Received: 31 October 2019 Revised: 4 March 2020 Accepted: 25 March 2020

DOI: 10.1002/csr.1947

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting:

A classification model

Fabricio Stocker1 | Michelle P. de Arruda2 | Keysa M. C. de Mascena3 |

Jo~ao M. G. Boaventura1

1
School of Economics, Business and
Accounting—FEA/USP, University of S~ao Abstract
Paulo, S~ao Paulo, Brazil This study presents analysis criteria used to identify and classify the level of engage-
2
Institute of Energy and Environment—IEE/
ment between firms and stakeholders. We analyzed 119 sustainability reports dis-
USP, University of S~ao Paulo, S~
ao Paulo, Brazil
3
Graduate Program in Business closed by companies operating in the energy sector from 40 different countries. Our
Administration - UNIFOR, University of study adopted the following stakeholder engagement classification levels: informa-
Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Brazil
tion strategy, response strategy, and involvement strategy. The results show that,
Correspondence although strategic involvement actions are at a high quality level, they are the least
Fabricio Stocker, School of Economics,
Business and Accounting—FEA/USP, adopted by the companies studied, which concentrate their engagement actions at
University of S~ao Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano the least complex levels. Our contribution is to propose a matrix of engagement
Gualberto 908 – 05508-010, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Email: [email protected] strategies as a tool that is formed by nine strategic quadrants, providing clear differ-
entiation between engagement strategies that can be used to improve sustainability
Funding information
CAPES, Grant/Award Number: 001 reports and to rethink the quality and focus of actions with stakeholders.

KEYWORDS

corporate social responsibility, disclosure, social reporting, stakeholder engagement,

sustainability

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N advantages in addition to facilitating the process of creating value for

stakeholders and society (Freeman, Kujala, Sachs & Stutz, 2017;
As the management of organizations evolves over time and against a Sulkowski, Edwards, & Freeman, 2018).
backdrop of greater accountability in the form of ethical, fair, and sus- Stakeholder engagement can be seen as the firm's ability to
tainable practices required by society and by the competitive frame- establish collaborative relationships with a wide variety of stake-
work of the corporate world, concern about the relationship with and holders (Rueda-Manzanares, Aragón-Correa, & Sharma, 2008;
the interests of stakeholders has also drawn more attention. State- Zwikael, Elias, & Ahn, 2012). It includes a set of initiatives or practices
ments by executives redefining strategic actions and organizational that organizations develop to positively engage their stakeholders in
values have placed more emphasis on the issue, as can be seen in the their organizational activities (Greenwood, 2007) and can inspire and
case of U.S.-based The AES Corporation, which states that “By engag- reward fundamental changes to core operations of the firm that are
ing with each of the stakeholder groups, AES can align business prac- beneficial to society and the environment (Sulkowski et al., 2018).
tices to drive long-term sustainability and shareholder value.” To develop a dialogue with different stakeholders' groups, com-
Increasing complexity in the business environment has driven panies worldwide have disseminated social and sustainability reports
companies to develop engaging practices to achieve global sustainable to communicate their corporate social responsibility practices
development, and these practices, such as engagement with stake- (Campra, Esposito, & Lombardi, 2020; Hsu, Lee, & Chao, 2013). In
holders, have proven to be potential sources of competitive addition to financial reports, which are a source of interest mainly to

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2020 The Authors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2020;27:2071–2080. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr 2071

 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2072 STOCKER ET AL.

shareholders, sustainability reports communicate and disseminate We also offer a managerial contribution, emphasizing that the
information about corporate actions with respect to the interests of preparation of a sustainability report, even if it follows international
both stakeholders and society (Torelli, Balluchi, & Furlotti, 2019). guidelines and GRI parameters, can be further improved by consider-
The importance of analyzing engagement quality in sustainability ing the different levels of engagement, quality, and focus of a comp-
reports is recognized, but empirical evidence shows that there is still little any's actions. This tool can help practitioners rethink and evaluate
stakeholder involvement in firms' engaging actions (Grushina, 2017; how to move within the engagement matrix to focus their engage-
Manetti, 2011). The stakeholder engagement/involvement strategy, con- ment actions on a higher number of stakeholders or to achieve actions
sidered at a high level of communication quality, is associated with the of a higher quality.
identification and inclusion of stakeholders and other characteristics of
social reporting disclosed by firms (Herremans, Nazari, &
Mahmoudian, 2016; Miniaoui, Chibani, & Hussainey, 2019). Thus, the 2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
importance of studies about involvement-level practices of engagement
and communication strategies is reinforced (Ettinger, Grabner-Kräuter, & Stakeholders engaged in a business are much more likely to collabo-
Terlutter, 2018). rate and support the activities and strategy of the corporation, posi-
Although the literature demonstrates the importance of stake- tively impacting its sustainability and evolution (Freeman, 2017). A
holder engagement quality (Venturelli, Cosma, & Leopizzi, 2018; Zaid, stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is
Abuhijleh, & Pucheta-Martínez, 2020), there is no classification of affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives”
engagement that simultaneously assesses the engagement levels and (Freeman, 1984:46).
the focus and extent of engagement actions. Therefore, we have In addition to identifying their stakeholders, companies must also
developed a way to classify the stakeholder engagement level manage their relationships and engage them in their activities so they
adopted by firms operating in different countries and analyzed their can succeed in business strategies and sustain the business (Campra
engagement focus and extent. The stakeholder engagement focus et al., 2020; Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994). The stakeholder
was examined by analyzing the types of stakeholder groups with a approach has emphasized that, in addition to shareholders, other
high degree of involvement in engagement actions. The stakeholder stakeholders have been considered in organizational strategies and
engagement extent refers to the number of stakeholders involved in processes, but more emphasis needs to be placed on the quality of
the engagement actions. stakeholder management and engagement strategies (Friedman &
This paper presents a model used to classify the level of engage- Miles, 2006).
ment with stakeholders based on the well-established and widespread In the last few years, greater attention has been given to the
availability of sustainability reports, as well as on their relevant disclo- meaning of stakeholder engagement (Garcés-Ayerbe, Rivera-Torres, &
sure levels. We analyzed 119 sustainability reports developed Suárez-Perales, 2019; Herremans et al., 2016; Johnson-Cramer, 2004).
according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework and dis- This meaning could be interpreted in terms of the nature, quality, and
closed by companies operating in the energy sector from 40 different extent of the relationships between firms and stakeholders. Based on
countries. The GRI framework is adopted by companies globally, and these characteristics, stakeholder engagement may present distinct
its guidelines and forms of communication have evolved over time in levels (Greenwood, 2007; Manning, Braam, & Reimsbach, 2018; Mor-
relation to increasing incentives for organizations to engage with their sing & Schultz, 2006).
stakeholders, evidencing dialogue and collaboration with stakeholders The stakeholder engagement literature considers that the devel-
(Grushina, 2017). opment of initiatives centers on communication and relationships.
This study advances knowledge about stakeholder engage- This perspective has been used in several papers to characterize
ment and presents two main contributions. The first contribution stakeholder engagement initiatives (Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2019;
is theoretical and employs a matrix of stakeholder engagement Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008; Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Rasche &
strategies derived from the conclusions of the revised GRI reports. Esser, 2006). In addition, four approaches have been established:
The results reinforce points discussed in the stakeholder and cor- communication, dialogue, consultation, and partnership
porate social responsibility literature when considering the prioriti- (Greenwood, 2007). Each approach represents a greater commitment
zation of primary stakeholders at the expense of secondary on both sides, corporations and stakeholders, to spend time and
stakeholders in an organization's processes and actions, in addition resources, as well as to increase exposure to risk while seeking
to the importance of developing different engagement strategies cooperation.
for different groups. Based on discussions on the need and urgency for stakeholder
The second contribution is methodological and uses a model to engagement as part of a firm's strategy, we investigate whether there
evaluate the engagement actions disclosed by firms. The methodology are significant differences in strategies and approaches for engage-
applied in this study is unprecedented and proposes, as a result, an ment and relationships with identified stakeholders. Many accounts of
engagement matrix that can be used in future studies and in practice stakeholder activities focus only on either the attributes of organiza-
to assist in the evaluation and classification of various strategic tions or of stakeholders rather than on the attributes of the relation-
engagement actions. ship between organizations and stakeholders (Greenwood, 2007).
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
STOCKER ET AL. 2073

2.1 | Stakeholder engagement and communication This study focuses on a deeper investigation into the nature and
strategy level of stakeholder engagement in actions, which, according to
Greenwood, takes place when an organization responds to the needs
Critical stakeholder attention is not restricted to a company's deci- of stakeholders with the aim of furthering its goals. Therefore, the
sions and actions but also focuses on the decisions and actions of sup- management of stakeholders is understood as strategic in nature.
pliers, consumers, and politicians, which may spur criticism toward a Rather than acting with the intention of fulfilling the interests of
company (e.g., Nike and Cheminova) (Brotons & Sansalvador, 2020; stakeholders, the organization acts in its own interests, and the stake-
Morsing & Schultz, 2006). However, because no manager or organiza- holders are merely a vehicle for doing so (Greenwood, 2007).
tion makes sense in total isolation (Craig-Lees, 2001), the objective of Greenwood (2007) also applied a Habermasian view and some
this study is to identify ways in which companies try to engage with criticism to the notion of strategic engagement under her model.
their stakeholders. This process is what Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) Based on Grunig and Hunt's (1984) characterization of models of pub-
refer to as interpretive work under the label “sensemaking” (i.e., trying lic relations, Morsing and Schultz (2006) unfold three types of stake-
to figure out what others want and ascribe meaning to it). holder relations in terms of how companies strategically engage in
The extent to which individuals or organizations are able to inte- CSR communication vis-à-vis their stakeholders: the information strat-
grate the sensemaking of others influences their ability to strategically egy, response strategy, and involvement strategy.
enact a productive relationship (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). In line According to Morsing and Schultz (2006) and similar to Grunig
with the works of Craig-Lees (2001), Cramer, Jonker, and Van Der and Hunt's (1984) public information model as it concerns the stake-
Heijden (2004), Morsing and Schultz (2006), and Johnson, Redlbacher, holder information strategy, communication always occurs in one
and Schaltegger (2018), we use the sensemaking method for a better direction, from the organization toward its stakeholders. Communica-
understanding of the communication processes and engagement of tion is basically viewed as “telling, not listening” (Grunig &
companies with internal and external stakeholders. Hunt, 1984), and, therefore, the one-way communication of the
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) expand the notion of sensemaking stakeholder information strategy has the purpose of disseminating
by introducing the concept of sensegiving, putting a special focus on information, not necessarily with a persuasive intent but rather to
the managerial processes facilitating sensemaking in organizations. inform the public as objectively as possible about the organization
According to them, sensemaking is followed by actions in terms of (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). In our investigation for this study, we clas-
articulating an abstract vision that is then widespread and championed sified the information strategy as a Level 1 stakeholder engagement
by corporate management toward stakeholders in a process labeled communication strategy, which is further explained later.
“sensegiving” (i.e., attempting to influence the way another party Building on Gioia and Chittipeddi's (1991) terminology, Morsing
understands or makes sense). and Schultz's (2006) work provides a framework that analyzes com-
It is important to also point out that Gioia and Chi- munication between companies and internal stakeholders, as well as
ttipeddi's (1991) theory has an internal focus on sensegiving and engages companies in progressive iterations of sensemaking and
sensemaking processes among managers and employees. Craig- sensegiving processes with external stakeholders, enhancing aware-
Lees (2001), Cramer et al. (2004), and Morsing and Schultz (2006) ness of mutual expectations.
expanded this notion to an external focus by involving external Additionally, for Morsing and Schultz (2006), the stakeholder
stakeholders in corporate CSR efforts. Based on stakeholder the- response strategy is based on a two-way asymmetric communication
ory, we have chosen to investigate and analyze communication model, as opposed to the two-way symmetric model of the stake-
processes used to engage with internal and external stakeholders holder involvement strategy. In other words, the main difference
concomitantly and under equal criteria. between the models of the stakeholder response strategy and stake-
Stakeholder engagement is understood as practices the organiza- holder involvement strategy is that companies also change as a result
tion undertakes to positively involve stakeholders in organizational of interactions with stakeholders in the latter case, even though both
activities (Greenwood, 2007). Corporate responsibility refers to the consist of a two-way communication strategy (or sensemaking and
corporation's obligation to act in the interests of legitimate organiza- sensegiving, as previously noted). In this sense, stakeholder engage-
tional stakeholders (Herremans et al., 2016). To integrate such views, ment also involves communication for mutual consensus to achieve
Lim and Greenwood (2017) presents a model that reflects the multi- organizational goals (Lim & Greenwood, 2017). Concerning the pur-
faceted relationship between the two following constructs: stake- pose of our investigation, the models of the stakeholder response
holder engagement and corporate responsibility. strategy and stakeholder involvement strategy have been respectively
Under Greenwood's model, stakeholder engagement is a process classified as Level 2 and Level 3 stakeholder engagement communica-
of consultation, communication, dialogue, and exchange. High engage- tion strategies.
ment is when these activities are numerous and/or of high quality; Morsing and Schultz (2006), Greenwood (2007), Herremans
low engagement is the opposite. Additionally, Lim and Greenwood et al. (2016), Grushina (2017), and Lane and Devin (2018) all explain
(2017) presents stakeholder agency as a proxy for the responsible the various stakeholder engagement processes and their definitions
treatment of stakeholders, which represents the number and breadth and dialogue with communication and CSR practices, but none of
of stakeholder groups in whose interest the company acts. these works advanced knowledge about engagement strategies
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2074 STOCKER ET AL.

differences and how to implement the strategies in sustainability of commitment to and development of CSR practices, as well as uni-
reports. These researchers also no longer attempt to predict when formity within the same sector (Amor-Esteban, Galindo-Villardón,
organizations will choose an engagement strategy to the detriment of García-Sánchez, & David, 2019), justifying its selection for an analysis
others. These are topics that this study intends to advance. of the practices of engagement (Talbot & Boiral, 2018; Boiral &
Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2020). By examining the GRI database and apply-
ing the filters “energy sector” and “2016 reporting year” (2016 having
3 | METHODS been the last year with complete disclosure and verification of the
GRI parameters), the results totaled 256 companies from 40 countries.
The selected sample is comprised of sustainability reports of compa- We select reports published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese,
nies operating in the energy sector, collected from the 2016 GRI data- resulting in a final sample of 119 reports.
base. This method of analysis of annual sustainability reports has been
used in various studies that systematically quantify and classify sus-
tainability information (Brotons & Sansalvador, 2020; Hourneaux 3.1 | Methodological procedures
Junior, Galleli, Gallardo-Vázquez, & Sánchez-Hernández, 2017) and
stakeholder engagement practices in the reports (Campra et al., 2020; Data collection was carried out through a content analysis of the GRI
García-Sánchez & Araújo-Bernardo, 2019; Grushina, 2017; Moratis & sustainability reports. A content analysis is a research method used to
Brandt, 2017). encode text (i.e., communications) and generate inferences
Sustainability reporting has become an important tool used by (Krippendorff, 2018), assuming that the language used by the sender
organizations to communicate their environmental, social, and gover- reflects its context and communication objectives. In this work, we
nance performance to their stakeholders. The GRI guidelines have analyze the content of the reports, generating inferences about how
become the global standard and the most widely employed sustain- companies express themselves, and record communications with dif-
ability reporting tool, used by 82% of companies worldwide that com- ferent groups of stakeholders regarding company activities and corpo-
plete stand-alone CSR reports (Moratis & Brandt, 2017; Torelli rate social responsibility practices. We present a methodological
et al., 2019; Kaur & Lodhia, 2019). matrix in Figure 1 to explain the choices that define our bibliographic
We selected the energy sector because it is one of the three most review, data collection, and the synthesis and analysis of the results
represented sectors in reports, and it involves considerable levels of so that the conclusions and contributions of this study are scientifi-
social and environmental risks. This sector also involves a higher level cally consistent.

FIGURE 1 Summary of the methodological steps and procedures

 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
STOCKER ET AL. 2075

TABLE 1 Classification of the engagement level

Communication strategy level Type Interaction process Engagement actions

Morsing and Gable and Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) Morsing and Schultz (2006); Gable and
Schultz (2006) Shireman (2005) Shireman (2005)
Level 1—information Track Sensemaking Monitor, compile actions, terms of Data Protection &
strategy Confidentiality, contracts, registration
Inform Sensegiving Annual report, reports, briefings, brochures, magazines,
website, intranet, social media, newsletters, guide/
manual, Tours, plant visits, exhibitions, special days,
Training & Development
Level 2—response Consult Sensemaking )Sensegiving Back Channel dialogue, opinion polls, forums, surveys,
strategy market surveys/research, meetings, sessions, contact
center, phone, customer service, interactions,
complaints & suggestions.
Support Sensemaking )Sensegiving Strategic philanthropy/sponsorship, advisory activities
Level 3—involvement Collaborate Sensemaking )Sensegiving Initiatives, actions, cooperation, working groups,
strategy commissions, committees, agreements, associations
Partner Sensemaking ,Sensegiving Joint projects (formal/informal), programs, alliances

As presented in the methodological matrix, the database was validation by comparing the results of different analysts (a sample of
comprised of 119 reports downloaded from the GRI platform. For the reports was analyzed by two different analysts and the results com-
purpose of analysis and systematization of all content, data was col- pared so that there was a calibration of the collection method and the
lected from all the reports separated by company, country, and region. coding spreadsheet); and (c) external validation with the verification
The data analysis was performed by analyzing the content of the of the coded material and a sample of reports, with the corroboration
reports in relation to the engagement actions declared by each of the of two specialists of sustainability reports and international social and
companies and classifying them according to the levels proposed by environmental disclosure guidelines, such as the GRI.
this work (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3), as presented in Table 1. To categorize the stakeholders' engagement strategies, we
We carried out the content analysis in a “Stakeholder Identifica- employed a few analysis steps in terms of quality, focus, and extent.
tion & Engagement” session, available through the GRI reports, by First, the quality is evaluated by the three levels of engagement devel-
considering the engagement actions reported by each company. This oped in the proposed model. Second, the focus is analyzed by identi-
is a mandatory session during the preparation and dissemination of fying the stakeholders to whom the engagement actions are directed.
reports and focuses on the following components: G4-24, list of iden- Finally, the extent is examined through the number of stakeholders
tified stakeholders; G4-25, basis for identifying stakeholders; G4-26, involved by the companies in their engagement actions. One example
approach to stakeholder engagement; and G4-27, key topics and con- extracted from a GRI report used in our sample for Duke Energy iden-
cerns by stakeholder. tified 11 key stakeholders. Among the many engagement actions
In the database created for the systematization and classification reported, an example for each level follows: Level 1, plant visits and
of the engagement actions, columns were inserted for each stake- tours for the media; Level 2, meetings with local authorities and orga-
holder identified in the reports and the number of actions mentioned nizations within the community; and Level 3, the employees' continu-
for each stakeholder. The frequency of the stakeholders for each ous improvement program.
report/company, the total number of actions per level of engagement,
and the division of the engagement actions for each stakeholder were
then calculated, thus segregating the engagement actions by level and 3.2 | Categorization of the engagement level
by stakeholder.
The process of coding the data, reading the reports, and analyzing As previously mentioned, we defined engagement quality according
the engagement section of the reports was done manually, following to three levels of communication strategy conducted to engage the
three steps for its completion and validity of collection and analysis, firm with internal and external stakeholders, based on Morsing and
as suggested by Unerman (2000) and Krippendorff (2018): (a) prepara- Schultz's (2006) classification: information strategy (Level 1), response
tion prior to collection and analysis that involves consulting dictionar- strategy (Level 2), and involvement strategy (Level 3). We complemen-
ies in Portuguese, English, and Spanish for synonyms of ted Morsing and Schultz's (2006) classification with Gioia and Chi-
“stakeholders” (e.g., employees, community, customers, and share- ttipeddi's (1991) and Gable and Shireman's (2005) definitions. Based
holders) and for various engagement initiatives (e.g., reports, newslet- on these studies, we proposed a model of classification of stakeholder
ters, forums, customer service, and working groups); (b) internal engagement actions that includes the communication strategy level,
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2076 STOCKER ET AL.

type of engagement, and the process of social interactions. Table 1 actions as the primary communication strategy. We also highlight the
exhibits the classification and engagement actions adopted by the most cited stakeholders in the actions. Employees are still the most
firms. favored stakeholders in engagement actions at Levels 1 and
The classification model in Table 1 was the methodological tool 2, whereas communities and the government represent the majority
used to analyze the reports. We identified engagement actions in the of the efforts at Level 3.
reports and classified them according to the level of communication The classification of engagement levels, as illustrated in Table 1,
strategy. Each company could simultaneously show actions at the goes beyond the categorization of the levels of communication strate-
three levels directed to different stakeholders. We calculated the fre- gies proposed by Morsing and Schultz (2006), also incorporating the
quency of actions at each level for each analyzed report. different types of collaboration and involvement with stakeholder
groups, supported by the work of Gable and Shireman (2005), and
Gioia and Chittipeddi's (1991) process of the interaction of sen-
3.3 | Analysis of engagement quality, focus, and semaking and sensegiving. Thus, the understanding of the quality of
extent engagement levels reflect the process not only of the organization's
communication with its stakeholders but the interaction and construc-
The stakeholder engagement quality involves the number of actions, tion of the relationship, being at certain times focused on the organi-
the most cited actions, and the most cited stakeholders at each level. zation and its internal stakeholders, as usually happens in
It is differentiated by three levels of quality: Level 1 (stakeholder sensemaking processes, and at other times through sensegiving (high-
information strategy) includes actions aimed at identifying and info- quality engagement actions), with the involvement of stakeholders
rming stakeholders, Level 2 (stakeholder response strategy) involves external to the organization.
consulting the interests and supporting the demands of stakeholders, In this sense, the results show that, in general, external stake-
and Level 3 (stakeholder involvement strategy) is aimed at establishing holders to the organization, such as the government and community,
partnerships and collaborations with stakeholders in projects. demand a more structured engagement process with a higher level of
For the engagement focus, we calculated the frequency of the interaction, which represents a Level 3 involvement strategy, which is
stakeholders for each report/company and the total number of an interactive sensegiving process in which the organization seeks to
actions per level of engagement and per stakeholder. The most cited develop collaborative actions and initiatives that for stakeholders
stakeholder groups at each level were taken as clues to analyze the within the organization is inherent in the practices already developed
focus of the engagement, and the number of stakeholders cited was internally.
used as a method to analyze the extent of the engagement. To ana- Thus, in the dissemination of the organization's actions, such as
lyze the stakeholder engagement extent, we consider three levels of the case explored here of sustainability reports, companies in the
engagement strategies and categorize stakeholder extent into three energy context have developed more strategic actions of engagement
groups: high (three or more stakeholder groups), intermediate (two of greater quality with external stakeholders, which are mainly linked
groups of stakeholders), and low (just one stakeholder). To analyze the to their external impact and dependence and are mandatory,
engagement extent impact, we also propose a stakeholder engage- depending on their operating context in society. It is noteworthy that
ment matrix that categorizes companies in terms of the level and most companies in the energy sector operate in highly regulated mar-
extent of engagement. The matrix helps determine whether the com- kets and have a social, economic, and environmental obligation of
panies involved a large number of stakeholders with a high quality of great interest to external stakeholders.
engagement.

4.2 | Stakeholder engagement focus

4 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The stakeholders cited in the 119 reports include employees
4.1 | Stakeholder engagement quality: The (108 reports), the community (100), shareholders (95), customers (93),
engagement level suppliers (86), and the government (80). In addition to those stake-
holders, we highlight several others that relate to and are important to
We classified the engagement actions within the sample of 119 GRI companies belonging to the energy sector. These stakeholders include
reports disclosed by companies operating in the energy sector. industry regulators, media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
Table 2 summarizes the findings and presents the number of actions, business partners, academia (universities and research centers), and
the most cited actions, and the most cited stakeholders at each level. finance institutions.
Levels 1 and 2 concentrate the highest number of engagement We observe that when stakeholder engagement actions are
actions identified. Therefore, the engagement strategies are consis- divided according to Levels 1, 2, and 3, the stakeholders´ focus
tent with actions that inform (Level 1) and consult and support the changes. As already highlighted in Table 2, different stakeholders
stakeholders (Level 2). We observed that the sample companies have received more attention according to each level of engagement in
a strong tendency to focus on Level 1 stakeholder engagement relation to the total number of engagement actions. It can thus be
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
STOCKER ET AL. 2077

TABLE 2 Engagement level, actions, and stakeholders

Number of Number of
Engagement level actions actions % Most cited actions Most cited stakeholders in the actions
Level 1— 1,563 49% Annual report Employees (239), Community (205), Investors/
information Newsletters Shareholders (193), Customers (185), Suppliers (141).
strategy Website
Level 2—response 1,471 46% Forums Employees (245), Community (198), Customers (183),
strategy Surveys Investors/Shareholders (159), Suppliers (133).
Customer service
Dialogue Channel
Level 3— 159 5% Work groups Community (39), Government (27), Employees (23),
involvement Joint projects Investors/Shareholders (13), Customers (13).
strategy Programs and
associations
Total 3,193 100%

concluded that, as previously mentioned, employees are generally the Engagement quality:
Stakeholder Engagement Level
stakeholders most favored in Level 1 and 2 actions in most reports/
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
companies, whereas communities and governments are the primary
receivers of Level 3 actions. It is also observed that, although most of
the actions of engagement classified at Levels 1 and 2 focus on the number of stakeholders involved High Show-off Investigator Generous
same stakeholder groups (employees, shareholders, and customers),
Engagement extension:

Level 3 of engagement actions shows a wider distribution, with efforts

and engagement strategies more evidently focused on stakeholders
such as the community, government, employees, and NGOs. Intermediate Trumpeter Curious Malleable

As already defended by authors such as Noland and Phil-

lips (2010), Johnson-Cramer et al. (2004), and Greenwood (2007), it is
important to differentiate the nature of firms' engagement with their
Low Insulated Prudent Focused
stakeholders and the quality of those relationships. In this sense, there
is an opportunity for firms to improve the quality of engagement by
investing in involvement strategy actions and to gain a competitive
advantage by engaging its stakeholders. FIGURE 2 Stakeholder's engagement strategies matrix

concentrate most of their engagement actions at Level 3 in their strat-

4.3 | Stakeholder engagement extent egy to engage and influence those stakeholders.
We briefly described each quadrant of the matrix proposed:
As previously mentioned, to analyze the stakeholder engagement
extent, we consider three levels of engagement strategies and catego- 1 Insulated: companies in this classification developed engagement
rize the stakeholder extent into three groups: high, intermediate, and actions at Level 1 involving a narrow number of stakeholders.
low. We thereby developed the following stakeholder engagement These firms are at the lowest level of stakeholder engagement
matrix, presenting nine categories of engagement strategies, as shown strategy.
in Figure 2. 2 Prudent: companies in this classification still involve few stake-
The matrix presented in Figure 2 shows all the possible combina- holders in their engagement strategy but exhibit actions that fall
tions of a high, intermediate, and low number of identified stake- mostly into Level 2, which include initiatives of dialogue with
holders (Y-axis) and the concentration of actions classified as stakeholders.
engagement Levels 1, 2, and 3. Such combinations were then divided 3 Focused: companies in this classification have engagement actions
into nine quadrants. At the lower-left bottom, for instance, there are at Level 3 with a narrow number of stakeholders. These firms are
companies reporting a low number of identified stakeholders and a focused on a fewer number of stakeholders but developed a
high number of engagement actions, thus falling into the Level 1 cate- deeper relationship with them in terms of stakeholder engagement.
gory, which we have called “Insulated.” At the extreme opposite quad- 4 Trumpeter: companies in this classification included an intermedi-
rant at the upper-right corner, we have “Generous” companies—those ate number of stakeholders in their engagement strategy but devel-
that involve a high number of stakeholders in their reports and oped mostly actions at Level 1.
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2078 STOCKER ET AL.

5 Curious: companies in this classification involve an intermediate 6 | CONT RI BUT I ONS

number of stakeholders in their engagement strategy, developing
actions at Level 2, which include initiatives of dialogue with We contribute to the literature on the topic by presenting a matrix of
stakeholders. stakeholder engagement strategies derived from the findings of the
6 Malleable: companies in this classification have engagement actions reviewed GRI reports and by employing a classification method that
at Level 3 with an intermediate number of stakeholders. These provides differentiation between engagement strategies. In particular,
firms are classified at the highest level of stakeholder engagement. this differentiation of engagement strategies and levels reinforces
7 Show-off: companies in this classification developed engagement some points already discussed in the instrumental stakeholder theory
actions at Level 1 involving a higher number of stakeholders. and CSR literature when considering the prioritization of primary
8 Investigator: companies in this classification involve a higher num- stakeholders at the detriment of secondary stakeholders in the pro-
ber of stakeholders in their engagement strategy, developing cesses and actions of the organization. These groups of stakeholders,
actions at Level 2 of engagement. when engaged, influence the choices and decisions of the company,
9 Generous: companies in this classification have engagement actions and a reflection of this should be noted in sustainability reports, either
at Level 3 with a higher number of stakeholders. These firms show through matrices of materiality or descriptions of engagement
the most advanced stakeholder engagement strategy. practices.
The second contribution is methodological, providing a model to
evaluate the engagement actions disclosed by the firms. The method-
5 | IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ology applied in this study is unprecedented and proposes, as a result,
an engagement matrix that can be used in future studies and for prac-
The findings of this study reveal different trends for how companies tice to assist in the evaluation and classification of different strategic
choose to engage their identified stakeholders, either in terms of the engagement actions. In summary, engagement strategies and stake-
number of stakeholders or the level of engagement, as part of their holder groups are not similar and should not be seen as a single bloc,
communication strategies. Based on the analysis and discussion of so the preparation of sustainability reports should seek a higher level
diverse levels of stakeholder engagement (i.e., Level 1, information of disclosure that enhances their effectiveness, going beyond GRI
strategy; Level 2, response strategy; and Level 3, involvement strat- guidelines.
egy), it was possible to observe that the strategies in stakeholder man- Our study contributes by providing a managerial tool to classify
agement and engagement actions vary across companies. the level of stakeholder engagement strategy, including the quality
The implications of this study lead to important insights into and extent of the engagement. The nine quadrants that make up the
the level of information that sustainability reports disclose, even engagement matrix illustrate the possible positions of the strategies
when following GRI guidelines. GRI's premise considers organiza- adopted by the companies. This tool can help practitioners to rethink
tional transparency as a vehicle for building productive dialogue in and evaluate how to move within the engagement matrix to focus
relation to environmental, social, and governance information their engagement actions on a greater number of stakeholders or on

(Ortas, Gallego-Alvarez, 
& Alvarez, 2019). However, GRI reports higher quality. A point raised by the experts during the validation of
have been limited to the disclosure of social activities developed by the research collection instrument is that each group of stakeholders
the organization and its stakeholders, representing a final output of at a given moment can be accessed by different engagement actions,
the CSR processes and engagement with stakeholders. Understand- and managers do not need to focus on high-quality actions at all times
ing that the construction of dialogue and involvement with stake- but know how to combine the focus, quality, and extent of the
holders is an antecedent of disclosure contributes to our actions, thus improving the relationships and engagement with
knowledge of the preparation of sustainability reports and stakeholders.
increases our vision of stakeholder engagement as a procedural and This work also sought to provide practical implications to both
strategic phenomenon for organizations. practitioners and scholars. It is important to be aware of the urgency
We also emphasize that although we present various levels of and need to adopt organizational best practices, as presented here by
engagement and different positions considering the extent and quality the engagement approach with stakeholders. Thus, those interested
of actions, empirical tests and an in-depth evaluation needs to be in the application of tools to improve their understanding of social
done to determine whether superior engagement leads to higher per- and environmental responsibilities, as well as corporate performance,
formance for a company. In other words, to what extent, within the may make use of the proposed tool and the reflections that the study
engagement matrix, can a company benefit from balancing the extent presents. Stakeholder engagement, whether at its primary and infor-
and quality of actions, to which contexts should the strategies of mational level or at the advanced level of engagement, can result in a
engagement be directed, and what option is the best at different cooperative business environment, inspiring and rewarding key
levels of engagement and strategic positions? These questions are changes in the company's decisions and operations, making them
starting points for future research considering the hierarchization of more beneficial to society and the environment.
categories and performance impact, whether over time or for different Nevertheless, the social contribution of the work is evidenced by
groups of stakeholders and business contexts. the focus on the development of best practices, processes, and
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
STOCKER ET AL. 2079

strategies of stakeholder engagement within an important context for Journal of Cleaner Production. 243, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the development of society, considering its potential environmental jclepro.2019.118596
Brotons, J. M., & Sansalvador, M. E. (2020). The relation between corpo-
and social impact. Analyzing and predicting the best types of relation-
rate social responsibility certification and financial performance: An
ships and engagement between organizations and their stakeholders empirical study in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
leads us to reflect on the role of business engagement with society, mental Management, Early View, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.
which is to coordinate the interests of and create more value for their 1899
Campra, M., Esposito, P., & Lombardi, R. (2020). The engagement of stake-
stakeholders and for society.
holders in nonfinancial reporting: New information-pressure, stimuli,
inertia, under short-termism in the banking industry. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Early View, 1–9. https://
6.1 | Limitations and future studies doi.org/10.1002/csr.1896
Craig-Lees, M. (2001). Sense making: Trojan horse? Pandora's box? Psy-
chology and Marketing, 18(5), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.
As in all studies, there are certain limitations that should be noted. 1019
The sample of this study represents only the energy sector, although Cramer, J., Jonker, J., & Van Der Heijden, A. (2004). Making sense of cor-
the choice of the sector has been justified due to the higher level of porate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 215–222.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1903-0
commitment and development of CSR practices and risks involved in
Ettinger, A., Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Terlutter, R. (2018). Online CSR com-
its operations, and a certain homogeneity has been found in the
munication in the hotel industry: Evidence from small hotels. Interna-
reports analyzed. tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 94–104. https://doi.org/
A methodological weakness of this work is that it is difficult to 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.002
replicate due to the non-systematization of the content analysis used Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Bos-
ton, MA: Pitman.
in the sustainability reports. As the data coding and analysis was car-
Freeman, R. E. (2017). The new story of business: Towards a more respon-
ried out in three languages and for a specific section of the report sible capitalism. Business and Society Review, 122(3), 449–465. https://
with a method of association and the frequency of words, if we were doi.org/10.1111/basr.12123
to use qualitative data analysis software (such as NVivo or Atlas.ti), Freeman, R. E., Kujala, J., Sachs, S., & Stutz, C. (2017). Stakeholder engage-
ment: practicing the ideas of stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder
we would not be able to capture what was sought and generate the
engagement: Clinical research cases (pp. 1–12). Switzerland, Cham:
inferences described here. However, there is an avenue of possibilities Springer.
for future work, applying the content analysis method to sustainability Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice.
reports, as well as other data sources, using the engagement matrix New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gable, C., & Shireman, B. (2005). Stakeholder engagement: A three-phase
and levels proposed in this study.
methodology. Environmental Quality Management, 14(3), 9–24. https://
For future research, we believe that an investigation and analysis doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20044
of influences on companies from other sectors under different con- Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., & Suárez-Perales, I. (2019). Stake-
texts, such as their capital structures, corporate responsibility prac- holder engagement mechanisms and their contribution to eco-innova-
tion: Differentiated effects of communication and cooperation.
tices, supply chains, or competition networks, can provide an
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
important contribution to identify which variables drive stakeholder 26(6), 1321–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1749
engagement strategies. Finally, to justify why companies should invest García-Sánchez, I.-M., & Araújo-Bernardo, C.-A. (2019). What colour is the
in different or more robust stakeholder engagement strategies, an corporate social responsibility report? Structural visual rhetoric,
impression management strategies, and stakeholder engagement. Cor-
investigation of companies' performance over the years for each
porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2),
quadrant of the stakeholder engagement strategy matrix can provide
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1869
an important contribution to the field. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sense making and sensegiving in stra-
tegic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of cor-
This study was financed in part by the Coordenaç~ao de Aperfeiçoamento
porate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX:
ORCID Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Fabricio Stocker https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-9127 Grushina, S. V. (2017). Collaboration by design: Stakeholder engage-
ment in GRI sustainability reporting guidelines. Organization &
Environment, 30(4), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/
RE FE R ENC E S 1086026616681612
Amor-Esteban, V., Galindo-Villardón, M. P., García-Sánchez, I. M., & David, F. Herremans, I. M., Nazari, J. A., & Mahmoudian, F. (2016). Stakeholder rela-
(2019). An extension of the industrial corporate social responsibility prac- tionships, engagement, and sustainability reporting. Journal of Business
tices index: New information for stakeholder engagement under a multi- Ethics, 138(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-
variate approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental 2634-0
Management, 26(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1665 Hourneaux Junior, F., Galleli, B., Gallardo-Vázquez, D., & Sánchez-
Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2020). Sustainability reporting assur- Hernández, M. I. (2017). Strategic aspects in sustainability reporting in
ance: Creating stakeholder accountability through hyperreality?. oil & gas industry: The comparative case-study of Brazilian Petrobras
 15353966, 2020, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csr.1947 by EBMG ACCESS - MALAWI, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2080 STOCKER ET AL.

and Spanish Repsol. Ecological Indicators, 72, 203–214. https://doi. Reviews, 12(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.007 00279.x
Hsu, C. W., Lee, W. H., & Chao, W. C. (2013). Materiality analysis model in 
Ortas, E., Gallego-Alvarez, 
I., & Alvarez, I. (2019). National institutions,
sustainability reporting: A case study at lite-on technology corpora- stakeholder engagement, and firms' environmental, social, and gover-
tion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 142–151. https://doi.org/10. nance performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.040 Management, 26(3), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1706
Huijstee, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialogue Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stake-
between multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and holder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.
Environmental Management, 15(5), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5355-y
csr.171 Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2008). The
Johnson, M., Redlbacher, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2018). Stakeholder engage- influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service
ment for corporate sustainability: A comparative analysis of B2C and firms: The moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munifi-
B2B companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man- cence. British Journal of Management, 19(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/
agement, 25, 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1484 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00538.x
Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2004). Organization-level antecedents of stake- Sulkowski, A. J., Edwards, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2018). Shake your stake-
holder conflict. In Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2004 holder: Firms leading engagement to cocreate sustainable value. Orga-
(pp. F1–F6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. https:// nization & Environment, 31(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/
doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2004.13857470 1086026617722129
Kaur, A. & Lodhia, S. (2019). Key issues and challenges in stakeholder Talbot, D. & Boiral, O. (2018). GHG Reporting and impression manage-
engagement in sustainability reporting: A study of Australian local ment: an assessment of sustainability reports from the energy sector.
councils. Pacific Accounting Review, 31(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10. Journal of Business Ethics. 147, 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/
1108/PAR-11-2017-0092 s10551-015-2979-4
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodol- Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Furlotti, K. (2019). The materiality assessment
ogy. University of Pennsylvania, Los Angeles: Sage Publications. and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability
Lane, A. B., & Devin, B. (2018). Operationalizing stakeholder engagement reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.,
in CSR: A process approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ- 27, 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813
mental Management, 25(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues-reflections on quantification in
1460 corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing &
Lim, J. S., & Greenwood, C. A. (2017). Communicating corporate social Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/
responsibility (CSR): Stakeholder responsiveness and engagement 09513570010353756
strategy to achieve CSR goals. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 768–776. Venturelli, A., Cosma, S., & Leopizzi, R. (2018). Stakeholder engagement:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.007 An evaluation of European banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability Environmental Management, 25(4), 690–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/
reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social csr.1486
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110–122. https:// Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpre-
doi.org/10.1002/csr.255 tation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4,
Manning, B., Braam, G., & Reimsbach, D. (2018). Corporate governance 475–497. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857345
and sustainable business conduct—Effects of board monitoring Zaid, M. A. A., Abuhijleh, S. T. F., & Pucheta-Martínez, M. C. (2020). Own-
effectiveness and stakeholder engagement on corporate sustain- ership structure, stakeholder engagement, and corporate social
ability performance and dis-closure choices. Corporate Social responsibility policies: The moderating effect of board independence.
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 351–366. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Early
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1687 View, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1888
Miniaoui, Z., Chibani, F., & Hussainey, K. (2019). The impact of country- Zwikael, O., Elias, A. A., & Ahn, M. J. (2012). Stakeholder collaboration and
level institutional differences on corporate social responsibility disclo- engagement in virtual projects. International Journal of Networking and
sure engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Virtual Organisations, 10(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijnvo.
Management, 26(6), 1307–1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1748 2012.045730
Moratis, L., & Brandt, S. (2017). Corporate stakeholder responsiveness?
Exploring the state and quality of GRI-based stakeholder engagement
disclosures of European firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 24(4), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1408 How to cite this article: Stocker F, de Arruda MP, de
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility commu- Mascena KMC, Boaventura JMG. Stakeholder engagement in
nication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strate- sustainability reporting: A classification model. Corp Soc
gies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. https://doi.
Responsib Environ Manag. 2020;27:2071–2080. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics org/10.1002/csr.1947
and strategic management. International Journal of Management