The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs

Abstract

1 We understand CSR as a positive corporate contribution to sustainable development. A stakeholder is defi ned according to Freeman (1984), which means that stakeholder dialogue is defi ned here as interactive, two-way communication on a sustainability issue between a company and those who can affect or are affected by its activities. Stakeholder engagement is a broader concept than stakeholder dialogue, since it does not require communication to be reciprocal and interactive. Nonetheless, this paper refers several times to stakeholder engagement -fi rst, because it is frequently used in corporate discourse, and second, because stakeholder plans and policies often encompass both one-way and two-way communication.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 15, 298-310 (2008)

A comprehensive literature review on, and the construction of a framework for, environmental legitimacy, accountability and proactivity

“…ISEA (1999, p. 91) defines stakeholder engagement as "the process of seeking stakeholder views on their relationship with an organisation in a way that may realistically be expected to elicit them". This definition envisages stakeholder engagement as a two-way, reciprocal communication between a business and its stakeholders (see also Cumming, 2001), although it can also include one-way, unilateral interactions (e.g., conferences, exhibitions, community outreach programs) (e.g., Gao and Zhang, 2006;Van Huijstee and Glabergen, 2008). The framework does not specify the type of stakeholder engagement (reciprocal or one-way).…”

“…These include bringing in new knowledge and expertise that are crucial for business to detect and solve complex sustainability problems related to their operations (Burchell and Cook, 2006;Van Huijstee and Glabergen, 2008;Zadek and Raynard, 2002).…”

“…On the other hand, for the "engaged" stakeholders, engagement provides an appropriate means to express their concerns, challenge business values and governance, and be involved in decision making (Cumming, 2001;Spitzeck and Hansen, 2010;Van Huijstee and Glabergen, 2008). Essentially, an effective engagement should lead to improved relationships, increased understanding and trust, the creation of long term partnerships, the identification of commitment, and the mitigation of business and environmental risks (Burchell and Cook, 2008;Gao and Zhang, 2006;Van Huijstee and Glabergen, 2008).…”

“…Essentially, an effective engagement should lead to improved relationships, increased understanding and trust, the creation of long term partnerships, the identification of commitment, and the mitigation of business and environmental risks (Burchell and Cook, 2008;Gao and Zhang, 2006;Van Huijstee and Glabergen, 2008). ISEA (1999) also highlights the importance of public disclosure and feedback processes to give other stakeholders access to information that is valuable in assessing the outcome of the engagement (see also Cook, 2008, 2006;GRI, 2013).…”

Speaking Up for the Natural Landscape: A Rhetorical Dilemma

“…Certainly among the more positive views in the discourse on stakeholder dialogue are Van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008). They express great optimism in the potential for stakeholder dialogue to evolve and lead to substantive corporate change.…”