeholders and the topics of discussion were coded with a set of dummy variables. SD initiatives were grouped into seven different forms: (i) committees, which are stable groups meeting regularly to advise about a defined set of stakeholders' issues; (ii) conferences, which are events open to a large audience with a specific theme; (iii) contact points, which are various communication channels accessible to stakeholders to initiate dialogue with firm management; (iv) focus groups, which are meetings involving representatives of categories of stakeholders; (v) forums, which are events open to a relatively small audience involving experts and opinion leaders; (vi) interviews, which are oral consultations with individual stakeholders; and (vii) questionnaire surveys, which are written consultations with individual stakeholders. In addition, the seven categories of forms were grouped into two groups according to Morsing and Schultz (2006). Conferences, contact points, interviews, questionnaire surveys were grouped into response SD, whereas committees, focus groups, and forums were classified as involving SD. The categories of stakeholders were defined following Davenport's (2000) five categories: customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and community stakeholders. Afterwards, a dichotomous variable distinguishing between mono-stakeholder initiatives and multistakeholders initiatives was built. Finally, the discussed topics (Pedersen, 2006). They were grouped into ten different groups

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

4

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

Table 1 Sampling. Population of firms

Excluded

Final sample Companies

SD initiatives

European institutional context
model I. Agora  Greece  Italy  Portugal  Spain II. Business in the community model  United Kingdom  Japan III. Partnership model  Denmark  Finland  Netherland  Norway  Sweden IV. Sustainability and citizenship model  Austria  Belgium  France  Germany  Switzerland North American institutional context  Canada  United States  Australia  New Zealand Japanese institutional context

476 41 5 12 4 20 79 79 201 55 8 6 13 6 22 100 3 6 46 24 21 220 18 155 40 7 201

160 6 2 1 1 2 21 21 89 14 4 1 2 0 7 30 1 3 17 4 5 118 6 88 19 5 89

316 35 3 11 3 18 58 58 112 41 4 5 11 6 15 70 2 3 29 20 16 102 12 67 21 2 112

1867 252 17 78 23 134 287 287 734 189 14 20 66 19 70 405 7 26 158 136 78 930 73 631 214 12 734

Total

696

278

418

2797

Table 2 Sample per industry composition (%). Population of firms North America institutional context (n. 220) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Automobiles and parts Banks Basic resources Chemicals Construction and materials 6. Financial services 7. Food and beverage 8. Health care 9. Industrial goods and services 10. Insurance 11. Media 12. Oil and gas 13. Personal and household goods 14. Real estate 15. Retail 16. Technology 17. Telecommunications 18. Travel and leisure 19. Utilities Total

Final sample European institutional context (n. 476)

Japanese institutional context (n. 201)

Total (n. 696)

North America institutional context (n. 102)

European institutional context (n. 316)

Japanese institutional context (n. 112)

Total (n. 418)

0.9% 4.4% 1.3% 1.8% 0.9%

1.4% 7.3% 0.9% 2.3% 0.9%

4.4% 2.8% 2.2% 7.7% 2.2%

2.7% 9.9% 2.7% 4.5% 2.4%

2.0% 14.2% 4.4% 3.9% 4.4%

2.0% 10.8% 0.0% 3.9% 1.0%

6.5% 6.5% 0.9% 12.0% 2.8%

3.1% 12.0% 2.4% 6.0% 3.1%

7.0% 3.1% 10.5% 9.6%

6.4% 1.8% 10.9% 10.5%

3.3% 7.7% 7.7% 15.5%

4.3% 3.6% 8.0% 11.4%

1.5% 3.4% 5.9% 9.3%

2.9% 2.9% 10.8% 8.8%

3.7% 3.7% 6.5% 14.8%

2.4% 3.3% 7.2% 10.8%

7.0% 6.1% 1.3% 2.6%

7.7% 4.5% 2.3% 2.7%

9.4% 2.8% 1.1% 10.5%

6.8% 3.9% 2.2% 7.0%

8.3% 3.4% 2.9% 5.9%

5.9% 1.0% 3.9% 3.9%

4.6% 1.9% 1.9% 13.9%

6.5% 2.4% 2.9% 7.9%

7.9% 3.9% 14.9% 7.0% 6.6% 3.1%

7.7% 3.6% 15.9% 6.4% 3.2% 3.6%

3.3% 2.2% 11.0% 1.1% 3.3% 1.7%

4.7% 3.4% 9.8% 4.3% 4.0% 4.3%

3.4% 4.4% 4.4% 5.4% 5.4% 7.4%

6.9% 2.9% 16.7% 6.9% 2.9% 5.9%

3.7% 1.9% 12.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.9%

4.5% 3.3% 9.3% 5.0% 3.1% 4.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

using a dummy variable measuring whether the identified topic was discussed. Once the classification of the SD initiatives was completed, the diversity of SD forms used by firms and the diversity of stakeholders involved in SD initiatives were measured. Two indexes developed by Habisch et al. (2011) were calculated: the Form

Diversity Index (FDI) and the Stakeholder Diversity Index (SDI). The FDI measures the diversity of forms used by a firm to engage in dialogue with stakeholders using the HirschmaneHerfindahl index. An index value close to 1 indicates high diversity of forms used in SD by a firm (the value 1 is the extreme case in which a form of SD is used for all the initiatives) and a value 0 indicates a low

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

diversity (the value 0 is the extreme case in which each SD initiative used a different form than all others). Similarly, the SDI measures the variety of stakeholders involved in the SD initiative. An index value close to 1 indicates high diversity of stakeholders and a value close to 0 indicates low diversity. 3.3. Comparative analysis Once the variables described above were computed, the differences of SD among firms in the identified institutional contexts were evaluated through a set of variance tests analysis. As the distribution of variables was not normal and they comprised different levels of measurement, KruskaleWallis' non-parametrical ranks tests were used (Siegel, 1956). In addition, to increase the statistical significance of results, only those tests with a significant difference at the level of 99% probability (p < 0.01) were accepted. Since the firms were grouped from different countries and industries on the basis of the specific institutional context, additional tests were performed. In order to verify the internal consistency of each context, a set of non-parametrical tests (KruskaleWallis) was used to test whether SD variables significantly differ among countries within a specific context with. Tests did not show significant differences (see Tables 4e7 in the appendix). Eventually, the impact of industry on the SD initiatives of the analyzed firms was tested (see Table 8 in the appendix). The industry is a significant determinant of the mean number of SD initiatives and the mean number of diverse topics discussed with stakeholders. Namely, firms operating in the insurance industry show a lower number of SD initiatives than any other industry. Differences in the topics discussed by firms emerged regarding the food and beverage, industrial goods and services, and media industries, which show a lower mean. Regarding the forms used to engage in dialogue with stakeholders, the only statistically significant difference concerns contact points, which show a low level of practice in the basic resources and construction and material industries. Hence, it is possible to conclude that the identified institutional sustainability contexts are internally consistent, and industries have a limited impact on the SD realized by the analyzed firms. 4. Results Differences in SD among the considered institutional contexts were explored through the distribution of a set of general statistical indicators on used forms of SD, stakeholders involved in the SD and discussed topics. Eventually, the diversity indexes were taken into consideration. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of indicators among the identified groups, together with KruskaleWallis tests, and ranks for all 30 of the variables considered. An initial insight into the relationship between institutional context and SD can be gained by exploring the general statistics on SD (panel A of Table 3). They highlight that SD changes among different institutional contexts, since the KruskaleWallis tests are significant for all the general statistics included in panel A. The explicit context shows the highest number of SD initiatives realized by the firm (V01: M ¼ 9.1), different discussed topics (V05: M ¼ 6.4), and multi-stakeholder initiatives (V06: M ¼ 1.4). Within
model show a the implicit institutional context, firms in the Agora significantly higher engagement in SD compared to the others. Firms in this group show the highest level of diversity of forms of SD used (V03: M ¼ 3.7), stakeholders involved in the SD (V04: M ¼ 4.3), and topics discussed per firm (V05: M ¼ 6.6). At the same
model has a significantly higher mean number of time, the Agora SD initiatives (V01: M ¼ 7.2) than firms operating in the other implicit models. Thus, the results in panel A of Table 3 demonstrate that hypothesis 1 is supported.

5

In order to verify the correspondence with the hypotheses, the results are presented according to the three dimensions of analysis earlier identified in the methods paragraph: respectively, SD forms (Panel B in Table 3); involved groups of stakeholder (Panel C in Table 3); and SD discussed topics (Panel D in Table 3). Thus, it is possible to highlight differences among the SD in the different institutional contexts with regards to each dimension. The paragraph ends with the comparison of SD Diversity Index and Form Diversity Index (Panel E in Table 3). As far as the forms of SD are concerned (Panel B in Table 3), results confirm that the form mainly used by firms to engage in dialogue with stakeholders depends on the institutional context. The evidence suggests that firms operating in an explicit approach use different forms of SD compared to those in an implicit one. More specifically, they mainly use contact points (V09: M ¼ 1.6) and forums (V11: M ¼ 1.8). Panel B also reveals that variation across different approaches of implicit institutional contexts is an interesting insight. Firms operating in countries included in the Agor
a model show a significantly higher degree of use of conferences (V08: M ¼ 1.6) and interviews (V12: M ¼ 0.4), but a low adoption of committees (V07: M ¼ 0.3). Regarding the Business in the Community, Sustainability and Citizenship, and Partnership models, they showed common forms of SD usage. They showed an onaverage level of implementation of all the forms of SD but focus groups and forums were considered less. Japanese companies use committees (V07: M ¼ 1.3) and interviews (V12: M ¼ 0.4) more than firms in other approaches, whereas they tend to realize less contact points (V09: M ¼ 0.6). Moving to the comparison of the involved groups of stakeholder (Panel C in Table 3) a strong variation among the different institutional contexts emerges. Looking to the explicit one, findings suggest that firms have the highest level of involvement toward all stakeholders except shareholders. In contrast, firms in the Agor
a Model show a higher commitment to SD toward shareholders (V17: M ¼ 2.0) and customers (V15: M ¼ 2.5). Results on SD in the Business in the Community and Partnership models show that these firms have the lowest involvement with community (V14: M ¼ 0.8) and employees (V16: M ¼ 2.3). Again, a distinct approach can be observed in the Japanese context, which had the strongest dialogue with employees (V16: M ¼ 3.9) and the lowest score in SD toward shareholders (V17: M ¼ 0.7). Finally, the results on the topics discussed in SD initiatives (Panel D in Table 3) again demonstrate that the institutional context plays a significant role. The KruskaleWallis tests are significant for five out of the ten codified topics. A first result is the tendency of
model to discuss a broad set firms in both the explicit and the Agora of topics with stakeholders, but they show a different focus. Firms in the explicit institutional sustainability context show a higher commitment toward dialogue with stakeholders about community relations (V19: M ¼ 0.9), environmental performance (V20: M ¼ 1.7), products and services (V24: M ¼ 1.5), strategy and performance (V27: M ¼ 1.7), and organizational value and culture (V28: M ¼ 1.5). Similarly, companies operating in the Agor
a approach demonstrate a high level of discussion about issues of products and services (V24: M ¼ 1.7) as well as strategy and performance (V27: M ¼ 1.6), but in contrast, they show a high level of commitment to engaging in dialogue about stakeholders' needs (V26: M ¼ 2.3). The analysis of firms in the Business in the Community and Citizenship models shows no specific focus. Indeed, the results show that they disclose about environmental performance (V20: M ¼ 0.9 for Business in the Community and M ¼ 0.6 for Sustainability and Citizenship), products and services (V24: M ¼ 0.8 for both approaches), and firms' value and culture (V28: M ¼ 0.6 for both approaches) even less than firms in other contexts. Finally, firms operating in the Partnership and Japanese models had an on-

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

6

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

Table 3 Indicators of SD by CSR approach. European institutional context North American institutional context (n. 102)


Agora (n. 35)

M Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives 9.1 per firm V02. Involving SD 0.3 initiatives per firm V03. Forms used 3.1 per firm V04. Stakeholders 3.9 involved per firm V05. Topics discussed 6.4 per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders 1.4 initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees 0.8 V08. Conferences 1.3 V09. Contact points 1.6 V10. Focus Groups 0.2 V11. Forums 1.8 V12. Interviews 0.2 V13. Surveys 2.6 Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community 2.4 V15. Customers 2.6 V16. Employees 3.9 V17. Shareholders 1.4 V18. Suppliers 1.8 Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community 0.9 relations V20. Environmental 1.7 performance V21. Health and safety 1.2 V22. Human rights 0.5 V23. Job conditions 1.1 V24. Product and services 1.5 V25. Social disclosures 0.8 V26. Stakeholders' needs 1.5 V27. Strategy and performance 1.7 V28. Value and culture 1.5 Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity 0.8 index V30. Form diversity index 0.8

Business in the community (n. 58)

SD

Rank

M

SD Rank M

7.4

240

7.2 2.6 255

0.2

220

1.3

Partnership (n. 41)

SD

Rank

M

4.9

2.6

172

4.6 2.6 156

0.2 0.1 158

0.2

0.3

186

226

3.7 1.0 292

2.7

1.2

1.4

240

4.3 0.9 253

3.4

2.9

240

6.6 2.0 242

1.4

256

1.4 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.4 0.6 2.2

Sustainability and citizenship (n. 70)

Total (n. 418)

Kruskal Wallis c(5)

SD

Rank

M

SD

Rank

M

SD

5.8

3.4

193

6.5

3.7

218

6.7

4.8

27.26*

0.1 0.2 152

0.2

0.1

167

0.4

0.3

277

0.3

0.2

63.32*

189

2.5 1.2 169

2.8

1.1

195

2.9

1.2

205

2.9

1.2

26.83*

1.5

188

3.7 1.3 211

3.5

1.5

199

3.4

1.4

187

3.7

1.4

19.31*

5.4

2.5

187

5.4 2.2 187

5.4

2.6

189

5.8

2.4

207

5.9

2.6

14.66*

1.1 0.9 249

0.8

0.9

197

0.8 0.7 202

0.8

1.1

192

0.6

0.9

177

0.9

1.1

32.87*

217 213 266 229 236 194 225

0.3 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 2.6

0.5 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.3

177 274 266 230 189 241 252

0.2 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.9

0.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.2

162 221 175 199 194 196 193

0.3 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.7

0.6 0.9 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.2

169 200 173 193 160 204 176

0.2 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 2.2

0.5 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 1.7

165 231 181 203 185 195 207

1.4 0.7 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.4 2.1

1.3 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.5 1.6

281 170 191 203 235 233 206

0.7 1.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.2 2.2

1.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 1.5 0.5 1.7

85.05* 28.95* 52.15* 19.36 24.33* 19.15* 10.76

2.5 2.2 3.2 1.4 2.2

259 247 230 231 238

1.4 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.6

1.1 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.3

236 276 180 299 253

0.8 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.1

1.0 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3

175 184 174 203 200

0.8 1.5 2.1 1.1 1.0

0.9 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.0

174 186 159 222 197

1.0 1.5 2.8 1.1 1.1

1.2 1.3 1.8 1.0 1.5

192 187 204 207 192

1.0 1.6 3.9 0.7 1.0

1.0 1.4 2.8 0.8 1.1

200 193 242 164 193

1.3 1.9 3.2 1.2 1.3

1.6 1.6 2.5 1.1 1.6

31.76* 30.35* 26.23* 42.81* 15.93*

1.3

245

0.5 0.8 220

0.4

0.6

200

0.2 0.5 170

0.3

0.6

191

0.4

0.6

206

0.5

0.9

21.97*

2.2

245

1.0 1.4 210

0.9

1.2

202

0.9 1.3 197

0.6

1.0

171

1.0

1.2

211

1.1

1.5

18.71*

1.7 0.9 1.0 1.8 0.9 1.6 1.9 1.6

221 216 200 228 236 210 236 255

1.1 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.8 2.3 1.6 0.9

226 210 217 271 225 276 265 206

0.8 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.4 1.2 0.6

1.0 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.9

199 204 214 185 181 216 214 178

1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.5

229 231 197 184 185 187 197 166

0.8 0.3 1.3 0.8 0.3 1.3 1.1 0.6

1.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.0 0.8

194 200 234 184 162 207 208 178

0.8 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1

1.0 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.3

204 206 205 213 235 197 173 223

1.0 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.0

1.2 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.3

5.26 3.74 4.84 20.39* 33.42 14.20 25.71* 34.18*

0.2

245

0.8 0.1 291

0.5

0.3

208

0.6 0.2 206

0.6

0.2

208

0.5

0.2

157

0.6

0.2

45.75*

0.3

219

0.8 0.1 241

0.6

0.3

189

0.6 0.2 226

0.6

0.2

211

0.6

0.2

197

0.6

0.2

23.61*

1.1 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.2

SD Rank M

Japanese institutional context (n. 112)

1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.7

*p < 0.01.

average commitment to the various topics. However, the Partnership Model is characterized by a negligible discussion of value and culture (V28: M ¼ 0.7), whereas the Japanese group tends to exclude strategy and performance related contents (V27: M ¼ 0.8). Finally, panel E of Table 3 shows the results of the stakeholder diversity and forms diversity indexes. The results confirm that SD practices differ among diverse groups. Moreover, firms operating in
Model the explicit Sustainability approach and the implicit Agora share a high level of diversity of stakeholders included in the SD (V29: M ¼ 0.8 for both approaches) and of the implemented forms (V30: M ¼ 0.8 for both approaches). 5. Discussion The study investigated the characteristics of the SD realized by companies in various institutional contexts. The results confirmed the existence of differences among the SD behavior of companies.

Specifically, companies in the North American context pay more attention to issues related to strategy and performance, environmental performance, and values and culture when reporting on their SD (panel D in Table 3). The alignment of business and organizational issues in their SD denotes their orientation toward conceiving of dialogue as a way to combine business and societal objectives, in line with previous studies (Habisch et al., 2011; Matten and Moon, 2008). Furthermore, their SD was less intense and less oriented toward discussing stakeholders' needs. This approach is consistent with the lack of public policies and reliance on private institutions to answer societal needs (Habisch et al., 2011; Matten and Moon, 2008). Hypothesis 2 is therefore confirmed as the orientation toward business-related issues is higher than in the other institutional contexts. Moving to the European context, the analysis has shown two main results. On one side, companies in this context demonstrated lower attention to strategic issues in favor of a higher orientation

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

toward stakeholders' needs and their corporate role in society (panel D in Table 3). In this sense, their approach to SD can be broadly referred to as the implicit context proposed by Matten and Moon (2008). However, the statistical analysis shows variation among the different governmental models proposed by Albareda et al. (2007). Hypothesis 3 of the study is confirmed and interesting insights can be drawn from this consideration.
A high level of SD has emerged for companies in the Agora Model. This is characterized by a greater focus on stakeholders' needs, followed by attention to products and services as well as strategy and performance. Again, companies within this model have a broader commitment in terms of both number of initiatives realized and forms adopted. Remarkably, these companies show the highest orientation toward stakeholders' needs and, congruently, a high level of SD. Interestingly, SD shows characteristics in between the implicit and explicit approaches by Matten and Moon (2008). Indeed, they are similar to the explicit approach in their orientation toward strategy, but they differ due to the more evident commitment to fulfilling stakeholders' expectations. Moving to the Business in the Community Model (Albareda et al., 2007), the results did not highlight any particular higher commitment to SD practices. However, interesting considerations can be drawn by observing the lowest scores, which underline that companies in this context are less engaged in health and safety, human rights, products and services, and e even more surprisingly e social disclosure in their SD practices. Moreover, they do not engage in dialogue with communities and customers. Acknowledging the suggestions by Albareda et al. (2007), governments in the Business in the Community Model interpret sustainability as an expression of the fundamental role companies have in the development of the communities in which they operate. Hence, in light of the results of the present analysis, such commitment is enforced by governmental action rather than being voluntarily assumed by companies. The third European model is the Sustainability and Citizenship Model. Similar to the previous institutional context, considerations can be inferred by looking at the lower scores. Companies in this model are characterized by a limited SD on both social and environmental topics, with the exception of issues related to job conditions. Although the relationship with Albareda et al. (2007) is not immediate; nonetheless, the results highlight that the approach to SD by companies operating in such contexts is broadly in line with the general context. In this model, the role of public policies is modest and emphasis is put on the actual involvement of business in sustainable development and the contribution of different stakeholders, especially employees, to the business activity. Hence, companies in the Sustainability and Citizenship Model may perceive the pressure to respond to the expectations within the context through innovative participatory mechanisms, thus leaving SD a narrower role as interactive forms of dialogue with their stakeholders. Among all the institutional contexts considered in the study, the Partnership Model obtained the lowest scores in almost all the explored aspects except human rights, thus demonstrating a very limited commitment to SD activities. A plausible explanation could be the need to provide information that is easy to find and directly related to products and services, such as labels in the Netherlands. The Governmental Sustainability Model is based on the pressures on companies to create ways for cross-sector responsibility, rather than on the commitment of the organization alone. Hence, the study suggests that SD is not considered an effective way to respond to such expectations, probably in favor of separated and dedicated initiatives. Finally, the study investigated the SD practices realized by companies in the Japanese institutional context. The findings

7

highlight that these companies tend to have a more focused dialogue, which is primarily aimed at involving employees (panel C of Table 3), whereas other stakeholders have a less relevant role and are more oriented toward labor issues (see panel D of Table 3). This result is broadly in line with the extant literature on the Japanese sustainability context (Wokutch, 1990), and partially confirms hypothesis 4. The only partial confirmation lies in the fact that the relevance of environmental issues and practices is lower than expected. The results support the suggestion to consider the Japanese approach to SD as an independent pattern (Tokoro, 2007), where companies' SD practices tend to converge on general societal concerns. However, the strong orientation to report on SD initiatives to employees together with the low discussion on strategic and performance related topics follows Witt and Redding (2011) who consider the SD Japanese approach as different by proximate to the implicit model. In light of the previously discussed looser role of the Japanese government in promoting sustainability programs and policies, it is possible to speculate that Japanese companies tend to shape SD in order to respond to institutional mechanisms that are protective of employees' interests (Wokutch, 1990).

6. Conclusions and future directions Drawing on a large sample of 2797 SD initiatives realized by 418 companies listed in the FTSE4Good Global index, the study found that SD is shaped by the characteristics of the institutional contexts in which it operates. According to the findings, SD should not be considered as a practice at the discretion of companies. In fact, the emergence of clear distinctions in the extent and content of SD suggests that it is largely a reflection of the institutional settings. In this sense, SD complements management decision making as it serves both corporate internal objectives and societal interests and gives a holistic vision to sustainability management systems. In so doing, findings support previous literature on the managerial and strategic value of SD suggesting that is a key practice to improve firm ability to internalize exogenous variables of the surrounding institutional context into firm decision making and thus overcome problems of self-reference. The study has both academic and managerial implications. On the former side, it confirms the need to consider the institutional context when exploring the characteristics of SD. Again, it highlights that institutional theory is a proper framework to analyze the pattern of sustainability practices, such as sustainability reporting, ethical codes, and human rights policies. In this sense, SD is shaped by external pressures, and it allows information to be gathered on the expectations in the surrounding institutional context, which in turn integrate the traditional managerial systems with exogenous institutional considerations. Hence, SD is not only a voluntary, responsible practice to exchange information on corporate commitment to sustainability, but it also builds a broad information base for decision-making that supports the alignment of corporate objectives to the institutional settings in which the company operates. The study then adds to the stakeholder theory as it highlights that not only stakeholders' attributes determines firm commitment to SD, but also the surrounding institutional pressures. At the same time, relevant questions remain open for future research: whether different institutional contexts influence the effectiveness of SD; how SD is influenced by other institutional contexts not included in the present study (such as Latin America, Africa, etc.); how and to what extent different institutional pressures (coercive, mimetic, and normative) impact on the SD practices implemented by firms; whether and how institutional contexts influence the SD realized by small-medium enterprises,

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

8

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

which are used to engaging in dialogue through informal rather than formal ways. On the managerial side, the understanding of the dynamics of SD is important as it helps design and implement practices that are appropriate to the surrounding context, and therefore, functional for an effective and holistic decision-making process on sustainability. Furthermore, managers should design their SD practices based on benchmarks with other companies operating in the same institutional sustainability context. In addition, the significance of institutional contexts for SD raises relevant concerns about the management of SD. Accordingly, firms should decentralize the definition of the characteristics of their SD policies and practices as well as their implementation, while establishing a central coordination so as to facilitate synergies and coordination among different institutional contexts. Finally, managers must be aware that establishing a global standard for SD could expose the firm to critiques for the mishandling of SD within different institutional contexts. Undeniably, the study has some limitations, which can represent opportunities for future development. First of all, the nations included in the sample are not equally represented. Therefore, there may be biases related to the predominance of a context over the others within the identified institutional groups, which may affect the overall scores. In this sense, future studies could extend the present work by developing a more balanced sample, where all national institutional settings have the same weight in the analysis. Beyond this limitation, the study does not include African countries, which have entered the sustainability literature in the most recent years, and have emerged as characterized by specific

patterns of behavior. Accordingly, the present work could be further advanced by including companies operating in African countries, so as to extend the literature on the relationships between sustainability, SD, and institutional settings. Another limitation is the fact that SD has been analyzed in terms of the amount of information included on each explored issue, but it was not possible to verify the truthfulness of the reported content. Hence, future developments could explore SD practices through direct observation rather than merely relying on reported description. In this sense, research should include stakeholders in order to understand the impact that SD practices have on their perception of the company depending on the form and topic of the dialogue. Again, the paper does not explore the relationship between SD and corporate performance. This could be an interesting direction for understanding SD, with particular attention to whether and which specific SD approaches contribute to companies' results. Finally, the paper has only considered large companies. Although this choice was determined by the general acknowledgment of large listed firms as more susceptible to stakeholder scrutiny, it is reasonable to suggest future studies should consider SMEs as they account for a large percentage of the business environment in most of the analyzed countries. Appendix. Analysis of differences within CSR institutional contexts

Table 4 KruskaleWallis rank tests for SD in countries with North American institutional context. KruskaleWallis c(3)

Mean ranks

Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives per firm V02. Involving SD initiatives per firm V03. Forms used per firm V04. Stakeholders involved per firm V05. Topics discussed per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees V08. Conferences V09. Contact points V10. Focus Groups V11. Forums V12. Interviews V13. Surveys Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community V15. Customers V16. Employees V17. Shareholders V18. Suppliers Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community relations V20. Environmental performance V21. Health and safety V22. Human rights V23. Job conditions V24. Product and services V25. Social disclosures V26. Stakeholders' needs V27. Strategy and performance V28. Value and culture Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity index V30. Form diversity index

Australia (n. 21)

Canada (n. 12)

New Zealand (n. 2)

United States (n. 67)

56.9 62.4 54.0 50.1 55.3 51.6

39.3 31.3 32.9 50.6 46.6 42.7

40.5 65.0 40.0 49.5 34.5 68.2

52.3 51.3 54.4 52.1 51.7 52.5

3.19 9.04 6.15 0.12 1.36 1.94

57.7 46.2 52.4 48.6 58.0 54.6 60.8

45.3 37.2 34.4 45.7 30.0 61.8 52.4

29.0 38.2 48.7 41.5 61.7 44.5 42.5

51.3 56.1 54.4 53.7 52.9 48.9 48.7

3.28 6.07 4.95 2.68 8.40 6.52 2.95

58.7 57.6 51.4 53.2 56.0

51.0 45.7 39.8 41.6 37.5

45.7 58.7 47.2 70.7 48.7

49.5 50.4 53.7 52.2 52.7

1.71 1.62 2.37 2.47 3.51

64.3 57.4 55.8 45.9 60.6 56.9 55.3 54.9 54.4 47.6

55.8 34.7 51.9 39.8 56.6 50.3 56.1 52.4 45.5 49.5

47.0 45.0 21.5 36.0 34.7 45.0 43.5 51.2 70.7 31.7

46.8 52.8 50.9 55.8 48.2 50.2 49.7 50.3 51.1 53.7

7.03 5.30 2.80 7.06 4.46 1.03 1.18 0.43 1.64 1.77

56.1 51.6

35.1 37.0

56.2 59.2

52.8 53.8

4.38 3.43

*p < 0.01.

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

9

Table 5
approach. KruskaleWallis rank tests for SD in countries with implicit Agora KruskaleWallis c(3)

Mean ranks per country

Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives per firm V02. Involving SD initiatives per firm V03. Forms used per firm V04. Stakeholders involved per firm V05. Topics discussed per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees V08. Conferences V09. Contact points V10. Focus Groups V11. Forums V12. Interviews V13. Surveys Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community V15. Customers V16. Employees V17. Shareholders V18. Suppliers Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community relations V20. Environmental performance V21. Health and safety V22. Human rights V23. Job conditions V24. Product and services V25. Social disclosures V26. Stakeholders' needs V27. Strategy and performance V28. Value and culture Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity index V30. Form diversity index

Greece (n. 3)

Italy (n. 11)

Portugal (n. 3)

Spain (n. 18)

9.8 12.0 20.5 14.7 19.3 20.2

17.1 19.8 18.8 15.2 16.3 12.3

19.5 23.5 20.0 21.8 21.8 16.5

19.7 17.0 16.8 19.6 18.2 21.4

2.57 2.48 0.72 2.37 0.82 6.28

18.8 19.8 16.5 14.5 9.0 29.0 7.7

16.2 17.2 12.2 24.0 17.4 17.9 21.7

30.5 26.5 16.5 20.3 13.8 17.3 12.8

16.9 16.8 22.0 14.5 20.6 16.4 18.3

8.23 2.76 7.50 13.39 4.71 5.61 5.69

20.8 15.7 13.8 14.7 13.5

16.7 14.7 16.4 15.6 15.8

18.2 13.3 18.2 20.0 23.2

18.3 21.2 19.7 19.7 19.2

0.45 3.91 1.30 1.61 2.24

18.5 15.3 14.3 18.3 12.8 21.8 24.2 10.2 18.2 18.0

19.9 19.1 19.4 17.8 17.8 16.1 15.8 21.7 23.0 12.7

16.3 21.7 25.0 23.7 16.7 16.3 17.8 12.2 19.5 20.5

17.1 17.1 16.6 17.1 19.2 18.8 18.3 18.0 14.7 20.8

0.82 0.97 2.56 1.69 1.18 1.06 1.94 4.29 4.93 5.25

19.7 29.0

15.9 14.1

27.0 28.8

17.5 16.8

2.90 8.71

*p < 0.01.

Table 6 KruskaleWallis rank tests for SD in countries with implicit sustainability and citizenship approach. KruskaleWallis c(4)

Mean ranks per country

Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives per firm V02. Involving SD initiatives per firm V03. Forms used per firm V04. Stakeholders involved per firm V05. Topics discussed per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees V08. Conferences V09. Contact points V10. Focus Groups V11. Forums V12. Interviews V13. Surveys Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community V15. Customers V16. Employees V17. Shareholders V18. Suppliers Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community relations V20. Environmental performance V21. Health and safety V22. Human rights

Austria (n. 2)

Belgium (n. 3)

France (n. 29)

Germany (n. 20)

Switzerland (n. 16)

21.5 30.5 19.0 46.8 13.0 46.0

56.8 35.8 46.0 55.5 49.5 41.7

33.6 29.5 31.8 32.4 30.8 32.6

40.7 33.5 39.5 39.9 42.8 38.1

30.2 49.4 37.3 30.4 35.1 35.1

6.98 10.66 4.25 6.72 8.12 2.08

45.3 33.5 20.5 33.0 17.5 30.5 20.0

42.0 34.3 41.8 33.0 38.2 43.5 53.7

35.1 35.1 34.6 34.2 31.5 34.0 38.3

29.7 37.3 35.0 34.8 41.2 37.6 39.5

40.9 34.5 38.5 39.6 37.3 34.8 24.0

6.96 0.25 2.32 4.31 5.42 2.61 10.40

36.3 38.0 35.5 36.0 42.5

53.5 40.5 38.7 50.3 53.8

32.2 30.7 34.6 32.4 31.3

41.4 42.0 37.5 38.4 38.7

30.7 34.7 34.1 34.7 34.7

6.51 4.16 0.42 3.05 5.11

26.5 42.5 32.3 27.5

48.5 48.2 32.7 38.2

35.9 34.4 32.4 33.9

37.3 36.5 32.4 35.5

31.2 33.1 45.9 38.9

4.30 2.34 6.46 1.84 (continued on next page)

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

10

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

Table 6 (continued ) KruskaleWallis c(4)

Mean ranks per country

V23. Job conditions V24. Product and services V25. Social disclosures V26. Stakeholders' needs V27. Strategy and performance V28. Value and culture Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity index V30. Form diversity index

Austria (n. 2)

Belgium (n. 3)

France (n. 29)

Germany (n. 20)

Switzerland (n. 16)

18.8 14.0 28.0 37.8 24.5 21.0

48.5 43.5 53.3 43.8 53.2 37.0

40.0 31.8 31.5 34.7 27.0 33.5

34.5 43.9 36.9 35.8 44.3 36.9

28.3 32.8 38.6 34.8 38.0 39.0

6.63 8.62 8.16 0.65 13.03 2.43

31.8 61.0

57.0 41.7

29.0 24.7

44.2 41.6

32.8 43.1

10.35 15.60*

*p < 0.01. Table 7 KruskaleWallis rank tests for SD in countries with implicit Partnership approach. KruskaleWallis c(4)

Mean ranks per country

Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives per firm V02. Involving SD initiatives per firm V03. Forms used per firm V04. Stakeholders involved per firm V05. Topics discussed per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees V08. Conferences V09. Contact points V10. Focus Groups V11. Forums V12. Interviews V13. Surveys Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community V15. Customers V16. Employees V17. Shareholders V18. Suppliers Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community relations V20. Environmental performance V21. Health and safety V22. Human rights V23. Job conditions V24. Product and services V25. Social disclosures V26. Stakeholders' needs V27. Strategy and performance V28. Value and culture Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity index V30. Form diversity index

Denmark (n. 4)

Finland (n. 5)

Netherland (n. 11)

Norway (n. 6)

Sweden (n. 15)

15.5 23.5 18.9 14.6 18.4 13.0

18.8 16.2 15.6 20.6 11.8 18.1

26.5 20.3 25.7 21.4 22.5 22.1

14.8 20.3 14.1 23.3 18.2 23.5

21.6 22.7 22.7 21.6 24.8 22.3

5.05 1.64 5.50 1.56 5.27 3.16

16.5 20.0 17.4 20.5 24.4 17.0 16.6

16.5 17.6 16.4 20.5 19.0 25.2 26.6

22.6 28.2 23.9 20.5 20.0 22.6 24.5

19.8 18.1 15.8 20.5 21.1 17.0 12.1

23.0 18.3 23.5 21.9 21.5 21.1 21.3

3.77 6.44 4.72 1.73 0.82 4.08 6.46

18.8 13.6 20.3 15.5 15.8

19.5 23.6 15.3 24.9 19.6

21.7 24.0 24.0 23.8 22.5

21.7 18.3 20.4 18.8 20.3

21.3 21.0 21.1 20.0 22.1

0.34 3.03 2.01 2.69 1.30

18.0 18.8 17.8 17.6 26.9 16.3 25.4 22.5 22.5 22.8

18.0 17.0 19.7 13.0 12.6 26.2 14.5 21.5 10.3 13.5

21.8 16.7 19.8 18.0 27.5 22.0 22.1 25.0 22.0 20.9

21.3 23.3 14.8 23.5 14.3 19.3 21.9 17.6 25.6 17.8

22.1 25.2 25.7 25.7 20.2 20.4 20.8 18.8 21.6 24.4

1.98 4.97 4.90 7.78 10.48 2.07 3.20 2.56 5.93 5.03

13.0 18.9

22.8 7.9

20.7 23.7

23.1 28.0

21.9 21.2

2.18 8.73

*p < 0.01. Table 8 KruskaleWallis rank tests for SD by industry. Kruskal Wallis c(18)

Mean ranks per industry

Panel A: General statistics V01. Initiatives per firm V02. Involving SD initiatives per firm V03. Forms used per firm V04. Stakeholders involved per firm V05. Topics discussed per firm V06. Multi-stakeholders initiatives Panel B: Used forms V07. Committees V08. Conferences V09. Contact points V10. Focus Groups V11. Forums V12. Interviews

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

226 257 221 205 186 153

175 166 223 193 289 230

220 241 181 287 222 293

243 259 201 234 218 227

196 203 207 149 195 179

213 182 219 227 270 275

188 239 160 194 155 201

219 229 200 202 174 200

178 254 176 182 157 174

143 173 199 158 240 206

159 182 193 232 131 250

232 196 228 249 241 251

230 247 212 204 207 181

216 197 209 209 259 236

220 223 242 207 176 171

272 211 249 256 229 220

273 188 260 296 222 271

199 175 184 164 187 179

243 190 238 246 177 217

39.21* 30.62 19.36 22.56 52.89* 34.10

226 219 173 222 267 198

166 249 183 227 164 212

233 233 169 190 224 187

270 195 217 199 256 208

188 215 223 206 197 214

163 292 169 211 219 187

215 155 223 190 219 211

226 183 228 218 235 180

206 164 175 213 214 209

166 252 178 220 163 196

188 155 217 211 172 229

215 207 244 190 205 222

253 193 190 220 220 227

228 236 208 212 197 215

198 216 226 220 224 226

235 228 276 217 262 215

230 195 267 190 222 281

198 235 216 190 177 196

212 226 258 218 202 206

34.42 33.44 39.44* 14.45 33.21 22.77

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100

L.M. Ferri et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e11

11

Table 8 (continued ) Kruskal Wallis c(18)

Mean ranks per industry 01 V13. Surveys Panel C: Involved stakeholders V14. Community V15. Customers V16. Employees V17. Shareholders V18. Suppliers Panel D: Discussed topics V19. Community relations V20. Environmental performance V21. Health and safety V22. Human rights V23. Job conditions V24. Product and services V25. Social disclosures V26. Stakeholders' needs V27. Strategy and performance V28. Value and culture Panel E: Diversity indexes V29. Stakeholder diversity index V30. Form diversity index

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

261 197 191 224 190 180 182 208 175 142 163 237 224 243 205 265 287 177 255 43.48 213 188 223 178 207

179 230 161 222 148

304 259 243 262 249

263 186 270 207 230

197 167 212 176 206

206 235 204 281 172

197 216 202 170 208

229 181 228 207 217

171 178 195 157 209

124 200 153 223 121

211 207 193 225 245

283 193 218 221 252

210 212 223 177 216

214 238 205 237 200

191 165 211 185 262

236 250 267 227 250

268 268 277 279 308

191 185 171 212 210

273 250 200 263 240

54.99 27.51 40.17 36.98 59.69

225 217 199 191 197 209 224 190 174 193

229 211 259 247 272 282 285 300 241 251

272 257 261 272 223 191 166 129 199 167

252 227 226 198 213 177 203 192 214 214

184 239 243 200 184 160 178 190 185 194

247 224 286 229 256 253 255 247 267 228

142 169 174 207 156 195 204 146 210 218

200 195 188 218 195 188 190 173 207 200

179 202 177 195 185 172 189 172 173 179

184 159 231 213 246 246 248 255 231 227

222 236 139 196 152 162 183 169 158 164

307 254 247 241 231 155 202 179 213 219

199 215 211 213 213 232 196 189 206 198

235 224 221 195 247 230 212 252 232 238

212 233 227 193 203 187 156 217 212 215

214 221 182 228 206 227 232 240 214 267

180 217 219 230 209 221 190 207 249 223

219 209 206 179 155 203 173 177 169 134

228 208 174 152 188 193 197 219 232 174

39.95 14.92 34.31 27.86 33.87 41.84 43.75 60.96 21.17 34.42

214 241 245 192 124 241 214 212 178 197 217 208 179 229 197 226 254 219 253 23.98 212 192 302 218 187 190 187 205 200 178 202 243 210 189 243 243 257 186 238 20.36

*p < 0.01. Legend: 01 ¼ Automobiles & Parts; 02 ¼ Banks; 03 ¼ Basic Resources; 04 ¼ Chemicals; 05 ¼ Construction & Materials; 06 ¼ Financial Services; 07 ¼ Food & Beverage; 08 ¼ Health Care; 09 ¼ Industrial Goods & Services; 10 ¼ Insurance; 11 ¼ Media; 12 ¼ Oil & Gas; 13 ¼ Personal & Household Goods; 14 ¼ Real Estate; 15 ¼ Retail; 16 ¼ Technology; 17 ¼ Telecommunications; 18 ¼ Travel & Leisure; 19 ¼ Utilities.

References Aaronson, S., Reeves, J., 2002. The European response to public demands for global corporate responsibility. In: Natl. Policy Assoc., Washington DC. Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M., Ysa, T., 2007. Public policies on corporate social responsibility: the role of governments in Europe. J. Bus. Ethics 74, 391e407. Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., Fisscher, O.A.M., 2013. An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 7e17. Barnett, M.L., 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (3), 794e816. Betts, T.K., Wiengarten, F., Tadisina, S.K., 2015. Exploring the impact of stakeholder pressure on environmental management strategies at the plant level: what does industry have to do with it? J. Clean. Prod. 92, 282e294. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., Matten, D., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: new perspectives on private governance. Soc. Econ. Rev. 10, 3e28. Branco, B.C., Rodrigues, L.L., 2008. Factor influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. J. Bus. Ethics 8, 685e701. Burchell, J., Cook, J., 2013. Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business-NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue. J. Bus. Ethics 113 (3), 505e518. Campbell, J., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (3), 946e967. Choi, S.H., Aguilera, R.V., 2009. CSR dynamics in South Korea and Japan: a comparative analysis. In: Mallin, C.A. (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility: a Case Study Approach. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp. 123e147. Davenport, K., 2000. Corporate citizenship: a stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it. Bus. Soc. 39 (2), 210e219. Doh, J.P., Howton, S.D., Howton, S.W., Siegel, D.S., 2010. Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information and legitimacy. J. Manag. 36 (6), 1461e1485. Ferri, L.M., Oelze, N., Habisch, A., Molteni, M., 2014. Implementation of responsible procurement management: an institutional perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1e16 (online first). Fifka, M.S., Pobizhan, M., 2014. An institutional approach to corporate social responsibility in Russia. J. Clean. Prod. 82 (1), 192e201. Fukukawa, K., Moon, J., 2004. A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility?. A study of website reporting. J. Corp. Citizsh. 14, 45e59. Fukukawa, K., Teramoto, Y., 2009. Understanding Japanese CSR: the reflections of managers in the field of global operations. J. Bus. Ethics 83, 133e146. Greenwood, M., 2007. Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 74 (4), 315e327. Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., Schwartz, C., 2011. Different talks with different folks: a comparative survey of stakeholder dialogue in Germany, Italy and the U.S. J. Bus. Ethics 100, 381e404. Heikkurinen, P., Bonnedahl, K.J., 2013. Corporate responsibility for sustainable development: a review and conceptual comparison of market-and stakeholderoriented strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 43, 191e198.

Holder-Webb, L., 2007. The question of disclosure: providing a tool for evaluating management's discussion and analysis. Adv. Account. Behav. Res. 10, 301e314. Maignan, I., Ralston, D., 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: insights from businesses' self-representations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 33 (3), 497e514. Matos, S., Silvestre, B.S., 2013. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models: the case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 61e73. Matten, D., Moon, J., 2008. “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33 (2), 404e424. Matten, D., Moon, J., 2012. An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): form and implications. J. Bus. Ethics 111, 281e299. Morsing, M., Schultz, M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 15 (4), 323e338. Pedersen, E.R., 2006. Making corporate responsibility (CSR) operable: how companies translate stakeholder dialogue intro practice. Bus. Soc. Rev. 111 (2), 137e163. Poplawska, J., Labib, A., Reed, D.M., Ishizaka, A., 2015. Stakeholder profile definition and salience measurement with fuzzy logical and visual analytics applied to corporate social responsibility case study. J. Clean. Prod. 105, 103e115. Ran€ angen, H., Zobel, T., 2014. Exploring the path from management systems to stakeholder management in the Swedish mining industry. J. Clean. Prod. 84 (1), 128e141. Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J., Tilt, C., 2014. The role of stakeholder engagement and dialogue within the sustainability accounting and reporting process. In: Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., O'Dwyer, B. (Eds.), Sutainability Accounting and Accountability, second ed. Routledge, New York, pp. 86e108. Rupp, D.E., Gananpathy, J., Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A., 2006. Employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 537e543. Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2013. Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: from stakeholders to performance. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 1e6. Siegel, S., 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
, J.A., Waddock, S., 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial Surroca, J., Tribo performance: the role of intangible resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 31 (5), 463e490. Tokoro, N., 2007. Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility (CSR): a new perspective on the structure of relationships. Asian Bus. Manag. 6, 143e162. Unerman, J., Bennett, M., 2004. Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Account. Organ. Soc. 29 (7), 685e707. Witt, M.A., Redding, G., 2011. The spirits of corporate social responsibility: senior executive perceptions of the role of the firm in society in Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the USA. Soc. Econ. Rev. 10, 109e134. Wokutch, R.E., 1990. Corporate social responsibility Japanese style. Acad. Manag. Exec. 4 (2), 56e74. Wokutch, R.E., Shepard, J.M., 1999. The maturing of the Japanese economy: corporate social responsibility implications. Bus. Ethics Q. 9 (3), 527e540.

Please cite this article in press as: Ferri, L.M., et al., The management of stakeholder dialogue in different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.100