REVIEW JURNAL INTERNASIONAL

“Tugas Mata Kuliah Akuntansi Sosial dan Lingkungan”

Dosen :
Mustamin, SE., M.Acc.

Disusun Oleh :
Roidah Sahda (C 301 21 175)

JURUSAN AKUNTANSI NON-REGULER

FAKULTAS EKONOMI DAN BISNIS
UNIVERSITAS TADULAKO
2023
Judul Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting :
Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting
Keterlibatan stakeholder dan akuntansi dialogis: Bukti
empiris dalam pelaporan keberlanjutan
Jurnal Jurnal Akuntansi, Audit, dan Akuntabilitas
Volume & Halaman Volume 32(5), Halaman 1467-1499
Tahun Terbit 2019
Penulis Marco Bellucci, Lorenzo Simoni, Diletta Acuti, dan
Giacomo Manetti
Reviewer Roidah Sahda
Tanggal 26 Februari 2023

Latar Belakang Beberapa perusahaan secara sukarela membuat dan

menerbitkan laporan SES untuk menyederhanakan cara
stakeholder mereka mendapatkan akses ke informasi yang
berkaitan dengan berbagai masalah ekonomi, lingkungan,
dan sosial (Clarkson et al., 2011; Guziana dan Dobers,
2013; Thorne et al. , 2014), dan meningkatkan aktivitas
akuntabilitas eksternal dan sikap pengungkapan mereka.

Kualitas pelaporan SES dan keterlibatan pemangku

kepentingan sering dikaitkan dengan topik akuntansi
dialogis (DA) yang muncul, juga disebut sebagai
"akuntansi polilogik" (lihat Dillard dan Roslender, 2011),
suatu bentuk akuntansi kritis yang mencoba menciptakan
ruang dan peluang bagi pemangku kepentingan yang
ekspektasi atau pendapatnya diabaikan dalam laporan
tradisional (Brown dan Dillard, 2015).

Terinspirasi oleh pertimbangan ini, ini adalah salah satu

studi pertama yang menjelaskan bagaimana pelaporan
keberlanjutan dan praktik keterlibatan pemangku
kepentingan dapat berfungsi sebagai sarana DA –
 pendekatan baru untuk pelaporan SES yang menantang
beberapa praktik akuntansi dan keberlanjutan (Thomson
et al., 2014).
Tujuan Penelitian Tujuan dari jurnal ini adalah untuk menjelaskan
bagaimana pelaporan keberlanjutan dan proses
keterlibatan stakeholder berfungsi sebagai kendaraan
akuntansi dialogis (DA), suatu bentuk akuntansi kritis
yang menciptakan peluang bagi stakeholder untuk
mengekspresikan pendapat mereka, dan pengaruh
interaksi dialogis pada konten laporan keberlanjutan.
Sumber Data 299 perusahaan yang telah mengadopsi pedoman Global
Reporting Initiative.
Metode Penelitian Analisis konten digunakan untuk menyelidiki laporan
yang diterbitkan oleh 299 perusahaan yang telah
mengadopsi pedoman Global Reporting Initiative.
Hasil Penelitian 1. Perusahaan sering berkomitmen untuk berdialog dua
arah dengan stakeholder mereka, tetapi kerangka kerja
yang dikembangkan sepenuhnya untuk DA jarang
terjadi/ada. Namun, tanda-tanda DA muncul dalam
analisis, sehingga menegaskan bahwa pelaporan
keberlanjutan dapat menjadi platform untuk sistem
DA jika keterlibatan stakeholder efektif.
Kelebihan Penelitian 1. Penulis menjelaskan metode dan hasil penelitian
secara detail dan terperinci.
2. Kesimpulan yang diberikan penulis sangat detail dan
mencakup semua pembahasan penelitian.
Kelemahan Penelitian 1. Penulis banyak menggunakan kata-kata yang sulit
dipahami oleh masyarakat awam.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

Stakeholder
Stakeholder engagement and engagement
dialogic accounting and dialogic
accounting
Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting
Marco Bellucci 1467
Department of Economics and Management,
Received 21 September 2017
University of Florence, Florence, Italy Revised 6 February 2019
Lorenzo Simoni Accepted 7 February 2019

Department of Economics and Management,

University of Florence, Florence, Italy and
Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, Florence, Italy, and
Diletta Acuti and Giacomo Manetti
Department of Economics and Management,
University of Florence, Florence, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain how sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement
processes serve as vehicles of dialogic accounting (DA), a form of critical accounting that creates
opportunities for stakeholders to express their opinions, and the influence of dialogic interactions on the
content of sustainability reports.
Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis is used to investigate reports published by
299 companies that have adopted Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. This paper studies how
organizations engage stakeholders, the categories of stakeholders that are being addressed, the methods used
to support stakeholder engagement, and other features of the stakeholder engagement process. Companies
that disclose stakeholder perceptions, the difficulties met in engaging stakeholders, and actions aimed at
creating opportunities for different groups of stakeholders to interact were subjects of discussion in a series of
semi-structured interviews that focus on DA.
Findings – Companies often commit themselves to two-way dialogue with their stakeholders, but fully
developed frameworks for DA are rare. However, signs of DA emerged in the analysis, thus confirming that
sustainability reporting can become a platform for DA systems if stakeholder engagement is effective.
Originality/value – The findings contribute to the accounting literature by discussing if and how
sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement can serve as vehicles of DA. This is accomplished via a
research design that is based on in-depth interviews and content analysis of various sustainability reports.
Keywords Content analysis, Sustainability reporting, Stakeholder engagement,
Social and environmental accounting, GRI, Dialogic accounting
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the last 20 years, the publication of social, environmental and sustainability (SES) reports
has expanded in many countries. Some companies voluntarily produce and publish SES
reports in order to both simplify the means by which their stakeholders gain access to
information pertaining to various economic, environmental and social issues (Clarkson et al.,
2011; Guziana and Dobers, 2013; Thorne et al., 2014), and improve their external accountability
activities and disclosure attitudes. Indeed, the principles of relevance and materiality suggest

The authors would like to thank the team of junior researchers that supported data collection and data Accounting, Auditing &
entry for this study, especially Stefano Alfano, Suela Balili, Giuditta Mattei, Fatjon Rrucaj and Martin Accountability Journal
Vol. 32 No. 5, 2019
Sannuto. Although this study is the result of a team effort, Giacomo Manetti can be considered the pp. 1467-1499
author of Sections 1 and 2; Marco Bellucci the author of Sections 3 and 5; Lorenzo Simoni the author of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3574
Sections 4.1 and 4.2; and Diletta Acuti the author of Section 4.3. DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-09-2017-3158
AAAJ that stakeholder engagement often determines what information is reported and how it is
32,5 made available to a wider audience (Gray, 2000). The materiality principle suggests that an
SES report should cover every factor that substantively influences the assessments and
decisions of stakeholders (GRI, 2013a). Stakeholder engagement emphasizes the extent to
which organizations involve and empower stakeholders in decision-making processes,
information sharing, dialoguing and creating models of mutual responsibility (Andriof et al.,
1468 2002; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009). Relations between stakeholders and organizations are based
on how ideas of reciprocity, interdependence and power (Andriof and Waddock, 2002) are
employed in networks that encourage two-way forms of communication (Rowley, 1997;
Bellucci and Manetti, 2017, 2018).
The main feature of stakeholder engagement, therefore, is not the mere involvement of
stakeholders to mitigate or manage expectations, but rather the creation of a network of
mutual responsibility (Andriof et al., 2002; Belal, 2002; Steurer et al., 2005). Stakeholders also
participate in business management by raising issues that can have both a positive or
negative effect on corporations, thereby influencing managerial decisions (see e.g. Rodrigue
et al., 2013 regarding the influence of stakeholders in determining environmental performance
indicators and environmental strategies). Thus, their main responsibility is to avoid raising
issues that might cause unintended negative externalities on the corporation, other
organizations or local communities (Andriof et al., 2002; Windsor, 2002). If stakeholders have
responsibilities and rights, then their relationship with the corporation should go beyond
merely satisfying their expectations ( Jones et al., 2002; Wicks and Goodstein, 2009).
International guidelines for SES reporting and assurance treat stakeholder engagement
as a compulsory means of producing a complete and useful document for its intended users
(AccountAbility, 2011; GRI, 2013a). More than providing a general outline of an
organization’s corporate activities, SES reports should communicate useful information to
stakeholders (GRI, 2013a).
In recent years, researchers have found evidence of unprecedented levels of stakeholder
participation and interaction in SES reporting (Manetti, 2011; Miles et al., 2002; Unerman
and Bennett, 2004; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016). In other words, engagement and dialogue
with stakeholders are increasingly recognized as crucial elements of SES reporting
(Van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008), even though these types of activities are rarely
included in corporate reports (ACCA, 2005; Manetti, 2011).
The features and effects of dialogic interactions in SES reporting have not been
adequately addressed by both scholars and practitioners. The quality of SES reporting and
stakeholder engagement has often been associated with the emerging topic of dialogic
accounting (DA), also addressed as “polylogic accounting” (see Dillard and Roslender, 2011),
a form of critical accounting that attempts to create spaces and opportunities for
stakeholders whose expectations or opinions are ignored in traditional reports (Brown and
Dillard, 2015). Stakeholder engagement, for instance, plays a fundamental role in every
dialogic (or polylogic) codification process because it allows for a more pluralist expression
of public interest, thus “mitigating the dominance of instrumental rationality” (Dillard and
Ruchala, 2005, p. 621).
Although DA does not coincide or overlap with SES reporting – in fact, it often goes
beyond stakeholder engagement itself – encouraging the involvement of interested parties
in this process can act as an important vehicle of codification and create a new dialogic
representation of reality.
Inspired by these considerations, this is one of the first studies to explain how
sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement practices can serve as vehicles of DA – a
novel approach to SES reporting that challenges several accounting and sustainability
practices (Thomson et al., 2014). Since sustainability accounting usually focuses on corporate
accounts and reports, scholars and practitioners alike have largely failed to acknowledge the
importance of involving institutions, local communities and stakeholders in a much broader Stakeholder
manner. In fact, dialogic activism often sees accounting entities as having a negative effect on engagement
the community. Sustainability accounting, by contrast, requires the empowerment of the and dialogic
community in order to resist the threats and hazards from unsustainable “thought-language”
(Cooper et al., 2005; Gray et al., 2014; Lehman, 2002), which, in turn, enables communities to accounting
recognize their value in shaping the future of the planet.
A more thorough understanding of DA practices in SES reporting can help us better 1469
evaluate whether mandatory disclosure or certification policies are necessary, and whether
improved guidelines for accounting and reporting are required. Above all else, this paper
contributes to debates in the field of critical accounting by providing evidence of attempts to
implement – both consciously and unconsciously – DA practices through sustainability
reports. Unfortunately, the relationship between dialogic and social accounting is rarely
mentioned in the scholarly literature, even though there is evidence that organizations can
foster dialogic processes through SES reporting.
The paper is structured as follows. In the following section we discuss the theoretical
framework of DA and its connection with SES reporting, the latter of which is linked to
stakeholder engagement practices and the principles of materiality and relevance. Section 3
describes our mixed-methodology approach based on content analysis and semi-structured
interviews that were used to gather evidence on how DA often emerges through SES
reporting and related stakeholder engagement processes. Section 4 presents the results of
our empirical research on a large sample of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) SES reports.
The concluding section discusses stakeholder engagement, dialogue and participation
through either a convergent or agonistic perspective, and assesses the state of the field,
emphasizing the practical implications of our work, the limits of our research and the
possibility of developing new DA approaches that involve SES reporting and related
stakeholder engagement processes.

2. Theoretical framework
This section discusses the scholarly literature that addresses the link between SES
accounting and stakeholder engagement as vehicles of DA (e.g. Dillard and Roslender, 2011;
Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b, 2014). We describe the role played by stakeholder engagement
in SES accounting and reporting practices, and then define “dialogic accounting,” an
umbrella term that is often used by contemporary scholars and practitioners.
Many international standards for SES accounting and reporting require stakeholder
engagement in order to produce a complete and useful document for its intended users
(AccountAbility, 2011; GRI, 2013a; Manetti, 2011). It is safe to say that stakeholder engagement
is not only at the very core of SES accounting and reporting, but that sustainability reporting
itself is (or should be) a dialogic process that examines accountability relationships between
stakeholders and organizations (Gray et al., 1997). This is why previous studies on SES
accounting have focused on enhancing the levels of democratic interaction (Dey, 2003; Gray,
1997; Boyce, 2000; Gray and Bebbington, 2001; Brown, 2009) and, most recently, attempts to
create new DA practices and technologies that promote stakeholder engagement and
interaction (Bebbington et al., 2007; Frame and Brown, 2008; Thomson and Bebbington, 2005).
In fact, Thomson and Bebbington (2005) claim that stakeholder engagement is of utmost
importance in SES accounting, arguing that it should address conflicts among stakeholders,
recognize diverse viewpoints and explicitly manage power dynamics.
Thomson and Bebbington (2004, 2005) also discuss the extent to which DA stimulates SES
reporting practices among corporations. They argue that DA should support SES reporting in
raising awareness of the unsustainable nature of current socio-economic systems, thereby
improving decision-making processes and creating a more sustainable future for the
planet (Bebbington et al., 2007; Contrafatto et al., 2015; Dillard and Roslender, 2011; Gray, 2010;
AAAJ Gray et al., 2014; Lehman, 2001, 2002). DA often shapes the contents of conventional SES
32,5 reports and empowers local, national and international communities (Lombardi, 2016), which
means that it gives stakeholders an opportunity to alter the future by using SES reporting to
influence corporate policies. For instance, Freire (2005) claims that dialogic codifications serve
as representations of community life, societal structures and the various “thought-languages”
that condition an organization’s actions. These dialogic codifications provide “meaningful
1470 representations of the [concrete] existential situations” found within the community
(Freire, 2005, p. 105).
Bebbington et al. (2007) see DA as the engagement and involvement of multiple
constituencies in projecting and developing innovative accounting tools and techniques that
gather, manage and report relevant and timely information. This, in turn, allows
stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes and dialogue that could lead to the
creation of shared platforms and solutions to problems associated with organizational
conduct (Vinnari and Dillard, 2016; Bebbington et al., 2007; Bellucci et al., 2019). Brown and
Dillard (2014) have proposed several new approaches to DA that are worth considering,
including scenario workshops, deliberative mapping, multi-criteria analysis, open space
technologies, Q methodology and dissensus conferences. They argue that these methods
“combine stakeholder assessments with specialist appraisals in ways that emphasize
diversity, contestability and social learning; highlighting the divergent ways in which issues
can be framed as a basis for debate” (Brown and Dillard, 2014, p. 1127).
The contested nature of accounting information – and the importance of responding to a
wider range of interested constituencies – has led many scholars to re-think their views on
reporting practices, including calls for new accounting processes that recognize the pluralist
nature of contemporary society (Boyce, 2000; Cooper and Morgan, 2013; Dillard and
Ruchala, 2005; Macintosh and Baker, 2002). By supporting stakeholder engagement and
community participation, DA involves the creation of a public forum where diverse
constituencies can express opinions and different points of view – including discussions of
related ideologies and power relations – without assuming a single, shared framework that
is based on an agonistic approach to democracy. DA allows stakeholders with divergent
socio-political perspectives to express different views on accountability, how these
phenomena are accounted for, and on whose terms. In many respects, the absence of
consensus or explicit dissent can be best understood via an agonistic perspective (Brown,
2009; Dillard and Roslender, 2011; Dillard and Yuthas, 2013). Stakeholders who participate
in pluralistic processes are given a chance to better understand their differences, while also
emphasizing their common ground, thus creating a public forum where diverse
constituencies can share ideas and points of view, organize and formulate possible
projects, and/or stimulate actions that are “more collectively robust” (Stirling, 2008, p. 280).
Participation, discussion and comparison quicken “critical reflection on taken for granted
understandings and practices, opening the way for transformative change of individuals,
groups, organizations and institutions” (Brown and Dillard, 2015, p. 966).
It is important to emphasize that DA has two alternative aims:
(1) create a deliberative, general consensus (Power and Laughlin, 1996; Laughlin, 1987)
that is based on Habermas’ (1984, 1987, 1989) “ideal speech situation” – in other
words, communication among stakeholders in undistorted conditions that can be
expressed in a “a discursive arena that is home to citizen debate, deliberation,
agreement and action” (Villa, 1992, p. 712; Dahlberg, 2005); and
(2) assemble a collection of divergent socio-political views in an agonistic perspective,
highlighting the values and assumptions associated with different viewpoints and
recognizing the need for multiple engagements between different actors across
various political spaces (Gray, 2002; O’Dwyer, 2005; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b).
The agonistic approach is particularly interesting in the context of the present study Stakeholder
because stakeholder engagement helps synthesize the different points of views that are engagement
often found among groups with diverse interests. This approach recognizes the need for and dialogic
multiple engagements between different actors across various political spaces (Gray, 2002;
O’Dwyer, 2005) and is based on an agonistic model of participation (Brown, 2009; Dillard accounting
and Roslender, 2011; Dillard and Brown, 2012; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b).
As in pharmacology, when a chemical binds to (and activates) a receptor in order to produce 1471
a biological response, the agonistic approach can foster and stimulate democratic decision-
making processes. Indeed, Mouffe (1995) argues that agonistic approaches are opposed to the
Marxist concept of “materialism,” emphasizing instead the positive aspects of certain forms of
political conflict. Thus, conflict is given a permanent role in the agonistic worldview, oftentimes
stressing how conflict can be channeled in a positive manner. For this reason, supporters of the
agonistic perspective are especially concerned with debates about democracy.
Agonistic approaches are also used to bring closure to the stakeholder engagement
process. Interactive relationships among diverse stakeholders should result in a network that
supports emerging facts. However, “the (ant)agonistic framework requires that once closure
has been attained and a new dominant hegemonic order established, the process is
immediately opened up again allowing appeal by the excluded parties” (Vinnari and Dillard,
2016, p. 39). In other words, the positive results of addressing conflict should influence the
accounting and reporting process by legitimizing dissenting and supportive constituencies,
granting them a more prominent role in the decision-making process and future deliberations.
Brown’s (2009) ideas on the relationship between agonistic democracy and DA have
found support among his peers (Blackburn et al., 2014; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b, 2014,
2015; Brown et al., 2015; Dillard and Brown, 2012, 2015; Dillard and Roslender, 2011; Dillard
and Yuthas, 2013; Söderbaum and Brown, 2010; Vinnari and Dillard, 2016). In fact, some of
these authors have embraced the expression “agonistic DA” (Brown, 2009; Dillard and
Brown, 2012; Vinnari and Dillard, 2016), a phrase that refers to the decisive moments that
often arise when implementing a project based on the logic of pluralism. Thus, agonistic DA
highlights the so-called “paradox of pluralism”; it creates boundaries between social actors
and parties, but its main aim is to valorize and overcome differences through dialogue and
debate. Agonism and pluralism require stakeholder and community engagement in order to
create a broader audience, even though obtaining tangible results ought to be a primary
goal. In other words, agonistic DA should bring closure to the engagement process by
incorporating democratic decision-making strategies (Vinnari and Dillard, 2016).
In both deliberative and agonistic approaches, recognizing a diverse array of ideological
orientations, enabling access for non-experts and ensuring effective participation are core
principles of DA (Brown, 2009; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b). Monologic accounting, by
contrast, operates under the assumption that the informational needs of investors can affect
the values and principles of accounting and reporting systems. As Brown (2009) explains,
“monologic accounting also reflects a finality orientation; the ‘facts speaking for themselves’
[…]” (p. 316).
Recently, Brown and Dillard (2013a, b) have tried to foster accounting practices that are
more receptive to the needs of a plural society, thus taking into account stakeholder values
and interests (Brown, 2009). These practices are often referred to as DA, a concept that
recognizes various points of views and refuses to regard capital markets and investors as
priority stakeholders. It is also worth noting that DA rejects the idea of a universal
narrative, preferring to think of institutions as being beholden to diverse perspectives and
the interests of a wide variety of stakeholders.
According to Freire (2005), DA does not hope to simply account for an organization’s
choices and actions, but rather demonstrate what the organization has done in terms of
recognizing “thought-languages” that constrain or criticize its actions, thereby transforming
AAAJ the community in which the organization is situated (Freire, 2005). These dialogic
32,5 accounts – which Freire (2005) calls “codifications” – should provide “meaningful
representations of the [concrete] existential situations” (p. 105) in the community.
DA also provides the community with new opportunities to stimulate dialogue, create
solutions for pressing problems and expose physical, cultural or intellectual barriers – so-
called “limiting situations and factors” (Freire, 2005, p. 99). However, Freire (2005) claims
1472 that a risk associated with DA practices (especially counter accounts) involves the ways in
which organizations marginalize alternative voices that adopt an agonistic perspective,
thereby providing accountability traces for decisions that have already been made or
omitted. According to Brown and Dillard (2015), disclosing dissenting views in annual
reports or SES reports can help stakeholders re-establish debates on economic, social or
environmental issues, while also drawing attention to bad business practices that have been
dismissed or minimized by organizations in the past.

3. Research design
3.1 Sample and data
In order to pursue our research objectives, we created a sample of sustainability reports that
were prepared in accordance with the G4 version of the GRI guidelines. Although other
international organizations offer SES reporting guidelines – indeed, this sample should not
be considered representative of all global organizations that publish SES reports – the
guidelines provided by the GRI are the most trusted and widespread standard for
sustainability reporting (Thorne et al., 2014; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016; Diouf and Boiral,
2017), as more than 13,000 organizations from more than 80 countries currently use (or have
used) GRI guidelines to produce their sustainability reports (Bellucci and Manetti, 2018; GRI,
2013a, b). Even though sustainability practices often vary between countries (Schaltegger
et al., 2014), the GRI provides a unified standard for sustainability reporting and, in
principle, allows us to compare information and engage in benchmarking between various
organizations (Diouf and Boiral, 2017; Marimon et al., 2012). We selected sustainability
reports that had the following features:
• accordance with the GRI-G4 standard – “core” and “comprehensive” adherence levels;
• external assurance;
• reports were published in 2016;
• the organizations are private companies (owned by either non-governmental
organizations or several stakeholders), state-owned companies (legal entities created
by government in order to undertake commercial activities on behalf of the state), or
subsidiaries (companies controlled by another company by owning more than 50
percent of voting stock); and
• availability on the GRI’s online sustainability disclosure database.
We concluded that 351 organizations in the GRI database posted sustainability reports that
met some or all of these criteria. We then excluded 52 reports that were written in languages
other than English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian – in other words, languages that our
research team were unable to read – or whose information was unavailable when the
content analysis was being performed.
All in all, our sample is based on the annual reports of 299 organizations from several
different sectors. Table I provides a complete overview of the types of organizations
included in our sample and the sector in which they operate.
Europe is the most represented region (138 organizations) in our sample, followed by
South America (63), Asia (59), North America (33), Africa (4) and Oceania (2). Our sample
 Organization type
Stakeholder
Sector Private company State-owned company Subsidiary Total engagement
and dialogic
Agriculture 1 1 2
Automotive 9 9 accounting
Aviation 4 2 6
Chemicals 12 1 13
Commercial services 6 6 1473
Computers 2 2
Conglomerates 10 1 1 12
Construction 3 1 4
Construction materials 9 1 10
Consumer durables 4 4
Energy 22 6 2 30
Energy utilities 12 4 2 18
Equipment 7 7
Financial services 38 6 3 47
Food and beverage products 16 16
Forest and paper products 4 4
Healthcare products 4 4
Healthcare services 2 2
Household and personal products 2 2
Logistics 5 1 1 7
Media 3 3
Metals products 3 1 4
Mining 16 1 17
Other 11 2 13
Railroad 1 1 2
Real estate 14 14
Retailers 4 4
Technology hardware 7 7
Telecommunications 18 2 2 22
Textiles and apparel 2 2
Tobacco 1 1
Tourism/leisure 3 3 Table I.
Water utilities 1 1 2 Sectors and
Total 256 28 15 299 organization types

consists of 100 multinationals (MNE), 191 large enterprises (large) and 8 small or medium
enterprises. The headquarters of all the organizations in our sample are located in either
Europe, Asia or North America.
Even though our sample is heterogeneous in terms of company size, industry and
geographic locations, the sample selection is in line with previous studies that deal with
stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting, making use of samples that feature
different types of companies from several different countries (Ayuso et al., 2011; Boiral,
2013; Frias‐Aceituno et al., 2014; Sierra‐García et al., 2015; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016).
Selecting all the companies that followed GRI-G4 standards reduces problems
related to heterogeneity. The adoption of GRI (2006) standards enhances our ability to
compare sustainability reports, allowing users to compare the information over time
alongside information disclosed by other companies that are also GRI adopters
(Diouf and Boiral, 2017). Moreover, we have conducted tests to control for potential
differences in stakeholder engagement practices and dialogic behaviors among
companies that vary in size and operate in different industries. More specifically, we
have assessed the impact of size, geographic location and different level of adherence to
GRI standards (Appendix 2).
AAAJ 3.2 Methodology
32,5 We opted for a mixed methodology that is built on content analysis and semi-structured
interviews. Employing a mixed methodology allowed us to obtain a more complete picture
of the phenomenon under study (Webb et al., 1966), improve the validity of our various
theoretical propositions and familiarize readers with the subject/context of our research
(Ihantola and Kihn, 2011). Indeed, these factors explain why scholars in the field of
1474 accounting studies have called for greater use of mixed methodology approaches in recent
years (Creswell and Clark, 2007).
3.2.1 Content analysis of SES reports. In the first phase of our research, a content analysis
of stakeholder engagement was performed in order to better understand the various features
of the stakeholder engagement process and determine if these characteristics point toward
some form of DA. Content analysis is a research technique based on the objective, systematic
and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (Berelson, 1952).
According to Bryman and Bell (2015), content analysis has been increasingly used in business
research to examine media items and annual reports.
The reliability of the data produced by our content analysis can be assured by using
multiple coders and reporting/analyzing discrepancies that emerge between the coders
(Milne and Adler, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2004; Manetti and Bellucci, 2016). Given the large size
of the sample and the vast amount of text that needed to be processed, the data collection
team was composed of five junior researchers, one supervisor and one coordinator.
According to Elo and Kyngäs (2008), the internal validity of content analysis can be
assessed by using agreement coefficients (Weber, 1990), such as Cohen’s κ coefficient. Since
coders may agree on coding categories by chance, Cohen’s (1960) κ coefficient allows us to
overcome this problem by calculating the difference between actual and expected agreement
rates. Some scholars argue that this method represents the most widely used measure of
inter-judge reliability (Perreault and Leigh, 1989). Content validation requires the creation of
a panel of experts that can support concept production and/or coding issues (Graneheim and
Lundman, 2004) and promote dialogue among researchers, which will in turn help build
consensus as to how the data is categorized. Using these ideas as a guide, we created a
four-step strategy that ensures the reliability of our analysis (Bryman and Bell, 2015):
(1) Sample definition: we defined the full set of reports to be analyzed.
(2) Drafting the coding categories: we worked on a first draft of the coding categories
(see Table II).
(3) Coding test: many tests were conducted on the coding procedure to highlight
ambiguous or unclear interpretations of the rules. Each coder performed an
independent test of the coding rules through a preliminary content analysis on the
same random sub-sample of 20 reports. The results were compared and differences
of interpretation were discussed. Reports have been double checked to ensure the
reliability of the process (an exception was made when the coder was an expert in a
specific language).
(4) Revision of the coding rules and final version: the pilot test enabled us to fine-tune
our various tools and coding procedures, delete useless categories, and add new,
more insightful categories. This resulted in a clear and coherent set of detection and
classification rules. Another report was analyzed by the entire team in order to
synchronize our methods. We then distributed the reports among individual team
members, dividing the workload in such a way as to ensure that each member had a
chance to analyze reports from a wide variety of organizations, while also taking
into account type, dimensions and sector. This phase of the analysis allowed us to
check for coding inter-reliability. Each researcher discussed the results of the
Variable label Description
Stakeholder
engagement
General info and dialogic
Type Report format (PDF or web-based)
Language Language in which the report was written accounting
Stakeholder engagement (SE) section Indicates if there is a specific section devoted to SE
SE role Indicates the role of SE in the report
1475
Stated methodologies used for SE (GRI G4-26 standard)
Indicates if SE is performed through:
Standard procedures e.g. formal channels, presentation of annual reports
Focus groups e.g. focus groups and workshops
Interviews e.g. interviews and other one-to-one procedures
Surveys e.g. surveys and polls
Meetings e.g. group meetings, site visits, official meetings
Social media e.g. social media and networks
Other web app. e.g. other technological applications
Others Indicates if different SE methodologies were used
Reported engaged stakeholders (GRI G4-24 standard; Bellucci and Manetti, 2017; Perrini and Tencati, 2011)
Indicates if the report presents the following as engaged
class of stakeholders:
Shareholders shareholders and investors
Employees employees and their representatives (e.g. unions)
Customers customers
Suppliers suppliers, contractors and subcontractors
Government governments, authorities and regulators
NGOs non-governmental organizations, members of civil society
and non-profit organizations
Local communities communities, community members, traditional councils and
community trusts
Others Indicates if there are other classes of engaged stakeholders
included in the report
Stakeholder engagement
SE degree (GRI G4-38 and G4-40 standards; General evaluation of the degree of stakeholder involvement
Manetti, 2011) (absent, information, consultation, empowerment)
Stakeholders opinions (Manetti, 2011) Indicates if stakeholder opinions on previous reports
are reported
Stakeholders issue Indicates if stakeholder issues are reported in the SE section
or only in the materiality matrix
Quotations Indicates if quotations from at least one stakeholder
are reported
Cooperation among different stakeholder These forms of cooperation include, but are not limited to
groups (Gray, 2000; Bebbington et al., 2007; multi-stakeholder fora and round tables with
Brown, 2009; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b) representatives of different stakeholder categories
SE for materiality Indicates if it is clearly stated that SE is used for a
materiality check
SE guidelines Indicates if a company decided to follow any specific
guidelines for SE reporting beyond those that are included
in the GRI
Assurance reported (GRI G4-33 standard) Indicates if it is reported that an external assurance
specifically devoted to SE is in use
Difficulties (GRI G4-27 standard) Indicates if the report describes the main difficulties faced
during the SE process
Level of covering Indicates the extent to which the SE process was covered in Table II.
the report (superficial, intermediate, deep) List and description of
Pages of SE section Indicates the ratio between pages dedicated to SE and the data collected from
entire report content analysis
AAAJ analysis with the supervisor. When significant differences were found, the different
32,5 interpretations were discussed between the junior researcher and the supervisor.
This procedure was repeated until a Cohen’s κ coefficient of inter-reliability of at
least 0.8 was obtained between the researcher and the supervisor.
The 299 reports in our study were downloaded from the GRI website, given a unique ID, and
their content was manually analyzed. A specific data entry grid was developed in order to
1476 support the data collection phase, the coding scheme and the categorization of concepts.
External appendices or secondary reports were not included in the analysis.
Using both GRI guidelines and the scholarly literature on stakeholder engagement
disclosure as guides (Gray, 2000; Manetti, 2011; Perrini and Tencati, 2011; Bebbington et al.,
2007; Brown, 2009; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b; Bellucci and Manetti, 2017), we developed
our own coding categories, emphasizing the following types of data:
• The general characteristics of the reports.
• The methods used during the stakeholder engagement process: the disclosure of
stakeholder engagement methods is required by the G4-26 standard. Analyzing these
reports allowed us to identify the most widely used methodologies (see Table II).
• The reported categories of engaged stakeholders: the G4-24 standard requires
companies to report the main stakeholder groups that have been engaged. The
stakeholder categories identified in our analysis support some of the stakeholder
engagement reporting schemes proposed by other scholars (Bellucci and Manetti,
2017, 2018; Perrini and Tencati, 2011).
• The features of stakeholder engagement: we relied on the framework proposed by
Manetti (2011) and the GRI to identify certain aspects of stakeholder engagement.
Three categories are used to detect the presence of DA, including the presence of
stakeholder opinions on previous reports (Manetti, 2011), the disclosure of forms of
cooperation among different stakeholder groups (Gray, 2000; Bebbington et al., 2007;
Brown, 2009; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b) and the descriptions of difficulties faced in
the stakeholder engagement process (GRI G4-27 standard).
Although special emphasis was placed on the stakeholder engagement section, the entire
report was subjected to a content analysis. The research team created specific guidelines to
code information. These guidelines were based on content and keywords related to the main
concepts discussed in each category. A pilot test was conducted to detect unclear rules and
standardize the classification strategies of the researchers.
Table II lists the data that were produced by our content analysis. Much of it complements
the information gathered from the GRI Sustainability Database. Moreover, given the
heterogeneity of our sample, we performed a statistical analysis to verify whether size, level of
adherence to the GRI G4 and location affect the three main variables that are commonly
associated with DA (e.g. disclosure of stakeholder opinions on previous reports, difficulties
and interactions among different stakeholder groups). We ran three different logit models,
using several indicator variables (see Appendix 2). Stakeholder opinions, difficulties and
interactions among different groups of stakeholders were used as dependent variables; firm
size, industry and adherence level were used as independent variables. In order to make the
analyses more robust, we ran three linear probability models to test the same equations.
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews. We used semi-structured interviews in the second
part of our analysis in order to draw attention to organizations whose stakeholder
engagement disclosures pointed toward potential forms of DA. The phrase “potential
forms of DA” refers to practices suggesting that DA is being employed. The presence of
DA was then confirmed by interviewing CSR representatives (Solomon and Darby, 2005).
Our content analysis allowed us to build a sub-sample of 62 organizations that showed one Stakeholder
or more signs of DA, including: engagement
• the organization claims that different groups of stakeholders band together, in either and dialogic
an agonistic or collaborative perspective, to discuss various topics and issues; accounting
• the organization mentions that specific struggles emerged in the relationship between
one or more group of stakeholders, while also noting how these difficulties have been
addressed; and 1477
• the organization discusses stakeholder views on previous versions of the report.
If our content analysis can help us understand how companies engage stakeholders and
what they disclose in sustainability reports about this process, then it is safe to say that the
semi-structured interviews allow us to understand why companies are interested in DA and
how this form of interaction affects stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews are often used
in tandem with quantitative techniques (e.g. content analysis) in order to produce a mixed-
methodology approach (Bryman and Bell, 2015). In other words, the qualitative part of our
study allowed our research team to collect a vast amount of material that complements the
raw data that were gathered and coded during the content analysis stage. Moreover, we
wanted to shift focus from the content of sustainability reports to the representatives of
organizations that disclosed them. We believed that interviews could lead to deeper analysis
of the various organizations that showed signs of employing DA.
We also developed a schedule for these semi-structured interviews that highlighted
collaboration among different groups of stakeholders, the management of dissenting views
and the presence of discordant voices. Table III presents the main questions included in the
interview schedule.
We administered this schedule (via Skype or telephone) to representatives that
organizations indicate in their CSR report as referents for corporate responsibility issues
(mainly CSR, stakeholder engagement, SES reporting area directors and risk management
officers) of 62 organizations that showed signs of DA. When we contacted the organizations,
we made sure that all the interviewees were playing a leading role in CSR management,
despite having different job titles. Since high-level managers are often quite busy, we
followed a two-step procedure that was drawn up by Healey and Rawlinson (1993). This
involved writing to representatives of the organizations in our sample to request
participation in the study and arrange an interview. We then wrote letters explaining our
research and a possible interview schedule. Since “polite persistence” is often crucial in
situations like this (Healey and Rawlinson, 1993), a reminder was sent to organizations that
did not reply four weeks after the initial correspondence. A total of 16 organizations agreed
to be interviewed. We also tested for non-response bias in our sample by examining the
differences between responding and non-responding organizations. t-Tests indicate that
there are no significant differences in size, profitability and leverage between the two groups
(see Table AI). The interviews were conducted between April and June 2017, lasting an
average of 30 min. The shortest interview was 25 min; the longest was 35 min.
Our primary questions focused on why the organization is interested in engaging
stakeholders, what opportunities exist for different stakeholders to cooperate, the impact on
strategies and costs of stakeholder interaction, and how the organizations manage
dissenting views and discordant opinions. Answers were coded and then used to verify,
complement and build upon the quantitative results that emerged via the content analysis.
In order to assure the validity of these interviews, the schedule was approved by two
external senior researchers who assessed the neutrality of the questions. Our research goals
were explained to the interviewee in detail before the interview began. The authors
personally carried out the interviews. They then discussed their findings, determining the
AAAJ Main topic Question
32,5
Role and effects of SE 1. How important is it for your organization to involve stakeholders in
(Andriof et al., 2002; Jones defining the contents of the annual report or CSR/Sustainability report?
et al., 2002; Van Huijstee and 2. How important is it for your organization to involve stakeholders in
Glasbergen, 2008; Prado- defining corporate strategies?
Lorenzo et al., 2009) 3. Why do you think it is important to engage stakeholders?
1478 Role and effects of DA (Gray, 4. Does the company create opportunities for stakeholders from different
2000; Bebbington et al., 2007; groups to cooperate and express their opinions? If so, how?
Stirling, 2008; Vinnari and 5. What is the main goal in creating opportunities for different groups of
Dillard, 2016) stakeholders to cooperate and express their opinions?
6. What kind of impact does the interaction among different stakeholder
groups have on corporate strategy?
7. What kind of impact does the interaction among different stakeholder
groups have on the definition of issues, topics, and indicators reported in
the CSR/Sustainability report?
How to support DA (Brown, 8. Who is primary responsible for promoting interaction among different
2009; Söderbaum and Brown, stakeholder groups?
2010; Brown and Dillard, 9. Can you describe the channels that are used to account for interaction
2013a, b; Manetti and Bellucci, among different stakeholder groups, and how stakeholders are selected
2016) and convened?
10. Does your organization make use of photos and/or other visual material in
order to involve stakeholders from different cultures or linguistic domains?
11. What are the main costs and benefits of promoting interaction among
different groups of stakeholders?
Managing dissenting views 12. How do you think your relationship with stakeholders will change in
and further evolution of DA the future?
(Brown, 2009, p. 330; Dillard 13. How do you respond when “discordant opinions” from (or among)
and Roslender, 2011; Dillard different stakeholders are detected?
and Yuthas, 2013; Vinnari 14. Does your organization report on dissenting views in the annual report or
and Dillard, 2016) CSR/Sustainability report?
15. How does your organization respond to dissenting views when they arise?
Table III. 16. What are the most common reasons for ending dialogue on an unresolved
Interview schedule issue with a stakeholder or a group of stakeholders?

reliability and trustworthiness of the research by reviewing the interview transcripts and
interview field notes, thus making the data collection method dependable and traceable
(Bianchi and Andrews, 2015). Answers were then transcribed and coded according to our
specific research goals. We followed McCracken’s (1988) analytic method, which was
inspired by the open, axial and selective coding steps associated with grounded theory,
many of which presume that the researcher has used one or more theoretical frameworks
while developing his or her data analysis process and research questions. The authors read
and reviewed each interview transcript twice, adding several comments and observations.
This material was then used to create preliminary descriptive and interpretive categories.
The authors examined these preliminary categories in order to identify connections and
basic themes. All of the themes that showed up in our interviews were examined in order to
delineate the most prominent themes in the data.
Our use of both quantitative content analysis and qualitative semi-structured interviews
led to the findings discussed in Section 4, thus contributing to our understanding of how
stakeholder engagement and SES reporting can serve as vehicles of DA.

4. Results
The results of our content analysis provide insight into various aspects of the stakeholder
engagement process. We tried to determine whether or not stakeholder engagement
activities are included in a dedicated section of the report, the aims and scope of these Stakeholder
activities, how they are performed, and who the recipients of these activities are. In order to engagement
assess the potential signs of DA, we also investigated the presence of stakeholder opinions and dialogic
in previous reports, discussions of difficulties that were faced when engaging stakeholders
and discussions of initiatives that were aimed at promoting interaction among different accounting
groups of stakeholders. The results of the content analysis are summarized in Table IV.
1479
4.1 Stakeholder engagement practices in SES reports
GRI guidelines recommend that stakeholder engagement activities be disclosed in a specific
section of the report. Our content analysis shows that 84.28 percent of the organizations in
our sample meet this criterion. A separate section dedicated to stakeholder engagement
makes the report more significant and material, and the communication of stakeholder
engagement more effective.
In total, 23.08 percent of the companies in our sample state that stakeholder engagement
allows the organization to define strategic objectives, while 31.44 percent of the
organizations claim that it helps them prepare the report itself. In total, 36 percent of the
organizations in our sample, however, state that stakeholder engagement is useful for both
meeting strategic objectives and preparing the report.
GRI principle G4-26 requires a description of the approaches that are used when an
organization engages with stakeholders. We looked for descriptions of the tools used by the
sample organizations. Our results show that the most common methods are meetings
(81.49 percent of the organizations use this method), followed by bulletins and newsletters,
annual reports and/or consumer hotlines (78.25 percent) and surveys (69.81 percent). While
these methods imply a one- or two-way communication approach between organizations
and their stakeholders, meetings can be used to facilitate interactions among different
groups of stakeholders, thereby acting as a DA tool. The organizations in our study
also make use of interviews (49.35 percent), social media (46.75 percent) and web apps
(46.75 percent), while focus groups (31.49 percent) are the least utilized tool in stakeholder
engagement, which is probably due to higher costs per stakeholder. Other methods include
sponsored sports events, conferences and seminars, training days and supplier audits.
GRI principle G4-25 requires that organizations disclose the groups of stakeholders that
are included in the stakeholder engagement process. Three organizations did not share this
information, and one organization identified just one group of stakeholders. The rest of the
organizations in our sample, however, engaged with two or more groups of stakeholders.
Indeed, the vast majority of organizations in our sample reach out to employees
(90.58 percent), customers (88.31 percent), shareholders (83.77 percent), suppliers
(82.47 percent), local communities (78.90 percent) and governments (78.25 percent) in their
SES reports. NGOs, meanwhile, are addressed by 58.77 percent of the organizations, while
only 45.13 percent of organizations treat the media as stakeholders. Universities
and research centers, trade unions/associations, competitors, professional institutions and
opinion leaders are addressed in 61.36 percent of the SES reports examined here.
In terms of the degree of stakeholder involvement, 11.37 percent of these reports feature
stakeholder representatives that are part of a commission or a board. This type of
stakeholder involvement was deemed “empowered” in our study, as it featured proactive
roles for certain stakeholders, delegated decision-making power and appointment of
representatives in governing bodies. The most common situation – which was found in
71.57 percent of the organizations in our study – involved two-way communication with
stakeholders, without necessarily involving them in any commission. The word “consulted”
was used to describe this level of stakeholder involvement because it featured significant
amounts of consultation, monitoring and information gathering. The residual cases involve
one-way communication between organizations and their stakeholders (12.37 percent of
AAAJ DA Non-DA
32,5 n % % %

Specific section for SE

Are the themes related to SE presented in a dedicated section?
Yes 252 84.28 98.39 80.59
No 47 15.72 1.61 19.41
1480 Undeclared 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 11.75
P ¼ 0.001***
Claimed role of SE
What are the aims of SE-related activities?
Strategic objectives 69 23.08 19.35 24.05
Content of the report 94 31.44 19.35 34.60
Both 109 36.45 61.29 29.96
No reference 23 7.69 0.00 9.70
Other 3 1.00 0.00 1.27
Undeclared 1 0.33 0.00 0.42
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 24.40
P ¼ 0.000***
SE methodologies
How do companies interact with stakeholders?
Standard procedures (e.g. annual report presentations, consumer hotlines,
bulletins and newsletters) 241 78.25
Focus groups 97 31.49
Interviews 152 49.35
Surveys 215 69.81
Meetings 251 81.49
Social media 144 46.75
Other web apps (e.g. mobile applications, dedicated websites) 144 46.75
Other 161 52.27
All key stakeholders engaged
Are all the groups that are identified as key stakeholders actually engaged?
Yes 192 64.21 69.35 62.87
No 89 29.77 27.42 30.38
Undeclared 18 6.0 3.23 6.75
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ ¼ 1.48
2

P ¼ 0.477
Key stakeholders
Who are the company’s key stakeholders?
Shareholders 258 83.77
Employees 279 90.58
Customers 272 88.31
Suppliers 254 82.47
Governments 241 78.25
NGOs 181 58.77
Local communities 243 78.90
Media 139 45.13
Table IV. Other 189 61.36
Content analysis
results and χ2
comparisons (continued )
 DA Non-DA
Stakeholder
n % % % engagement
and dialogic
Degree of involvement accounting
To what extent are stakeholders engaged?
Empowered (proactive role of stakeholders, delegated decision-making
power and appointment of representatives in the governing bodies) 34 11.37 20.97 8.86 1481
Consulted (consultation, monitoring and information gathering) 214 71.57 67.74 72.57
Informed (simple information, one-way dialogue and no opportunity for SE
to influence decisions) 37 12.37 9.68 13.08
Absent 14 4.68 1.61 5.49
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ ¼ 8.52
2

P ¼ 0.036**
Stakeholder perceptions
Are stakeholder perceptions of previous reports discussed?
No 287 95.99
Only positive 10 3.34
Only negative 0 0.00
Both 2 0.67
Total 299 100.00
Stakeholder issues
Are stakeholder issues reported in the SE section or the materiality matrix?
Yes 129 43.14 54.84 40.08
No 170 56.86 45.16 59.92
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 4.36
P ¼ 0.037**
Quotations
Are the stakeholders’ impressions of the organization reported?
No 233 77.93 61.29 82.28
Yes, only positive 60 20.07 32.26 16.88
Yes, only negative 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yes, both 6 2.01 6.45 0.84
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 16.27
P ¼ 0.000***
SE for materiality
Is SE activity explicitly addressed in the materiality assessment?
Yes 246 82.27 88.71 80.59
No 53 17.73 11.29 19.41
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 2.22
P ¼ 0.136
Guidelines
Does an organization follow specific guidelines for SES preparation?
AA1000SES 81 27.09 30.65 26.16
AA1000APS 1 0.33 1.61 0.00
No 217 72.58 67.74 73.84
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 4.44
P ¼ 0.109

(continued ) Table IV.

AAAJ DA Non-DA
32,5 n % % %

Difficulties met with stakeholders

Does the organization report on any problems or difficulties in the SE activity?
Yes 30 10.03
1482 No 269 89.97
Total 299 100.00
Level of coverage
How deep is the insight about SE activities in the report?
Deep 47 15.72 25.81 13.08
Intermediate 169 56.52 62.90 54.85
Superficial 73 24.41 11.29 27.85
Not at all 10 3.34 0.00 4.22
Total 299 100.00 100.00 100.00
χ2 ¼ 13.76
P ¼ 0.003***
Cooperation among different stakeholder groups
Does the organization disclose information about events that encourage interaction among different groups
of stakeholders?
Yes 41 13.71
No 258 86.29
Total 299 100.00
Notes: Results of the comparisons for the categories “stakeholder perceptions,” “difficulties met with stakeholders”
and “cooperation among different stakeholder groups” are omitted because those categories were used to define
companies that show signs of dialogic accounting (DA) from the others (non-DA). We did not assess χ2 for the items
with non-mutually exclusive coding categories (“SE methodologies” and “Key stakeholders”). **,***Denotes
Table IV. statistical significant at 5 and 1 percent levels, respectively

cases) or a complete absence of involvement (4.68 percent). These results show that most of
the organizations actively engage with stakeholders and are willing to receive feedback
from them, even if only a few organizations provide stakeholders with the means to directly
influence corporate decisions.
In order to assess the coverage levels of these reports, we must understand the extent to
which organizations describe the stakeholder engagement activities they purport to
embrace. The results of our study show heterogeneous coverage levels. We detected
superficial levels of coverage in 24.41 percent of cases (i.e. poor coverage of the stakeholder
engagement process), intermediate levels in 56.52 percent of cases (i.e. crucial information is
included, such as engaged stakeholders and preferred methodologies) and deep coverage
levels in 15.72 percent of the companies (i.e. full explanation of the stakeholder engagement
process and the inclusion of a wide variety of data).

4.2 Potential signs of DA

We paid special attention to certain practices that signal the presence of DA, focusing on
three specific dimensions in SES reports. The first dimension is the presence of stakeholder
opinions in the report. This is a tool that gives stakeholders a voice in the organization,
allowing them to express both supporting and dissenting views. This could also foster
debate among stakeholders on issues related to a firm’s activities (Brown and Dillard, 2015).
The second dimension is the disclosure of difficulties faced by an organization during the
stakeholder engagement process. Of course, we are aware that organizations have few
incentives to discuss bad news, as legitimacy theory suggests that organizations will only
disclose positive information in order to legitimize their actions. Indeed, there is evidence to Stakeholder
suggest that organizations rarely release bad news voluntarily (Verrecchia, 1983, 2001; Dye, engagement
1985 Prencipe, 2004; Kothari et al., 2009). and dialogic
The third dimension concerns information about the methods and mechanisms that are
used to encourage interaction among different groups of stakeholders, even those who accounting
adopt a divergent or agonistic perspective. These practices are the basis of democratic
interaction (Medawar, 1976; Gray, 1997; Boyce, 2000; Gray and Bebbington, 2001; Dey, 2003; 1483
Brown, 2009) and are capable of enhancing our understanding of stakeholder engagement
and fostering agonistic pluralism (Mouffe, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2013). This could, in turn, pave
the way for DA to emerge (Thomson and Bebbington, 2005; Bebbington et al., 2007; Frame
and Brown, 2008; Brown, 2009; Blackburn et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2015).
In order to account for the heterogeneity of the sample, we tested for the effects of size,
location, and level of adherence to GRI-G4 standards on the disclosure of elements associated
with DA. The results (see Table AII) indicate that there is only a weak effect associated with
adherence levels, as it involves the disclosure of interactions among different groups of
stakeholders. The other coefficients are not significant, so we can state that size and location
do not influence DA practices, while level of adherence to GRI only weakly influences DA. We
then tested the same equations using linear probability models, which found that size had a
slight effect on stakeholder perceptions and cooperation among different stakeholder groups
(see Table AIII). Overall, we can say that characteristics like size, GRI adherence level, and
location don’t influence DA practices in a significant manner. However, these findings could
be shaped by the fact that few companies actually show signs of DA.
4.2.1 Inclusion of stakeholder opinions in the SES reports. Stakeholder opinions on
previous SES reports are not disclosed in 95.99 percent of the reports analyzed here. And in
9 out of 11 cases where stakeholder perceptions are disclosed, the opinions are positive.
However, there is evidence of both positive and negative opinions in the other two cases.
Here is an example of a report that features a discussion of stakeholder opinions:
[…] in 2012, ten of our main clients and analysts were interviewed for a Master’s thesis on our
sustainability reporting, which indicated that although our stakeholders were satisfied with our
reporting, they wished for more information on sustainability targets, costs and product life cycles.
(Cargotec, 2015 sustainability review)
The absence of these types of statements could be due to the fact that organizations have few
incentives to include stakeholder opinions in their reports – especially negative opinions.
4.2.2 Statement on difficulties in stakeholder engagement. Our findings show that 30 out
of 299 organizations report on the difficulties they encountered while engaging with
stakeholders. Here is an example of this phenomenon:
While our internal policies are targeted at conflicts prevention, our relations with diverse
stakeholders at times generate unavoidable friction and difference in opinions. (Zenith Bank plc,
2015 sustainability report)
The tendency to avoid reporting on this type of information could be due to a general
reluctance to disclose dissenting views or bad news (Verrecchia, 1983, 2001; Dye, 1985;
Prencipe, 2004; Kothari et al., 2009). Even though the GRI challenges companies to disclose both
positive and negative information, some scholars have shown that corporate sustainability
reports rarely feature voluntary disclosure of negative information (Deegan and Rankin, 1996;
Lougee and Wallace, 2008).
4.2.3 Interaction among different stakeholder groups. Our results show that 41
organizations in our sample (13.71 percent) disclose information about the methods/
mechanisms they use to foster interaction among different groups of stakeholders. The most
common initiatives are multi-stakeholder forums and meetings where representatives from
AAAJ different stakeholder groups are given opportunities to discuss their concerns. Here is a
32,5 description of one of these events:
We also arrange strategic events and initiatives, such as the Volvo Group Sustainability Forum,
that brings together stakeholders from different groups. (Volvo Group, 2015 annual report)
The organizations that are identified as potentially embracing DA have been subjected to an
1484 in-depth analysis in order to shed light on the effects of their stakeholder engagement
activities and explain why creating dialogue among stakeholders has been encouraged.

4.3 In-depth analysis of DA practices

Ultimately, 62 organizations were identified as potentially embracing DA. These
organizations included stakeholder opinions, statements on difficulties in stakeholder
engagement and/or information on interaction among different stakeholder groups in their
SES reports. We performed two separate analyses in order to zero in on the specific
practices adopted by organizations that engaged in DA. The first step was to compare the
reports from organizations that engaged in stakeholder engagement with the reports that
were released by the remaining organizations in our sample. The goal here was to verify
whether companies that show signs of DA are more likely to engage with their stakeholders
and disclose stakeholder engagement practices than companies that do not engage in DA.
To make this comparison, we divided our sample into two sub-samples – one composed of
the 62 companies that show signs of DA, and another composed of the companies that did
not. In order to determine whether or not the differences in the values of our nominal
variables across the two sub-samples are statistically significant, we used Pearson’s χ2 test
(see Table IV ). The χ2 test allows us to assess if the differences in the proportions of
categorical data between two groups are significant.
We found that the 98.39 percent of the organizations identified as potentially embracing
DA dedicated a specific section of their report to stakeholder engagement, compared to 80.59
percent of the remaining companies ( p ¼ 0.001). We also found that these organizations
were more likely to claim that stakeholder engagement contributes to both the company’s
strategic objectives and the contents of their reports. In total, 61.29 percent of companies in
the sub-sample address both aspects, compared to only 29.96 percent of the remaining
companies ( p ¼ 0.000). These results seem to confirm the important role played by
stakeholder engagement activities and stakeholder engagement communication among
organizations that encourage interaction with (and between) stakeholders. Our results also
show that organizations that seem to embrace DA often feature “empowered” stakeholders
that are more likely to be given positions on the board or on commissions. In total, 20.97
percent of the companies that showed signs of DA featured “empowered” stakeholders;
67.74 percent featured “consulted” stakeholders; and 9.68 percent featured “informed”
stakeholders. Meanwhile, 8.86 percent of the remaining companies featured “empowered”
stakeholders; 72.57 percent featured “consulted” stakeholders; and 13.08 percent featured
“informed” stakeholders. The significance of these differences was 0.036.
Entities that embrace DA are also more likely to address stakeholder issues outside the
materiality check analysis (54.84 percent of the companies in the sub-sample, compared to
40.08 percent of the other companies; p ¼ 0.037) and include quotations from stakeholders in
their reports (38.71 percent of the companies that show signs of DA, compared to 17.72
percent of the other companies; p ¼ 0.000). We also found a significant difference between
the two groups in terms of the likelihood of finding either deep or intermediate coverage
levels. Among the organizations that showed signs of embracing DA, deep coverage levels
were found in 25.81 percent of the cases, compared to 13.08 percent among organizations
that did not embrace DA. Meanwhile, intermediate coverage levels were found in 62.90
percent of organizations that seemed to embrace DA, against 54.85 percent of organizations
that did not embrace DA ( p ¼ 0.003). We did not find significant differences between the two Stakeholder
groups when all stakeholders are actually engaged. In total, 69.35 percent of companies that engagement
show signs of DA engage all key stakeholders, compared to 62.87 percent of the other and dialogic
companies. The χ2 test revealed that this difference was not significant ( p ¼ 0.477). Finally,
we did not find significant differences in the number of cases where stakeholder accounting
engagement is addressed in the materiality check. In total, 88.71 percent of companies that
show signs of DA address stakeholder engagement for materiality, compared to 80.59 1485
percent of the other companies. This difference was not significant ( p ¼ 0.136).
The results presented above show that the numbers associated with reports that
dedicate a specific section to stakeholder engagement, the indication of stakeholder
engagement as both a tool to formulate strategic objectives and prepare the report, the
presence of stakeholder issues discussed outside the materiality check section, the presence
of quotations from stakeholders, the presence of empowered stakeholders in an organization
and cases involving deep or intermediate levels of coverage are significantly higher among
organizations that were identified as having signs of DA. These entities seem to give
stakeholders more opportunity to express themselves, while also using SES reporting to
emphasize the importance of stakeholders.
The second step of our in-depth analysis involved interviewing representatives from
the 62 organizations that were identified as adopting some form of DA. This was done in
order to understand why companies adopt DA practices and how this form of interaction
affects stakeholders. A total of 16 organizations agreed to be interviewed (see Section 3.2.2
for more details). In total, 14 of these companies are privately owned, 1 is a public
institution and another is a subsidiary. Table V shows the country and sector in which
each organization operates, as well as the various job titles of the representatives who
were interviewed.
Our findings provide insight into the various stakeholder engagement and DA practices
that were identified in our content analysis. We divided our findings into five areas: first,
role and effects of stakeholder engagement; second, role and effects of DA; third, how to
support DA; fourth, managing dissenting views; and fifth, further evolution of stakeholder
engagement and DA.
4.3.1 Role and effects of stakeholder engagement (Questions 1–3 of the interview
schedule). All of the companies confirm the importance of stakeholder engagement
and emphasize their attempts to build collaborative relationships with key stakeholders.

ID Role Country Sector

01 Chief Sustainability Officer Jordan Logistics

02 Corporate Responsibility Department Luxembourg Financial services
03 Corporate Sustainability Center Hungary Telecommunications
04 Assistant Corporate Sustainability Germany Textiles and apparel
05 Reporting and Communication Project Manager Switzerland Technology hardware
06 Sustainability Officer Italy Financial services
07 Manager of Standards, Environment and Responsibility Finland Forest and paper products
08 Sustainability Team Austria Energy
09 CSR Officer Sweden Automotive
10 Project Officer Pakistan Chemicals
11 Group Risk Manager Australia Metals products
12 Corporate and Digital Communication Manager Thailand Real estate
13 Director of Environment Unit Greece Banking
14 Project Manager Italy Healthcare products Table V.
15 Group CSR Specialist Greece Construction materials Country, sector and
16 Sustainability Officer Germany Automotive role of interviewees
AAAJ The respondents also claim that it is important to involve stakeholders in the organization.
32,5 Interview data seem to confirm that both organizational strategies and the contents of these
types of disclosure must meet stakeholder demands. Indeed, our content analysis shows
that companies that adopt DA practices often stress the dual role of stakeholder
engagement in their strategy and materiality development. According to ID10:
Stakeholders’ engagement helps in understanding their concerns and expectations. It also helps in
1486 determination of material topics for our sustainability report leading to input in strategy formulation.
In other words, the answers provided by our interview subjects often emphasize the
importance of stakeholder engagement. On the one hand, stakeholder engagement is
significant because it helps strengthen relationships and encourage collaboration – because
stakeholders are affected by the company’s activities and can influence its success or failure.
On the other hand, stakeholder engagement is necessary in order to encourage companies to
respond to stakeholder needs and understand/consider their expectations. On a related note,
stakeholder engagement is also important because it often provides opportunities for
creating strategic advantages on specific issues and contributes to more successful project
outcomes. Of course, different actors are often consulted for different reasons. For instance,
consumers might be consulted to improve product development; intermediates might be
consulted to further the partnership creation process; and local communities might be
consulted to enhance a company’s legitimacy. Nevertheless, our interviews suggest that
stakeholder engagement is perceived as a fundamental tool in strengthening a company’s
relationship with its stakeholders.
4.3.2 Role and effects of DA (4–7). All of the companies we contacted claimed to have
adopted DA practices, thereby creating opportunities for stakeholders from different groups
to cooperate and express their opinions. Although it is up to individual companies to
determine how often they engage in dialog with their stakeholders, ID9 declared that:
The most important dialogue is done in daily interaction between our employees and customers,
suppliers, investors […]. We do so on a regular basis and in a variety of ways. Major policies and
strategies creation and update include a public consultation of different groups of stakeholders
which participate together to physical meetings with presentations, discussion fora, round tables,
workshops, webinars and/or debates.
Other companies organize specific events related to stakeholder engagement, such as the
Sustainability Roundtable Discussions that were organized by a Hungarian telecommunications
company. According to ID3, these roundtable discussions consist of:
[…] one-day events that […] provide space for open dialogue with our stakeholders, to learn about
their expectations, discuss the problems raised, opening platform for negotiation, joint thinking and
cooperation in building a sustainable future.
The majority of respondents declared that they are willing to create dialogic opportunities in
order to strengthen their relationship with stakeholders, that they are involved in the
development of materiality checks that are geared toward sustainability reporting, and that
they provide useful information for defining their various business strategies. However, DA
practices are not often used to mitigate discordant opinions and develop new alliances.
Indeed, stakeholder dialog is most often used to assess risk and recognize potential
opportunities. ID6 declares that:
Public consultations create opportunities for debate not only between the company and its
stakeholders, but also amongst the stakeholders themselves. Such debates are very fruitful for
the company and for developing strategies and policies, as they allow a better understanding of the
need and expectations of our stakeholders. Additionally, these interactions can be occasions for the
set-up of think tanks.
DA is also a useful tool for defining the various issues, topics and indicators that are often Stakeholder
found in SES reports. ID2 states that: engagement
The result of these interactions provides us with different points of view that will enrich the and dialogic
reporting process and help in defining the issues that are of a concern to our stakeholders either accounting
positively or negatively.

4.3.3 How to support DA (8–11). Interaction among different stakeholder groups is 1487
dependent on the contribution of various actors. Companies rely on CSR/sustainability/
communication representatives to promote DA practices and initiatives; these
representatives are often supported by other figures, including CEOs, members of the
board, external consultants and employees who specialize in investor relations, marketing,
human resources, risk management and business development. For instance, ID3 clearly
explains the roles different employees play and the process involved in adopting DA:
The Management Committee keeps contact with the stakeholders (e.g. General Meeting) through
the Group Sustainability Coordination Council (GSCC). Incoming inquiries are received by the
respective professional areas and critical comments regarding sustainability are transferred to
the responsible staff members by the GSCC members. According to the relevant group directive,
the strategic tasks are allocated to the respective Chief Officers. 50% of the bonuses of Chief
Officers depend on the performance of collective objectives.
Companies often use several different channels while establishing and maintaining contact
with various stakeholder groups. The majority of companies identify important
stakeholders by considering groups or individuals that are significantly affected by the
organization’s business activities, outputs or outcomes, or whose actions can be expected to
significantly affect the organization’s ability to create value over time. The stakeholders are
profiled, mapped and prioritized based on factors of influence, responsibility, proximity,
dependency, willingness to engage with the company, and representation. ID4 describes
how stakeholders are selected:
All suppliers from the respective region are encouraged to participate. Participants are convened
via email from our Head of Corporate Sustainability and the regional supply chain manager.
Participants are selected based on the issues faced in regards to sustainability throughout the year
and the potential challenges that might be faced in the near future, which might have an impact on
the sustainability goals achievement or will be of relevance in general. On the other hand,
participants are chosen to ensure that representatives from all relevant groups are represented;
both internals (innovations, sourcing, design department, employee representative) and externals
(social NGOs, environmental NGOs, academia, other brands and industry initiatives) participants
are convened throughout the year in both informal and formal ways.
Specific instruments might be necessary in order to help companies reach certain
stakeholders and reduce obstacles that come about due to cultural and linguistic differences.
According to some scholars (Brown, 2010; Brown and Dillard, 2013a, b), DA encourages
experimentation with new forms of accounting and reporting by using previously ignored
material, such as art, photography and other types of images. Although these approaches
can be helpful in expanding the scope of various accounting processes, few of them are used
by the accounting profession (Brown and Dillard, 2014). Regardless, adopting these new
visual instruments allows companies to communicate their activities to a wider group of
interlocutors and receive a broader range of feedback in a dialogic perspective. Out of the 15
companies included in this sample, only 2 tried to remedy their communication difficulties
through these types of alternative instruments. As ID4 notes:
We translate the annual Business Review and Sustainability Report into Lao language for our key
stakeholders in Laos. The report is also tailored to these stakeholders, employing more visuals to
AAAJ assist with messaging. Reports include extensive photographs that convey meaning to
32,5 stakeholders on a wide range of material issues.
In this specific case, the company does not seem to take advantage of improving SES
reporting methods. Surprisingly enough, most companies do not pay much attention to this
issue, even though developing new DA practices is not particularly costly. ID1, for instance,
claims that:
1488
There are not so many costs since this is built in the business process and catered for as a main
source of information.
This statement draws attention to the various benefits of DA, including its value in gaining
the trust of stakeholders and providing opportunities for collaboration. Indeed, most of the
DA-related costs identified by companies are associated with organizing DA events.
4.3.4 Managing dissenting views (13–16). DA is seen as an innovative means of
improving reporting efficacy. In fact, disclosing dissenting views in SES reports can
stimulate debate, while also making room for alternative points of view. However, including
dissenting views in reports can also generate fears about the loss of legitimacy (Verrecchia,
1983, 2001; Dye, 1985; Prencipe, 2004; Kothari et al., 2009). Nonetheless, half of the
companies interviewed for our study claim to have included dissenting views in their SES
reports in order to improve the company’s reputation. This can be explained by noting that
disclosing discordant opinions demonstrates the company’s willingness to consider multiple
points of view.
Managing opposing views also requires that companies define the manner in which they
address issues raised by dissenting stakeholders. Indeed, these issues could be seen as
either a threat or an opportunity. According to ID11:
Sometimes it is possible to engage in a fruitful dialogue and either the company or our stakeholder
will modify its position making the initial dissenting views an opportunity. Sometimes, an
agreement cannot be reached but understanding the causes of this impossibility can be a positive
outcome for the future.
The majority of respondents in our study confirm that the organization and its
stakeholders try to find a compromise whenever discordant opinions arise. In fact,
companies are reluctant to impose their points of view or ignore conflict when minor
issues are involved. When discordant stakeholders are not willing to cooperate anymore,
the dialog usually draws to a close. However, companies often try to avoid this option,
preferring instead to reach a compromise with stakeholders whenever possible. For
instance, ID7 claims that:
[…] the target is to get all issues resolved. Only in case it is a minor or even non-issue where the
stakeholder is not willing to cooperate at all ending a dialogue could be considered.

4.3.5 Further evolution of DA (12). The various representatives who were interviewed for
this project are unanimous about the future of DA practices and the growing role of
stakeholders. Interaction with stakeholders is of great importance for the future of most
companies, and relationships with stakeholders will only deepen in the future. The sheer
number of stakeholders should grow as companies move into new jurisdictions, as will their
expectations. As a result, companies might decide to place greater emphasis on innovation
in order to ensure economic stability and solve societal problems in a sustainable manner.
ID8 sums it up nicely:
We predict an increasing demand towards sustainable corporate operations, which we are
dedicated to live up to. Therefore, we are going to rely on the results of our stakeholder engagement
processes even more.
5. Conclusions Stakeholder
The impact of dialogic interactions in SES reporting is under-researched and warrants engagement
closer attention. Despite the importance of stakeholders (Donaldson, 2002) and the various and dialogic
activities that are used to secure their input, stakeholder engagement is still an under-
theorized area of study (Greenwood, 2007). Many accounts focus on the attributes of accounting
organizations or the attributes of stakeholders, rather than the actual relationships that
have emerged between organizations and stakeholders (Greenwood, 2001, 2007; Frooman, 1489
1999). Perhaps more importantly, the features and effects of dialogic interactions are rarely
discussed in the scholarly literature.
Our study sheds light on these issues by pointing out how SES reporting serves as a vehicle
of DA, while also addressing the role of stakeholder engagement in defining the contents of
these reports. In order to accomplish this, we studied 299 GRI G4 sustainability reports, paying
particular attention to the reported features of the stakeholder engagement process. We also
complemented the results obtained from our content analysis with in-depth semi-structured
interviews of representatives from organizations whose SES reports show signs of DA.
The results of our research enable us to reach some conclusions on: the various features
of stakeholder engagement processes; the practices that can be used to facilitate stakeholder
dialogue and include dissenting views through systems of DA; and why organizations are
interested in DA and its effects on the organization, its stakeholders and its strategies.
We found that organizations usually dedicate a specific section to stakeholder engagement,
oftentimes stating that it is useful for both defining strategies and defining the materiality of
the information included in the report. A majority of organizations claim that they are willing
to create a dialogue with stakeholders by relying on various methods – such as meetings and
surveys – that enable stakeholders to provide feedback and reply to inputs provided by the
organizations. This is in line with research that sees stakeholder engagement not as a means
of mitigating the expectations of shareholders, but as the creation of a network of mutual
responsibility (Andriof et al., 2002). However, although stakeholders appear to support the
decision-making process by providing opinions and feedback, they are rarely ever directly
empowered by being appointed to boards or commissions.
We highlighted cases where stakeholder engagement included parties and externalities
that have traditionally been excluded from this process, thus reflecting the pluralistic
expression of the public interest (Vinnari and Dillard, 2016). Most of the organizations in our
sample address several different types of stakeholders. This vast array of interests
reinforces, at least on paper, one of the core principles of DA: the need to reject universal
narratives in favor of strategies that accommodate a wider variety of perspectives (Vinnari
and Dillard, 2016; Brown, 2009).
Our findings seem to confirm that organizations that create SES reports are also willing
to engage stakeholders in a dialogue that flows in more than one direction. However, the
degree to which stakeholders can actually broaden traditional forms of accounting is still
discretionary and varies from organization to organization. Nonetheless, it is evident that
SES reporting is a suitable platform upon which systems of DA can develop on top of
existing stakeholder engagement processes, thus creating new streams of data from
unconventional sources, including social media (Manetti and Bellucci, 2016; Bellucci et al.,
2019) and dissenting members of local communities. If an organization is truly willing to
conduct effective stakeholder engagement, then DA could act as a more comprehensive
accounting framework that supports decision-making processes and dialogue. Accordingly,
the dialogic dimension of accounting represents a key means of managing the decisions and
continuous changes that organizations face on a regular basis (Perret, 2003), which, in turn,
provides individual stakeholders with a voice in the company.
We also studied the smaller fragments of DA that emerged in our sample of
organizations. At the core of DA is an emphasis on the effective participation of a diverse
AAAJ array of actors, be it in a convergent or agonistic perspective. The DA literature has
32,5 valorized the concepts of deliberative–agonistic democracy (Brown 2009; Brown and
Dillard, 2013a, b; Brown et al., 2015) and authentic engagement processes (Bebbington et al.,
2007) in order to illustrate the agreements and disagreements that often emerge among
various actors (Passetti et al., 2019).
An explicit goal of DA is to compare multiple/conflicting viewpoints, rather than settle
1490 on a single perspective (Leach et al., 2010; Stirling, 2008). In order to detect signs of DA, we
focused on the opinions of stakeholder representatives in the report, the disclosure of
difficulties met by organizations during the stakeholder engagement process, and the
presence of mechanisms that are used to encourage interaction between different groups of
stakeholders. Our results suggest that the opinions of stakeholders on previous SES reports
and the difficulties met during the stakeholder engagement process are rarely disclosed.
This could be due to the fact that companies have few incentives to report negative opinions
or provide details as to how the stakeholder engagement process may have failed. However,
a small group of organizations do provide opportunities for different groups of stakeholders
to interact and cooperate through multi-stakeholder forums and meeting places. These
venues could serve as excellent spaces for allowing different actors to contribute to a more
dialogic brand of accounting.
In order to figure out why organizations are interested in DA and assess the effects of
this type of interaction on the organization, its stakeholders and its strategies, we made use
of semi-structured interviews that complemented data from our content analysis. We
analyzed the effects of stakeholder engagement and DA, the elements that foster a system of
DA, how to manage dissenting views, and what organizations think about the further
development of stakeholder engagement and DA processes. Our interviews confirm the
agonistic perspective of DA, reinforcing the notion that different points of view enrich the
reporting process and often create important opportunities for the company, even if a
consensus is not reached. Our interview material is also interesting in a practical sense.
After all, if companies unanimously agree that engaging stakeholders in a framework of DA
will lead to growth, then it is important to recognize the need to develop tools that can assess
the quality – and authenticity – of these processes, while placing special emphasis on each
step of the SES reporting process.
Critical accounting theory has its roots in social critique and praxis, and initially arose
from research on historical materialism and political economy. Since critical accounting
research aims to enhance economic, social and environmental justice through democratic
institutions and processes, many researchers in this field have tried to emphasize the need
for more effective political action (Dillard and Vinnari, 2017, p. 89). Of course, DA fits this
criterion by enhancing participation, sharing and interaction, and giving voice to
stakeholders, especially those who express dissenting views in an agonistic perspective.
Thus, DA can encourage critical understanding and foster economic, environmental and
social change, which could provide researchers and practitioners with the opportunity to
explore new paths of research in the accounting field.
In short, our study suggests that the dialogic orientation of the organizations included in
our study is fragmented. Fully developed frameworks of DA, even in the context of SES
reporting, are still rare or unreported. However, signs of change on this front emerged in
both our content analysis and interviews. Indeed, our analysis confirms that stakeholder
engagement processes and SES reporting represent viable and powerful platforms upon
which DA can develop. Our study also provides some insight into the various features of
SES reporting, with special emphasis on the extent to which organizations use stakeholder
engagement as a vehicle of DA.
We understand that stakeholder engagement is not necessarily a responsible practice, or
even a morally neutral process (Greenwood, 2007). At the same time, SES reporting is a
widespread and multifaceted practice that is often accused of acting as a mere instrument of Stakeholder
legitimization. Our attempts to test the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement serves as engagement
one of the most straightforward ways of understanding the degree to which SES reports are and dialogic
relevant and significant. Moreover, SES reports tend to do a better job of addressing the
legitimate concerns of stakeholders when they contain material information. We analyzed accounting
SES reporting because it allows us to understand how stakeholder engagement can make
sustainability reporting more material, effective and dialogic. While it is accurate to say that 1491
there is no firm link between stakeholder engagement and corporate responsibility – not
even in the context of SES reporting – it is nearly impossible to create a true DA framework
without engaging stakeholders and including their voices in the materiality assessment and/
or decision-making process.
By examining the role of SES reporting as a vector of DA, the present study sheds light
on how companies and other organizations tend to avoid reporting aspects of their
activities that are negative in nature. This is understandable, if only because of a clear
lack of incentives and fears of damaging the organization’s legitimacy. Indeed, many
organizations might see DA as a self-harming process. However, in order to create a
system of reciprocal trust that involves all stakeholders, organizations should be willing
to create the most comprehensive and inclusive framework of accounting and reporting
possible. Other studies (see, for instance, Rodrigue et al., 2013; Cormier et al., 2004) have
focused on the role of stakeholder influence on key performance indicators or corporate
environmental disclosure. These authors identify possible developments in studies that
investigate how stakeholder perspectives define the contents of various forms of
sustainability disclosure. Inspired by the conclusions of these authors, we tried to better
understand the role of dissenting opinions among stakeholders in drawing attention to
social, environmental and economic issues. In light of our theoretical framework and
findings, we believe that unpleasant information can serve as a vehicle of DA, especially in
an agonistic perspective. Moreover, dissenting points of views and frank assessments of
the difficulties faced during the stakeholder engagement process in SES reporting can
provide a more useful and realistic picture of an organization, thereby reinforcing the
reliability of some of its more positive claims. In other words, an SES report built on the
principles of DA can put to rest previous claims that SES reports are nothing more than
idyllic reconstructions of reality that hide opportunistic attempts to improve an
organization’s legitimacy.
The current study has at least one limitation that should be addressed in future studies.
Although we ran a fairly broad content analysis on a large sample of SES reports, and we
carried out in-depth interviews with representatives from organizations whose reports
showed signs of DA, one important voice was left out of the chorus: stakeholders. Future
research should study the features of stakeholder engagement, the characteristics of SES
reporting, and the various traits of DA as they are encountered by stakeholders themselves
– especially stakeholders from marginalized communities.

References
ACCA (2005), Improving Stakeholder Engagement Reporting: An ACCA and the Environment Council
Workshop, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, London.
AccountAbility (2011), “AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011”, Final Exposure Draft,
AccountAbility, London.
Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002), “Unfolding stakeholder engagement”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S.,
Husted, B. and Rahman, S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and
Engagement, Greenleag Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 19-42.
AAAJ Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Rahman, S. (2002), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory,
32,5 Responsibility and Engagement, Greenleag Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 9-16.
Ayuso, S., Ángel Rodríguez, M., García-Castro, R. and Ángel Ariño, M. (2011), “Does stakeholder
engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation?”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 111 No. 9, pp. 1399-1417.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the potential of a
1492 critical dialogic approach”, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 356-381.
Belal, A.R. (2002), “Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management: a review of UK firms’ social
and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Bellucci, M. and Manetti, G. (2017), “Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence
from large philanthropic foundations in the United States”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 874-905, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2122.
Bellucci, M. and Manetti, G. (2018), Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting, Routledge,
London.
Bellucci, M., Biagi, S. and Manetti, G. (2019), “Dialogic accounting and stakeholder engagement
through social media: the case of top-ranked universities”, The Review of Higher Education,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1145-1184.
Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communication Research, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bianchi, C. and Andrews, L. (2015), “Investigating marketing managers’ perspectives on social media in
Chile”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2552-2559.
Blackburn, N., Brown, J., Dillard, J. and Hooper, V. (2014), “A dialogical framing of AIS-SEA design”,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 83-101.
Boiral, O. (2013), “Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1036-1071.
Boyce, G. (2000), “Public discourse and decision making: exploring possibilities for financial, social and
environmental accounting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 27-64.
Brown, J. (2009), “Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking pluralism
seriously”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313-342.
Brown, J. (2010), “Accounting and visual cultural studies: potentialities, challenges and prospects”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 482-505.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2013a), “Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the death of environmentalism
debates”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2013b), “Critical accounting and communicative action: on the limits of
consensual deliberation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 176-190.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2014), “Integrated reporting: on the need for broadening out and opening up”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1120-1156.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2015), “Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: on opening up and closing down
participatory governance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 961-985.
Brown, J., Dillard, J. and Hopper, T. (2015), “Accounting, accountants, and accountability regimes in
pluralistic societies: taking multiple perspectives seriously”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 626-650.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015), Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Clarkson, P., Overell, M. and Chapple, L. (2011), “Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate
environmental performance”, Abacus, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 27-60.
Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Contrafatto, M., Thomson, I. and Monk, E.A. (2015), “Peru, mountains and los niños: dialogic action, Stakeholder
accounting and sustainable transformation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 33, engagement
pp. 117-136.
and dialogic
Cooper, C., Taylor, P., Smith, N. and Catchpowle, L. (2005), “A discussion of the political potential of
social accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 951-974. accounting
Cooper, D.J. and Morgan, W. (2013), “Meeting the evolving corporate reporting needs of government
and society: arguments for a deliberative approach to accounting rule making”, Accounting and 1493
Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 418-41.
Cormier, D., Gordon, I.M. and Magnan, M. (2004), “Corporate environmental disclosure:
contrasting management’s perceptions with reality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 143-165.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P. (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dahlberg, L. (2005), “The Habermasian public sphere: taking difference seriously?”, Theory and Society,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 111-136.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?
An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the
environmental protection authority”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 50-67.
Dey, C. (2003), “Corporate ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social and environmental accounting”, Social and
Environmental Accounting Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 6-9.
Dillard, J. and Brown, J. (2012), “Agonistic pluralism and imagining CSEAR into the future”, Social and
Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Dillard, J. and Brown, J. (2015), “Broadening out and opening up: an agonistic attitude toward
progressive social accounting”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 243-266.
Dillard, J. and Roslender, R. (2011), “Taking pluralism seriously: embedded moralities in management
accounting and control systems”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 135-147.
Dillard, J. and Ruchala, L. (2005), “The rules are game: from instrumental rationality to administrative
evil”, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 608-630.
Dillard, J. and Yuthas, K. (2013), “Critical dialogic agonistic pluralism and accounting information
systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 113-119.
Dillard, J. and Vinnari, E. (2017), “A case study of critique: critical perspectives on critical accounting”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 88-109.
Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: a
stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 643-667.
Donaldson, T. (2002), “The stakeholder revolution and the clarkson principles”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-111.
Dye, R.A. (1985), “Disclosure of nonproprietary information”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 123-145.
Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008), “The qualitative content analysis process”, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 107-115.
Frame, B. and Brown, J. (2008), “Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 225-241.
Freire, P. (2005), The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, New York, NY.
Frias‐Aceituno, J.V., Rodríguez‐Ariza, L. and Garcia‐Sánchez, I.M. (2014), “Explanatory factors of
integrated sustainability and financial reporting”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
AAAJ Frooman, J. (1999), “Stakeholder influence strategies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2,
32,5 pp. 191-205.
GRI (2006), G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Version for Public Comment, Global Reporting
Initiative, Amsterdam.
GRI (2013a), Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosure, Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
GRI (2013b), G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
1494 Graneheim, U.H. and Lundman, B. (2004), “Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts,
procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness”, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 105-112.
Gray, R. (1997), “The silent practice of social and environmental accounting and corporate social
reporting in companies”, in Zadek, S., Evans, R. and Pruzan, P.P. (Eds), Building Corporate
Accountability: Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting Auditing and Reporting,
Earthscan, London, pp. 201-218.
Gray, R. (2000), “Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing reporting and
attestation: a review and comment”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-268.
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society: privileging
engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (2001), Accounting for the Environment, Sage, London.
Gray, R., Brennan, A. and Malpas, J. (2014), “New accounts: towards a reframing of social accounting”,
Accounting Forum, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 258-273.
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997), “Struggling with the praxis of social and
environmental accounting: stakeholders accountability audits and procedures”, Accounting
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-364.
Gray, R.H. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how
would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Greenwood, M. (2007), “Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 315-327, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-007-9509-y
Greenwood, M.R. (2001), “The importance of stake-holders according to business leaders”, Business and
Society Review, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K. and Ricceri, F. (2004), “Using content analysis as a research
method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 282-293.
Guziana, B. and Dobers, P. (2013), “How sustainability leaders communicate corporate activities of
sustainable development”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 193-204.
Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action. 1 Reason and the Rationalization of Society,
Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of
Functional Reason, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Habermas, J. (1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Healey, M.J. and Rawlinson, M.B. (1993), “Interviewing business owners and managers: a review of
methods and techniques”, Geoforum, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 339-355.
Ihantola, E.M. and Kihn, L.A. (2011), “Threats to validity and reliability in mixed methods accounting
research”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Jones, T.M., Wicks, A.C. and Freeman, R.E. (2002), “Stakeholder theory: the state of the art”, in Bowie, N.E.
(Ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 19-37.
Kothari, S.P., Shu, S. and Wysocki, P.D. (2009), “Do managers withhold bad news?”, Journal of Stakeholder
Accounting Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 241-276. engagement
Laughlin, R.C. (1987), “Accounting systems in organizational contexts: a case for critical theory”, and dialogic
Accounting, Organization and Society, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 479-502.
Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Stirling, A. (2010), Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social
accounting
Justice, Earthscan, London.
Lehman, G. (2001), “Reclaiming the public sphere: problems and prospects for corporate social and 1495
environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 713-733.
Lehman, G. (2002), “Global accountability and sustainability: research prospects”, Accounting Forum,
Vol. 26 Nos 3–4, pp. 219-232.
Lombardi, L. (2016), “Disempowerment and empowerment of accounting: an Indigenous accounting
context”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1320-1341.
Lougee, B. and Wallace, J. (2008), “The corporate social responsibility (CSR) trend”, Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Vol. 13, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Macintosh, N.B. and Baker, C.R. (2002), “A literary theory perspective on accounting: towards
hetero-glossic accounting reports”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 184-222.
Manetti, G. (2011), “The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical
evidence and critical points”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-122.
Manetti, G. and Bellucci, M. (2016), “The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability
reporting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 985-1011,
doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2014-1797.
Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodriguez, ́ M.D.P. and Cortez Alejandro, K.A. (2012), “The
worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point?”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 33, September, pp. 132-144.
Medawar, C. (1976), “The social audit: a political view”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 389-394.
Miles, S., Hammond, K. and Friedman, A.L. (2002), “ACCA research report no. 77: social and
environmental reporting and ethical investment”, CAED, London.
Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures
content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237-256.
Mouffe, C. (1995), “Democracy, pluralism: a critique of the rationalist approach”, Cardozo Law Review,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1533-1545.
Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox, Verso, London and New York, NY.
Mouffe, C. (2005), On the Political, Routledge, Abingdon, NY.
Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, Verso, London.
O’Dwyer, B. (2005), “Stakeholder democracy: challenges and contributions from social accounting”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-41.
Passetti, E., Bianchi, L., Battaglia, M. and Frey, M. (2019), “When democratic principles are not enough:
tensions and temporalities of dialogic stakeholder engagement”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155
No. 1, pp. 173-190.
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989), “Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
Perret, A. (2003), “BNFL national stakeholder dialogue: a case study in public affairs”, Journal of Public
Affairs: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 383-391.
Perrini, F. and Tencati, A. (2011), “La responsabilità sociale d’impresa: strategia per l’impresa relazionale
e innovazione per la sostenibilità”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, Vol. 77, pp. 23-43.
AAAJ Power, M. and Laughlin, R.C. (1996), “Habermas law and accounting”, Accounting Organizations and
32,5 Society, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 441-465.
Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., Gallego-Alvarez, I. and Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2009), “Stakeholder engagement and
corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 94-107.
Prencipe, A. (2004), “Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: evidence
1496 from Italian listed companies”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 319-340.
Rodrigue, M., Michel Magnan, M. and Boulianne, E. (2013), “Stakeholders’ influence on environmental
strategy and performance indicators: a managerial perspective”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 301-316.
Rowley, T.J. (1997), “Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 887-910.
Schaltegger, S., Windolph, S.E., Harms, D. and Hörisch, J. (Eds) (2014), Corporate Sustainability in
International Comparison, Springer International, New York, NY.
Sierra‐García, L., Zorio‐Grima, A. and García‐Benau, M.A. (2015), “Stakeholder engagement, corporate
social responsibility and integrated reporting: an exploratory study”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 286-304.
Söderbaum, P. and Brown, J. (2010), “Democratizing economics: pluralism as a path towards
sustainability”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1185 No. 1, pp. 179-195.
Solomon, J.F. and Darby, L. (2005), “Is private social, ethical and environmental reporting mythicizing
or demythologizing reality?”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2005), “Corporations, stakeholders and
sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Stirling, A. (2008), “ ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social
appraisal of technology”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 262-94.
Thomson, I. and Bebbington, J. (2004), “It doesn’t matter what you teach?”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 4–5, pp. 609-628.
Thomson, I. and Bebbington, J. (2005), “Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic
evaluation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 507-533.
Thomson, I., Grubnic, S. and Georgakopolous, G. (2014), “Exploring accounting and sustainability
hybridization”, Accounting Organisation and Society, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 453-476.
Thorne, L., Mahoney, L.S. and Manetti, G. (2014), “Motivations for issuing standalone CSR reports: a survey
of Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 686-714.
Unerman, J. and Bennett, M. (2004), “Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater
corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 685-707.
Van Huijstee, M. and Glasbergen, P. (2008), “The practice of stakeholder dialogue between
multinationals and NGOs”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 298-310.
Verrecchia, R.E. (1983), “Discretionary disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 179-194.
Verrecchia, R.E. (2001), “Essays on disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32 Nos 1–3,
pp. 97-180.
Villa, D.R. (1992), “Postmodernism and the public sphere”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 86
No. 3, pp. 712-721.
Vinnari, E. and Dillard, J. (2016), “(ANT)agonistics: pluralistic politicization of, and by, accounting and
its technologies”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 39, pp. 25-44.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D. and Sechrest, I. (1966), Unobtrusive Measures: Non-reactive
Research in the Social Sciences, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Weber, R.P. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Stakeholder
Wicks, A.C. and Goodstein, J.D. (2009), “Stakeholder responsibility and stakeholder commitment”, engagement
Notizie di Politeia, Vol. 93 No. 924, pp. 9-24. and dialogic
Windsor, D. (2002), “Stakeholder responsibilities: lessons for managers”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S., accounting
Husted, B. and Rahman, S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and
Engagement, Greenleag Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 19-35.
1497
Further reading
Bond, S. (2011), “Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: moving beyond the agonistic–communicative
divide”, Planning Theory, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-86.
Cavanagh, S. (1997), “Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications”, Nurse Researcher, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 5-13.
Downe‐Wamboldt, B. (1992), “Content analysis: method, applications, and issues”, Health Care for
Women International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 313-321.
Habermas, J. (1998a), “What is universal pragmatics?”, in Cooke, M. (Ed.), On the Pragmatics of
Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Habermas, J. (1998b), in Cronin, C. and De Greiff, P. (Eds), The Inclusion of the Other, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lederman, R.P. (1991), “Content analysis of word texts”, MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/
Child Nursing, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 169.
Strauss, A. and Juliet, C. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Appendix 1

Group Mean SE SD

Panel A: total assets

Non-respondents 17.949 0.346 2.191
Respondents 18.048 0.922 3.324
Combined 17.974 0.341 2.480
Difference −0.099 0.799
t-stat. −0.124
Two-tailed p-value 0.902
Panel B: return on equity
Non-respondents 6.358 5.920 36.968
Respondents 11.592 2.282 7.905
Combined 7.590 4.553 32.518
Difference −5.233 10.818
t-stat. −0.484
Two-tailed p-value 0.631
Panel C: leverage (debt/total capital)
Non-respondents 43.527 4.104 24.961
Respondents 35.65 6.160 20.430
Combined 41.722 3.468 24.026 Table AI.
Difference 7.877 8.259 t-Test for comparisons
t-stat. 0.954 between respondents
Two-tailed p-value 0.345 and non-respondents
AAAJ Appendix 2
The following equation has been used to test for the impact of size, GRI adherence level and geographic
32,5 area on the adoption of DA practices:

Stpercep=Difficulties=Interaction ¼ a þb1 Large þb2 Medium þ b3 Small þb4 Comprehensive

þb5 Core þ b6 Africa þ b7 Asia þb8 Europe

1498 þ b9 Latin America þb10 North Americaþ b11 Oceania þe;
where Stpercep ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 when stakeholder perceptions are disclosed and 0
otherwise, Difficulties ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 when difficulties met in stakeholder engagement
are disclosed and 0 otherwise, Interaction ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 when information about
interaction among stakeholder groups is disclosed and 0 otherwise, Large ¼ dummy variable that equals
1 when a company is labeled as large according to the GRI database and 0 otherwise, Medium ¼ dummy
variable that equals 1 when a company is labeled as medium according to the GRI database and 0
otherwise, Small ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 when a company is labeled as small according to the
GRI database and 0 otherwise, Comprehensive ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 when the adherence level
to GRI-G4 standard is “Comprehensive” and 0 otherwise, Comprehensive ¼ dummy variable that equals
1 when the adherence level to GRI-G4 standard is “Comprehensive” and 0 otherwise, Africa ¼ dummy
variable that equals 1 if the company is based in Africa and 0 otherwise, Asia ¼ dummy variable that
equals 1 if the company is based in Asia and 0 otherwise, Europe ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 if the
company is based in Europe and 0 otherwise, Latin America ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 if the
company is based in Latin America and 0 otherwise, Northern America ¼ dummy variable that equals 1
if the company is based in Northern America and 0 otherwise, Oceania ¼ dummy variable that equals 1 if
the company is based in Oceania and 0 otherwise.
We have used a logit model to run the tests (Table AII). We have also performed a linear probability
model, using robust standard errors, as a sensitivity analysis (Table AIII).

Dependent variable Stpercep Difficulties Interaction

Const −2.838*** (0.576) 0.439 (1.813) 0.062 (1.845)

Large −0.356 (0.614) −0.588 (1.140) −0.537 (1.149)
Medium – −0.289 (1.155) 0.412 (1.151)
Comprehensive 1.108 (0.606) −0.240 (0.491) 0.783** (0.376)
Africa – −1.028 (1.832) –
Asia −0.213 (0.694) −2.556* (1.513) −2.564* (1.535)
Europe – −1.748 (1.446) −1.634 (1.478)
Latin America – −2.885* (1.542) −2.308 (1.177)
Table AII. Northern America – −2.736* (1.596) −2.489 (1.580)
Logit regression Note: –, omitted. Standard errors in italics in parenthesis. ***,**,*Denotes statistical significant at 1, 5 and 10
results percent levels, respectively

Dependent variable Stpercep Difficulties Interaction

Const 0.061 (0.045) 0.494 (0.352) 0.656** (0.324)

Large −0.015 (0.027) −0.027 (0.039) −0.113** (0.046)
Small −0.058** (0.027) 0.037 (0.153) −0.054 (0.141)
Core −0.054 (0.036) 0.020 (0.040) −0.100* (0.053)
Africa 0.004 (0.009) −0.243 (0.411) −0.472 (0.320)
Asia 0.042 (0.027) −0.426 (0.351) −0.424 (0.321)
Europe 0.054** (0.022) −0.354 (0.351) −0.323 (0.320)
Table AIII. Latin America −0.008 (0.010) −0.442 (0.351) −0.400 (0.321)
Linear probability Northern America −0.005 (0.007) −0.438 (0.352) −0.420 (0.323)
model results Note: **,*Denotes statistical significant at 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively
About the authors Stakeholder
Marco Bellucci (PhD) is Research Fellow in the Department of Economics and Management at the engagement
University of Florence. His research interests include stakeholder engagement, sustainability
reporting, corporate social responsibility, social enterprises and third sector organizations. and dialogic
Lorenzo Simoni (PhD) is Research Fellow at Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri and Teaching accounting
Assistant at the Department of Economics and Management at the University of Florence. His research
interests include business model disclosure, non-financial information, intellectual capital, CSR
reporting and performance measurement. 1499
Diletta Acuti (PhD) is Research Fellow in the Department of Economics and Management at the
University of Florence. Her research interests include sustainable consumption, CSR and branding.
Giacomo Manetti (PhD) is Associate Professor of Accounting in the Department of Economics and
Management at the University of Florence. His research interests include stakeholder theory, corporate
social responsibility, sustainability reporting and assurance, third sector and accounting history.
Giacomo Manetti is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]