Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Democratic Principles are not Enough: Tensions and Temporalities of Dialogic Stakeholder Engagement

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

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement and dialogue have a central role in defining the relations between organisations and their internal and external interlocutors. Drawing upon the analysis of dialogic motifs, power–conflict dynamics and sociopolitical perspectives, and based on a set of interviews with the stakeholders of a consumer-owned cooperative, the research explores the dialogic potential of stakeholder engagement. The analysis revealed a fragmented picture where the co-design and co-implementation aspects were mainly related to the non-business areas of cooperative life, while business logic dominated the most central aspects. Stakeholder engagement was mainly related to consensus building, while dialogic engagement based on a pluralistic understanding was only partially considered and then neglected. The social capital in the local area, the growing size of the organisation and the related power structure embrace stakeholder engagement, influencing the orientation of the (un)dialogic dynamic. The analysis indicates that a dialogic exchange is a relative concept which depends on the interests involved and the topics discussed. It also reveals that the key factors in the democratisation of stakeholder engagement are a mutual understanding and long-term opportunities. Common sociopolitical aspects are also important, but they do not necessarily guarantee the creation of dialogism paths. The research contributes to the critical dialogic literature in revealing whether and how stakeholder engagement has been implemented in a specific setting. It also shows the limitations of voluntarist stakeholder engagement initiatives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afreen, S., & Kumar, S. (2016). Between a rock and a hard place: The dynamics of stakeholder interactions influencing corporate sustainability practices. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(3), 350–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibility discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arunachalam, M., Jagdeep Singh-Ladhar, J., & McLachlan, A. (2016). Advancing environmental sustainability via deliberative democracy: Analysis of planning and policy processes for the protection of Lake Taupo. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(3), 402–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia, M., Bianchi, L., Frey, M., & Passetti, E. (2015). Sustainability reporting and corporate identity: Action research evidence in an Italian retailing cooperative. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia, M., Passetti, E., Bianchi, L., & Frey, M. (2016). Managing for integration: A longitudinal analysis of management control for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J. (2001). Sustainable development: A review of the international development, business and accounting literature. Accounting Forum, 25(2), 128–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 356–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birchall, J. (2010). People-centred businesses: Co-operatives, mutuals and the idea of membership. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2009). An investigation of stakeholder prioritization and engagement: Who or what really counts. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 5(1), 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: Conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 313–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013a). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(3), 176–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013b). Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2014). Integrated reporting: On the need for roadening out and opening up. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1120–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015a). Opening accounting to critical scrutiny: Towards dialogic accounting for policy analysis and democracy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 17(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2015b). Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: On opening up and closing down participatory governance. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 961–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Dillard, J., & Hopper, T. (2015). Accounting accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies: Taking multiple perspectives seriously. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 626–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, B. J. (2010). Cooperatives for “fair globalization”? Indigenous people, cooperatives, and corporate social responsibility in the Brazilian Amazon. Latin American Perspectives, 37(6), 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrch, C., Milne, M. J., Morgan, R., & Kearins, K. (2015). Seeds of hope? Exploring business actors’ diverse understandings of sustainable development. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 671–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Célérier, L., & Cuenca Botey, L. E. (2015). Participatory budgeting at a community level in Porto Alegre: A Bourdieusian interpretation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 739–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contrafatto, M., Thomson, I., & Monk, E. A. (2015). Peru, mountains and los niños: Dialogic action, accounting and sustainable transformation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33(December), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. J., & Morgan, W. (2013). Meeting the evolving corporate reporting needs of government and society: Arguments for a deliberative approach to accounting rule making. Accounting and Business Research, 43(4), 418–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. M., & Owen, D. L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila, A., & Molina, C. (2015). From silent to salient stakeholders. A Study of a coffee cooperative and the dynamic of social relationships. Business & Society. doi:10.1177/0007650315619626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J. (2010). Concepts and realities of social enterprise: A European perspective. In A. Fayolle., & H. Matlay. (Eds.), Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship (pp. 57–87). Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2013). Social co-operatives: When social enterprises meet the co-operative tradition. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2(2), 11–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: A struggle for the meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgley, C., Jones, M. J., & Solomon, J. F. (2010). Stakeholder inclusivity in social and environmental report assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(4), 532–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J., & Larrinaga, C. (2014). Celebrating the intellectual contribution of professor Rob Gray: The past, present and future of social and environmental accounting research. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(2), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., & Yonekura, A. (2015). Accounting as differentiated universal for emancipatory praxis: accounting delineation and mobilisation for emancipation(s) recognising democracy and difference. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(5), 846–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulos, G., & Thomson, I. (2008). Social reporting, engagements, controversies and conflict in an arena context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(8), 1116–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgallis, P. (2016). The link between social movements and corporate social initiatives: Toward a multi-level theory. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3111-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J. P., Barin Cruz, L., Raufflet, E., & Charron, M. (2016). To frack or not to frack? The interaction of justification and power in a sustainability controversy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 330–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harun, H., Van-Peursem, K., & Eggleton, I. R. C. (2015). Indonesian public sector accounting reforms: Dialogic aspirations a step too far? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 706–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2014). The ties that bind? Exploring the basic principles of worker-owned organizations in practice. Organization, 21(5), 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, S. (2006). Striving for control: Democracy and oligarchy at a Mexican cooperative. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27(1), 105–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killian, S., & O’Regan, P. (2016). Social accounting and the co-creation of corporate legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 50(April), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourula, A., & Delalieux, G. (2016). The micro-level foundations and dynamics of political corporate social responsibility: Hegemony and passive revolution through civil society. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(4), 769–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuenkel, P., Gerlach, S., & Frieg, V. (2011). Working with stakeholder dialogues. Berlin: Collective Leadership Institute.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D., Reinecke, J., & Manning, S. (2016). The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 364–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Bellucci, M. (2016). The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 985–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The contribution of network governance to preventing opportunistic behaviour by managers and to increasing stakeholder involvement: The Eroski case. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 7(3), 252–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Van Buren, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2015). Stakeholder inclusion and accounting for stakeholders. Journal of Management Studies, 52(7), 851–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. H. (2004). Democratizing rural economy: Institutional friction, sustainable struggle and the cooperative movement. Rural Sociology, 69(1), 76–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: A case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 49(February), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2014). Corporate social accountability through action: Contemporary insights from British industrial pioneers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(8), 632–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesci, C., Costa, E., & Soobaroyen, T. (2015). The forms of repetition in social and environmental reports: Insights from Hume’s notion of ‘impressions. Accounting and Business Research, 45(6–7), 765–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., & Hulgård, L. (2016). Participatory governance in social enterprise. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1742–1759.

  • Rinaldi, L. (2013). Stakeholder Engagement. In C. Busco., M. Frigo., A. Riccaboni., & P. Quattrone. (Eds.), Integrated reporting: Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability (pp. 95–109). Berlin: Springer.

  • Rodrigue, M. (2014). Contrasting realities: Corporate environmental disclosure and stakeholder-released information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 119–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuthu, K., & Lehman, C. (2013). Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 410–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skilton, P. F., & Purdy, J. M. (2017). Authenticity, power, and pluralism: A Framework for understanding stakeholder evaluations of corporate social responsibility activities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(01), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum, P., & Brown, J. (2010). Democratizing economics: Pluralism as a path towards sustainability. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(January), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J., & Rinaldi, L. (2014). Governmentality in accounting and accountability: A case study of embedding sustainability in a supply chain. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2004). It doesn’t matter what you teach? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(4), 609–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reporting in the UK: A pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(5), 507–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, I., Dey, C., & Russell, S. (2015). Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over tobacco control. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 809–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In D. Howarth., & J. Torfing. (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 1–32). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2014). (Re) presenting ‘sustainable organizations’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., Milne, M. J., & Kearins, K. (2015). Ramping up resistance corporate sustainable development and academic research. Business & Society. doi:10.1177/0007650315611459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(7), 685–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnari, E., & Dillard, J. (2016). (ANT) agonistics: Pluralistic politicization of, and by, accounting and its technologies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting., 39, 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnari, E., & Laine, M. (2013). Just a passing fad? The diffusion and decline of environmental reporting in the Finnish water sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1107–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnari, E., & Laine, M. (2017). The moral mechanism of counter accounts: The case of industrial animal production. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 57(February), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittbom, E. E. (2015). Management control for gender mainstreaming—A quest of transformative norm breaking. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(4), 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been financially supported by The Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research with the PRIN Project 2010–11 “GOESE – Global Observatory on the Evolution of the Sustainable Enterprise”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic and Business Management Sciences, Catholic University of Milan, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy

    Emilio Passetti

  2. Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Crawford House Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

    Lara Bianchi

  3. Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy

    Massimo Battaglia & Marco Frey

Authors
  1. Emilio Passetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lara Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimo Battaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio Passetti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interviews Summary

Category of stakeholder

Role of the person interviewed

Code

Period

Duration (minutes)

Social non-profit organisation 1

Technical manager

S-NPO1

June 14

113.00

Social non-profit organisation 2

Project manager

S-NPO2

May 14

84.00

Social non-profit organisation 3

President

S-NPO3

June 14

84.00

Environmental non-profit organisation 1

Head of marketing for the Italian division of an international not governmental organisation

E-NPO1

June 14

73.00

Environmental non-profit organisation 2

Head of consumer policies of a national non-profit association

E-NPO2

June 14

87.00

Members and consumers 1

President of a local section

MC1

April 14

90.00

Members and consumers 2

Representative of members in the cooperative board of directors and president of a local section

MC2

April 14

57.00

Members and consumers 3

President of a local section

MC3

April 14

48.00

Members and consumers 4

President of a local section

MC4

April 14

45.00

Suppliers 1

Consortium of agricultural producers

SUP1

May 14

97.00

Suppliers 2

Local representative of national agricultural body

SUP2

May 14

81.00

Suppliers 3

Local representative of Italian farmers confederation

SUP3

May 14

95.00

Public administration 1

President of a municipal hall of a metropolitan city

PA1

June 14

65.00

Public administration 2

Mayor of a city of major investment for the cooperative

PA2

Oct 13

65.00

Employees 1

Labour union representative

EMP1

May 14

78.00

Employees 2

Labour union representative

EMP2

July 14

85.00

Appendix 2: Interview Guide

  1. 1.

    General information about the interviewee: name, job position, employment history within her/his organisation, key characteristics of her/his organisation.

  2. 2.

    Identification of the nature, longevity and frequency of interaction with Alpha’s representatives.

  3. 3.

    Specification of the involvement of the interviewee with Alpha.

  4. 4.

    Grade of importance—in terms of influencing—Alpha towards the interviewee’s organisation.

  5. 5.

    Level Alpha provides the interviewee’s organisation with material or immaterial resources.

  6. 6.

    Level of impact of the interviewee’s organisation on Alpha.

  7. 7.

    Evaluation of Alpha’s ability to meet stakeholders’ expectations.

  8. 8.

    Description of Alpha’s impacts in a specific context with which the interviewee is familiar.

  9. 9.

    Level of trustworthiness towards Alpha’s commitments for future interactions with the interviewee’s organisation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Passetti, E., Bianchi, L., Battaglia, M. et al. When Democratic Principles are not Enough: Tensions and Temporalities of Dialogic Stakeholder Engagement. J Bus Ethics 155, 173–190 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3500-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3500-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation