Operationalizing Stakeholder Engagement in CSR: A Process Approach
在企业社会责任中实施利益相关者参与：一种过程方法
首次发表日期：2017年10月30日https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1460引用次数：54
曼彻斯特大学图书馆
Abstract 摘要
Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of an organization's corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, but little theorizing informs its implementation. In this paper, the authors relate data from stakeholder engagement activities undertaken by nine Australian organizations as part of their CSR efforts, to an existing process model of engagement. The original framework is extended and enhanced into a process model of the operationalization of stakeholder engagement. Practically, this research identifies the steps within the operationalization of stakeholder engagement, allowing engagement practitioners to track the progress of their work, and to identify and respond to any impediments. Theoretically, the proposed process model approach presents a new perspective on operationalizing stakeholder engagement. The revised model of stakeholder engagement therefore provides a lens that gives deeper insights into how engagement is carried out; as well as a practical framework through which this implementation can be understood and managed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
利益相关者参与是组织企业社会责任（CSR）活动的重要方面，但很少有理论支持其实施。本文作者将澳大利亚九家组织在CSR努力中进行的利益相关者参与活动的数据与现有的参与过程模型相关联。原始框架被扩展和增强为利益相关者参与的操作化过程模型。从实践角度来看，这项研究确定了利益相关者参与的操作化步骤，使参与从业者能够跟踪他们的工作进展，并识别和应对任何障碍。从理论上讲，所提出的过程模型方法提供了一种操作化利益相关者参与的新视角。因此，修订后的利益相关者参与模型提供了一个更深入了解参与如何进行的视角，以及一个可以理解和管理这种实施的实用框架。版权所有©2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd和ERP Environment。
Introduction 介绍
The concept of CSR has undergone significant change since it was initially recognized and defined in the mid-twentieth century (Carroll, 1999). While CSR has traditionally been most closely linked with the achievement of organizational financial goals (Lee, 2008), this rise of more stakeholder-centric governance approaches (Shahzad et al., 2016) has meant organizations are increasingly focusing on identifying and satisfying stakeholder needs and expectations. This push to become more attuned to stakeholder expectations means more and more organizations are undertaking stakeholder engagement as part of their CSR activities. Organizations engage with stakeholders to identify (and perhaps meet) their expectations, and to communicate how they are being responded to (Devin & Lane, 2014; Dobele et al., 2014). By engaging with stakeholders around CSR, organizations can achieve CSR objectives (Dobele et al., 2014) and ensure that organizational decisions and activities are socially acceptable (Green & Hunton-Clarke, 2003).
自企业社会责任（CSR）在20世纪中叶首次被认可和定义以来，其概念发生了重大变化。尽管CSR传统上与实现组织财务目标密切相关，但随着更多以利益相关者为中心的治理方法的兴起，组织越来越注重识别和满足利益相关者的需求和期望。这种对利益相关者期望的关注推动了越来越多的组织将利益相关者参与作为CSR活动的一部分。组织与利益相关者进行接触，以识别（或许满足）他们的期望，并传达他们的回应（Devin＆Lane，2014; Dobele等，2014）。通过与利益相关者就CSR进行接触，组织可以实现CSR目标，并确保组织的决策和活动在社会上是可接受的（Green＆Hunton-Clarke，2003）。
The synergies between CSR and stakeholder engagement have provided a rich setting for the growth of a body of literature that seeks to define and characterize engagement (Devin & Lane, 2014). Indeed, the domain of CSR has become so enmeshed with the idea of stakeholder engagement in the literature that it is often hard to determine which came first. Bowen et al. (2010, p. 297) describe engagement as ‘a subset of a firm's corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities’; whereas Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 323) position it as the communication that organizations put out about their ‘ethical and socially responsible initiatives.’
企业社会责任（CSR）与利益相关者参与之间的协同作用为一系列旨在定义和描述参与的文献提供了丰富的背景（Devin＆Lane，2014）。事实上，在文献中，CSR领域与利益相关者参与的概念已经如此紧密地结合在一起，以至于很难确定哪个先出现。Bowen等人（2010年，第297页）将参与描述为“企业社会责任（CSR）活动的一个子集”；而Morsing和Schultz（2006年，第323页）将其定位为组织发布有关其“道德和社会责任倡议”的沟通。
Stakeholder engagement is a term comprising two separate concepts. The idea of ‘the stakeholder’ is presented in Freeman's (1984) widely cited definition: those groups and individuals on whom the success or failure of an organization depends. Although this definition is wide-ranging and inclusive, it nonetheless encapsulates the centrality and importance of stakeholders to the continued successful functioning of any organization. The term ‘engagement’, however, has not been pinned down so successfully (Johnston, 2014).
利益相关者参与是一个包含两个独立概念的术语。"利益相关者"的概念在弗里曼（1984年）的广泛引用的定义中被提出：那些组织的成功或失败取决于他们的群体和个人。尽管这个定义范围广泛且包容性强，但它仍然概括了利益相关者对任何组织持续成功运作的核心性和重要性。然而，“参与”这个术语并没有被成功地确定下来（约翰斯顿，2014年）。
Current literature tends to focus on describing engagement and its characteristics (Taylor & Kent, 2014), or conflates stakeholder engagement with the associated concept of dialogue (Agudo-Valiente et al., 2015). Across all bodies of literature, however, there is limited theorizing of stakeholder engagement, and little or no theorizing of its implementation. A review of academic literature demonstrates there is some interest in operationalizing both CSR (Pedersen, 2006) and dialogue-as-stakeholder engagement (Mathur et al., 2008; de Bussy, 2010). While there is a surfeit of ‘how-to’ guides on the conduct of stakeholder engagement, however, there is little evidence of scholarly interest in modeling or theorizing its implementation. Work by Walker et al. (2008) in the field of construction and project management focused on using a zoo metaphor to identify and prioritize stakeholders prior to engaging with them, but with little reference to an overarching perspective on operationalizing engagement as a whole.
当前的文献倾向于描述参与及其特征（Taylor＆Kent，2014），或将利益相关者参与与相关的对话概念混为一谈（Agudo-Valiente等，2015）。然而，在所有文献中，对利益相关者参与的理论化有限，对其实施几乎没有理论化。学术文献综述表明，对于企业社会责任（CSR）（Pedersen，2006）和对话作为利益相关者参与（Mathur等，2008; de Bussy，2010）的操作化存在一定的兴趣。然而，尽管有大量关于进行利益相关者参与的操作指南，但很少有学术界对其实施进行建模或理论化的证据。在建筑和项目管理领域，Walker等人（2008）的研究侧重于使用动物园的隐喻来在与利益相关者接触之前识别和优先考虑利益相关者，但很少提及关于整体操作化参与的总体观点。
Within the context of CSR, Onkila (2011) provides a summary of literature on stakeholder engagement and CSR, highlighting that much of the research revolves around three key areas: (i) stakeholder power and addressing stakeholder relationships, (ii) creating models for stakeholder participation and engagement, and (iii) the role of the natural environment as a stakeholder. Of interest to this study is the second area, looking at models for stakeholder participation and engagement. A review of the literature shows that most of the models and typologies proposed (Madsen & Ulhøi, 2001; Green & Hunton-Clarke, 2003) focus on how to engage or communicate with stakeholders, and do not consider additional aspects such as the process of selecting which stakeholders to engage with and the process of feeding information back to stakeholders. This is despite these elements being recognized as important to stakeholder engagement within the context of CSR (Dobele et al., 2014).
在企业社会责任（CSR）的背景下，Onkila（2011）提供了关于利益相关者参与和CSR的文献综述，强调研究主要围绕三个关键领域展开：（i）利益相关者权力和处理利益相关者关系，（ii）建立利益相关者参与和参与的模型，以及（iii）自然环境作为利益相关者的角色。本研究感兴趣的是第二个领域，即研究利益相关者参与和参与的模型。文献综述显示，大多数提出的模型和分类（Madsen＆Ulhøi，2001; Green＆Hunton-Clarke，2003）侧重于如何与利益相关者进行参与或沟通，并未考虑到其他方面，如选择与利益相关者进行参与的过程和向利益相关者反馈信息的过程。尽管这些要素被认为在CSR的利益相关者参与中很重要（Dobele等，2014）。
As a step toward clarifying the operationalization of stakeholder engagement within CSR, the authors of this paper follow the lead provided by Black (2006), Greenwood (2007), and Johnston (2010) among others who propose that stakeholder engagement is best understood as a process. Following the process perspective of stakeholder engagement, this paper draws on extant literature to develop a model – based on Johnston's (2010) model of a relational approach to consultation – specific to the conduct of stakeholder engagement within CSR.
作为澄清企业社会责任（CSR）中利益相关者参与的操作化步骤，本文的作者们遵循了Black（2006）、Greenwood（2007）和Johnston（2010）等人的引导，他们提出利益相关者参与最好被理解为一个过程。本文基于现有文献，采用利益相关者参与的过程视角，开发了一个模型，该模型基于Johnston（2010）关于咨询的关系方法模型，特定于CSR中的利益相关者参与的实施。
This paper uses data from nine companies about the engagement activities they undertake as part of their CSR operations to extend and refine Johnston's (2010) existing process model of stakeholder engagement. The result is a model of operationalizing stakeholder engagement in the context of CSR. The model consists of a three-step process of operationalization: (i) identifying and selecting participants, (ii) reaching them and securing their interest, and (iii) implementing engagement tactics. This operationalization takes place within an antecedent context that provides the motivation for engagement to occur. It leads to the legitimation of the organization involved, the process of engagement itself, and the decisions reached as an outcome of that engagement. From a practitioner perspective, this paper provides insights into factors that both facilitate and impede the conduct of stakeholder engagement, thus providing a platform for improving the experience for those involved. Theoretically, the paper contributes to the ongoing attempts to develop a model of stakeholder engagement that adequately encompasses its complexity and challenges.
本文利用来自九家公司的数据，研究它们作为企业社会责任（CSR）运营的一部分所进行的参与活动，以扩展和完善约翰斯顿（2010年）现有的利益相关者参与过程模型。结果是在CSR背景下对利益相关者参与进行操作化的模型。该模型包括一个三步操作化过程：（一）识别和选择参与者，（二）接触他们并确保他们的兴趣，（三）实施参与策略。这种操作化发生在提供参与动机的前提背景下。它导致了涉及组织的合法性、参与过程本身以及作为参与结果的决策。从实践者的角度来看，本文提供了有关促进和阻碍利益相关者参与的因素的见解，从而为参与者改善体验提供了平台。从理论上讲，本文对于不断努力发展一个能够充分涵盖其复杂性和挑战的利益相关者参与模型做出了贡献。
Stakeholder Engagement as a Process
利益相关者参与作为一个过程
The development of a process model is a tried and trusted approach in facilitating the identification of elements within complex circumstances and the relationships between those elements. This is particularly relevant to the concept of stakeholder engagement, in which managers are confronted with the challenging task of identifying stakeholders (often with disparate views (Madsen & Ulhøi, 2001; Heikkurinen & Ketola, 2012), understanding their concerns, and feeding these concerns back to inform business practice (Green & Hunton-Clarke, 2003; Dobele et al., 2014). The process model approach has been applied successfully in thinking about sense-making in CSR (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). Others, such as Moratis and Brandt (2017), have noted the shift to ‘both a relational and process-oriented view’ (p. 314) in the interactions between organizations and their stakeholders in relation to CSR. Johnston (2010) subsequently applied this process model approach to an analysis of stakeholder engagement, resulting in the articulation of a typology of the practice. Johnston's (2010) process model (as illustrated in Figure 1) was selected as the preferred framework around which the research for this paper was structured. The reason for this choice was that although the process model had its genesis in public relations, subsequent applications in other fields led to revisions and extensions resulting in a framework that had relevance to many forms of strategic communication.
过程模型的发展是一种经过验证和可靠的方法，可以帮助识别复杂情况中的要素以及这些要素之间的关系。这对于利益相关者参与的概念尤为重要，其中管理者面临着一个具有挑战性的任务，即识别利益相关者（通常具有不同的观点），了解他们的关切，并将这些关切反馈给业务实践。过程模型方法已成功应用于企业社会责任感知的思考中。其他人，如Moratis和Brandt（2017）指出了与企业社会责任相关的组织与利益相关者之间的互动中“关系和过程导向视角”的转变。随后，Johnston（2010）将这种过程模型方法应用于利益相关者参与的分析，从而形成了一种实践的分类。 约翰斯顿（2010年）的过程模型（如图1所示）被选为本文研究的首选框架。选择这个模型的原因是，尽管这个过程模型起源于公共关系领域，但在其他领域的后续应用导致了修订和扩展，从而形成了一个与许多形式的战略沟通相关的框架。
约翰斯顿（2010年，第225页）的利益相关者参与过程模型[经约翰斯顿K.A.许可复制]
Adopting Johnston's (2010) process model as a starting point, the authors of this paper considered how it applied to stakeholder engagement in CSR. The purpose of this approach was to determine the applicability of a general model of stakeholder engagement to the specific context of CSR. In turn, this would identify problematic areas of compatibility and provide insights into how they might be addressed through revisions to the base model.
采用约翰斯顿（2010年）的过程模型作为起点，本文的作者考虑了它在企业社会责任（CSR）中的适用性。这种方法的目的是确定一个普遍的利益相关者参与模型在CSR特定背景下的适用性。从而，这将确定兼容性的问题区域，并通过对基本模型的修订提供洞察力，以解决这些问题。
Of particular interest was the applicability of the three baseline elements of antecedents, engagement relationship strategies, and consequences. Given that these elements form the foundations of Johnston's (2010) process model, it was particularly relevant to determine how they related to the conduct of stakeholder engagement in CSR.
特别值得关注的是前因、参与关系策略和后果三个基本要素的适用性。考虑到这些要素构成了约翰斯顿（2010年）过程模型的基础，确定它们与企业社会责任中的利益相关者参与行为的关系尤为重要。
Methodology 方法论
To understand the applicability of Johnston's (2010) process model of stakeholder engagement to the context of CSR, the authors of this paper related the elements of antecedents, engagement relationship strategies, and consequences to the reported CSR stakeholder engagement practices of nine organizations. This study takes a qualitative approach to analyzing the CSR reports from nine organizations operating in three different industries – banking, energy, and consumer goods.
为了理解约翰斯顿（2010年）的利益相关者参与过程模型在企业社会责任（CSR）背景下的适用性，本文的作者将前因、参与关系策略和后果的要素与九个组织报告的CSR利益相关者参与实践相关联。本研究采用定性方法分析了来自银行、能源和消费品三个不同行业的九个组织的CSR报告。
The selection of industries was based on the overarching industry classification listed by both FTSE4Good Australia and AuSSI. The Australian context of the sample base was chosen largely on a convenience basis for the authors of this paper. However, it was not perceived that this would necessarily impact negatively on the study, or the broader relevance of its results. Australian CSR practices and perspectives often feature in international studies (Golob & Bartlett, 2007; Young & Marais, 2012; Dhaliwal et al., 2014), and are widely recognized as being relevant to discussions on a global scale. The organizations listed on the FTSE4Good Australia and AuSSI indices are considered to be leaders in CSR in Australia and, as a result, one would expect that they are meeting the various regulative, professional, and public/mimetic expectations associated with CSR (Delmas & Toffel, 2004). This idea is also supported by Marais (2012), who suggested that such firms are more socially visible and more exposed to public scrutiny, and therefore experience more CSR pressure from diverse stakeholder groups. The organizations on these indices were coded according to their industry. The industries with the most organizational representation were energy, banking, and consumer goods.
行业的选择是基于FTSE4Good Australia和AuSSI列出的总体行业分类。对于本文的作者来说，选择澳大利亚的样本基础主要是出于方便考虑。然而，并不认为这会对研究或其结果的广泛相关性产生负面影响。澳大利亚的企业社会责任实践和观点经常出现在国际研究中（Golob＆Bartlett，2007; Young＆Marais，2012; Dhaliwal等，2014），并被广泛认为与全球范围的讨论相关。在FTSE4Good Australia和AuSSI指数上列出的组织被认为是澳大利亚企业社会责任的领导者，因此可以预期它们满足与企业社会责任相关的各种规范、专业和公众/模仿的期望（Delmas＆Toffel，2004）。这个想法也得到了Marais（2012）的支持，他认为这样的公司在社会上更加可见，更容易受到公众的审查，因此从各种利益相关者群体那里承受更多的企业社会责任压力。这些指数上的组织按照它们所属的行业进行编码。 能源、银行和消费品行业的组织代表最多。
The authors of this paper randomly selected three organizations within each of these industries, giving a total of nine organizations. All the organizations are well-known Australian institutions that have received recognition, including international awards, for their sustainability practices and commitment to CSR. The authors of this study found these organizations provided publicly available documentation about their stakeholder engagement practices within their CSR activities. These instances of stakeholder engagement provided sufficient detail to make them suitable for analysis. The geographical specifics of the data are acknowledged to be a possible limitation of the study, and are discussed further in the paper.
本文的作者在这些行业中随机选择了每个行业中的三个组织，总共有九个组织。所有这些组织都是知名的澳大利亚机构，因其可持续发展实践和对企业社会责任的承诺而获得了认可，包括国际奖项。本研究的作者发现这些组织在其企业社会责任活动中提供了公开可获取的利益相关者参与实践的文件。这些利益相关者参与的实例提供了足够的细节，使它们适合进行分析。数据的地理特定性被认为可能是本研究的一个限制，并在本文中进一步讨论。
The nine organizations' 2010 CSR reports were the primary source of data. The authors of this paper worked together to find examples of stakeholder engagement in these reports, defined as any instances where the organizations sought to reach out and communicate with their stakeholders as part of their CSR efforts. We then independently analyzed each of these examples, looking for comments that referred to either the pressures that gave rise to the engagement (antecedents); the means by which the communication was conducted (the engagement relationship strategies); and the results of the engagement (consequences).
这篇论文的作者们共同努力，通过分析这九个组织在2010年的企业社会责任报告，寻找其中的利益相关者参与的例子。我们独立地分析了每个例子，寻找与参与相关的压力（前因）、沟通方式（参与关系策略）和参与结果（后果）的评论。
We used NVivo software to facilitate this analysis, using the three elements of the process model of stakeholder engagement as the initial coding nodes. Johnston's (2010) descriptions of these elements were used to create descriptions of the nodes in the authors' separate coding books. Results were compared after the first example was analyzed so we could check whether our coding was consistent. No significant differences were noted. Results were compared again after the examples from two of the organizations were analyzed. At this stage, some differences were noted between the results from the two authors. Our coding books – which had been developed and extended independently as the analysis continued – were amalgamated into one shared resource. We then re-analyzed the data using the common coding book. After one organization was analyzed, we compared results again and found there were no longer any significant discrepancies in our coding.
我们使用NVivo软件来促进这个分析过程，使用利益相关者参与的过程模型的三个要素作为初始编码节点。约翰斯顿（2010年）对这些要素的描述被用来创建作者们各自编码手册中节点的描述。在分析第一个示例后，我们比较了结果，以检查我们的编码是否一致。没有发现显著差异。在分析了两个组织的示例后，我们再次比较了结果。在这个阶段，我们注意到了两位作者的结果之间的一些差异。我们的编码手册在分析过程中独立开发和扩展，然后合并成一个共享资源。然后我们使用共同的编码手册重新分析数据。在分析了一个组织后，我们再次比较了结果，并发现我们的编码中不再存在显著差异。
Qualitative researchers using a content analytic approach recognize that text is open to subjective interpretation, reflects multiple meanings, and is context dependent (e.g. part of a larger discourse) (Julien, 2008). Furthermore, because content analysis is useful in identifying both the conscious and unconscious messages communicated about by the text, in that it considers what is explicitly stated, as well as what is implied by the manner in which the content is expressed (Julien, 2008), it is particularly useful to consider the content/context interplay relevant to this research.
使用内容分析方法的定性研究人员认识到文本可以被主观解释，反映出多重含义，并且依赖于上下文（例如，作为更大话语的一部分）（Julien，2008）。此外，由于内容分析有助于识别文本所传达的明示和暗示信息，即考虑到明确陈述的内容以及内容表达方式所暗示的信息（Julien，2008），因此特别有助于考虑与本研究相关的内容/上下文相互作用。
Findings and Discussion 研究结果和讨论
Applying the three foundational elements of Johnston's (2010) process model of stakeholder engagement to the CSR activities of nine organizations revealed that there were significant alignments between the theory, and the reality of engagement practice in CSR. For example, seven of the nine organizations referred directly to the fact that their CSR reports had been written to meet various regulatory requirements. Six of the reports mentioned the importance of responding to stakeholder concerns or interests as the reason for developing their CSR reports. These motivations align closely with Johnston's (2010) concept of the antecedent pressures that result in the conduct of engagement, and particularly the impact of organizational worldviews on that process. However, we perceived that positioning the antecedents as part of the process of engagement was perhaps over-simplistic, and implied a causal relationship between the motivation for engagement and its form. We could find no evidence of this in the CSR reports. We acknowledged the existence of a variety of motivations for organizations to engage with their stakeholders as part of their CSR activities, but there was no indication of these motivations having a direct connection to the implementation of that engagement.
将约翰斯顿（2010年）利益相关者参与过程模型的三个基本要素应用于九个组织的企业社会责任活动，发现理论与实际参与实践之间存在显著的一致性。例如，九个组织中有七个直接提到他们的企业社会责任报告是为了满足各种监管要求而编写的。六份报告提到回应利益相关者关注或利益的重要性是制定企业社会责任报告的原因。这些动机与约翰斯顿（2010年）关于导致参与行为的先决压力的概念密切相关，尤其是组织世界观对该过程的影响。然而，我们认为将先决条件定位为参与过程的一部分可能过于简化，并暗示了参与动机与其形式之间的因果关系。在企业社会责任报告中，我们找不到这方面的证据。 我们承认组织与利益相关方进行企业社会责任活动的动机多种多样，但没有迹象表明这些动机与该参与的实施直接相关。
All the reports went into some detail about the CSR activities they undertook as a result of stakeholder input and/or feedback, which were identified as either dialogue or monologue, and were indicative of the four-part typology of engagement proposed in Johnston's (2010) model. However, the authors of this paper concluded there was insufficient detail on the implementation aspect. Specifically, the model glosses over the significant aspect of the operationalization of stakeholder engagement. Johnston (2010) distinguishes between monologic and dialogic forms of communication within this aspect – leading to the typology of information, consultation, participation, and pseudo engagement – but goes no further in explaining what distinguishes these two forms of communication from those that do not constitute engagement.
Specific discussions of the consequences of engagement as part of CSR initiatives were not apparent in the reports analyzed. In their CSR reports, organizations often attempted to describe – and in some cases, justify – the methods used in engagement, and the actions taken as a result of the information they discovered using these methods. These comments demonstrated the relevance of the outputs and outcomes of engagement – in other words, the materials produced, and the direct and immediate effects that resulted from the conduct of engagement. However, in the Johnston (2010) model, there is no distinction between such outcomes and their consequences, that is, the ongoing impacts of the engagement at an organizational level. In her process model, ‘consequences’ are demonstrated by measuring and evaluating outputs, that is, items produced. There is no discussion of the link between these items, and the organizational need to gain stakeholder acceptance and approval of their engagement en route to legitimating both the discourse and its outcome, and – as a consequence – the organization itself.
The authors of this paper therefore propose some amendments and enhancements to Johnston's (2010) process model to better illustrate the process of stakeholder engagement relevant to CSR. For example, in the framework provided by Broom et al. (1997) – the basis of the Johnston (2010) model – the process of relationship building is situated in the context of a range of antecedents made up of ‘the perceptions, motives, needs, behaviors, and so forth that are posited as contingencies or causes’ (p. 94) that stimulate the development and management of relationships. Johnston (2010) positions these antecedent factors as being an integral element within the process of relationship management. However, in its application to the cases in this study it became apparent that these factors were more accurately perceived and interpreted as providing the context within which the process of engagement occurred. That is, the motivations and pressures at a societal and organizational level to undertake engagement culminated in the initiation of a process of stakeholder engagement but were not actually part of that process.
Johnston (2010) moves from antecedents to the idea of ‘community publics’ (p. 226) and how they are described in the consultation design examples she studies. This provides a useful link between stakeholder engagement and the well-established concepts of various forms of involved stakeholders or publics, as in Hallahan (2000). Johnston (2010) notes the importance of undertaking research to identify key publics and ‘appropriate communication tactics’ (p. 227). However, there is no clear discussion of this research stage in the stakeholder engagement process model.
From her discussion of community publics, Johnston (2010) moves on to consider relationship strategies. She distinguishes between advocacy and collaboration frames, and uses them as the main point of differentiation between the types of stakeholder engagement she articulates (information, consultation, participation, and pseudo-engagement). Although she links these frames to different engagement tactics – specifically those that are monologic and those that are dialogic – Johnston (2010) does not clearly spell out what makes these tactics engaging rather than simply forms of communication more generally.
The final stage of Johnston's (2010) process model of stakeholder engagement is labeled ‘consequences,’ which she recognizes requires ‘the need to evaluate both the engagement process and the outcomes of the communication program’ (p. 231). Among these outcomes, she includes ‘impact on the social or political environment [or]… a shift in public opinion’ (Johnston, 2010, p. 231). The examples she provides from her data relate more to the outcome level of achieving organizational or program objectives rather than specifying the consequences of the process of stakeholder engagement.
A Process Model Approach to Operationalizing Stakeholder Engagement
Drawing on the above points, revisions and refinements to Johnston's (2010) process model to extend it to the operationalizing of stakeholder engagement are presented and justified in the sections that follow. Figure 2 summarizes our model of a process model approach to operationalizing stakeholder engagement within the context of CSR.
Other scholars, such as Amaeshi and Crane (2006), have recognized the need to develop frameworks that both explain stakeholder engagement and guide its implementation, although few such frameworks currently exist. The process model presented in Figure 2 provides a scaffolded approach to implementing stakeholder engagement in CSR. The model draws on theory and practice to develop a framework that is justified by reference to scholarly research and real-world actions.
Antecedent Context
The first proposed revision to the Johnston (2010) model is the positioning of an antecedent context as the background against which the process of engagement occurs, rather than a part of the process of engagement itself. Decoupling the antecedents from the actual process of engagement allows the identification of variations in both elements that future research might show to impact on the form and nature of stakeholder engagement.
The process model of stakeholder engagement in CSR proposed in this paper therefore shows that it takes place within an antecedent context that is made up of the pressures placed upon organizations to interact with their stakeholders. This aligns with existing research on stakeholder engagement, as in Delmas and Toffel (2004). These pressures come from powerful external stakeholders such as government or professional associations and their subsequent guidelines. For example, the cases alluded to various regulations and professional guidelines that dictated or required stakeholder engagement, with guidelines including the Global Reporting Initiative, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the FTSE4Good, AA1000, ISO 26000, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Organizations can also place pressure on themselves to undertake stakeholder engagement to satisfy their perceptions of what is right, both morally (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Phillips, 1997; Manetti, 2011) and financially. In regards to the latter, organizations may view engagement as something that serves to attract and maintain employees (Hartman et al., 2007); gives them a license to operate in communities (Hartman et al., 2007); can be used as a tool to manage risk (van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008); helps them gain a competitive advantage (van Huijstee & Glasbergen, 2008); and ultimately contributes to the organization's bottom line (Sayce et al., 2013), leading to the long-term survival and success of the firm (Green & Hunton-Clarke, 2003).
Both moral and financial antecedent perspectives were noted in the cases studied for this paper. For example, one of the organizations acknowledged an underlying moral antecedent, stating that its ‘commitment to growing our business responsibly’ meant it had to engage with its stakeholders. Others acknowledged underlying financial antecedents, highlighting that engagement with certain stakeholders was needed to ‘remain competitive,’ ‘to maintain and improve market share.’ and ‘may influence the company's performance and growth in the longer term.’
The combination of these factors provides the ‘drivers’ or motivations for organizations to enter a process of engagement with their stakeholders (Lawrence, 2002).
Process
The process of engagement is made up of three steps – identifying and selecting appropriate stakeholders, reaching them and securing their interest, and implementing engaging strategies.
Step 1 – Identification and Selection of Stakeholders
The first stage in the process of engagement is the identification of the stakeholders with whom the organization wants/needs to establish contact. This presupposes that it is the organization that wishes to instigate this contact, which may appear to perpetuate the organization-centric perspective that has been identified as problematic in the literature (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Bertels & Vredenburg, 2004; Svendsen & Laberge, 2005). This perspective has been maintained in this study as it was found to reflect the sequence of events in the cases considered. For example, while most of the organizations identified which stakeholders they connected with, this contact appeared to be initiated by the organizations themselves, rather than the stakeholders. However, subsequent research might determine that this privileging of the organizational role in stakeholder engagement should be challenged.
Once the organization has identified the stakeholders with whom it seeks to establish contact, it must then decide which among these it will attempt to connect with. This is an area that has received much attention in the literature, including the landmark work by Mitchell et al. (1997), who suggested that this decision might be reached by considering the power, legitimacy, and urgency of each stakeholder or stakeholder group. Traditionally, those stakeholders determined to be highest in all three categories have been seen as those with whom an organization should prioritize its engagement efforts (Rawlins, 2006).
The nine cases studied for this research highlighted the organizations typically connected with their investment community, customers, employees, suppliers, the broader community/community groups, and government and regulators. It did appear however, that prioritization with given to those stakeholders who had power, legitimacy, and urgency, with key issues raised by the investment community and governments and regulators given more consideration than issues raised by other stakeholder groups. This was also evidenced by the fact that while one of the organizations acknowledged that it was ‘committed to continually improving the sustainability of our business to the benefit of all our stakeholders,’ therefore suggesting that equal attention was given to all stakeholders, it went on to say that it had a ‘clear, single commitment to provide a satisfactory return to shareholders,’ suggesting shareholders were prioritized.
Step 2 – Engaging (Reaching Stakeholders and Securing their Interest)
Once an organization has decided which stakeholders it will seek to engage with, the next step in the process of engagement is to reach them with communication that will secure their interest in engaging with the organization. This interest is sought through one-way communication as the organization simply attempts to persuade the chosen stakeholders to engage with them. It is at this point that stakeholder engagement begins to differentiate itself from any other communication that an organization might undertake. The communication that occurs as part of the sub-process of engaging within the overall process of stakeholder engagement must be interesting to those stakeholders. Although this point may seem self-evident, it is not one that has been clearly articulated in the literature on stakeholder engagement so far. Rather it has been glossed over in favor of focusing on the later stages of the process of engagement and is often present only by implication. However, the securing of stakeholder interest through this initial round of one-way communication is one of the characteristics of engagement that distinguishes it from other forms of organizational communication.
Although it might be argued that dictionary definitions have no place in developing a credible academic argument, it is still worth noting that many generic dictionary definitions (including those of the Collins, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, and Shorter Oxford English dictionaries) of what makes something engaging – thus contributing to participant engagement – include reference to the importance of interest as a defining characteristic. Other discipline fields in which the idea of engagement has been studied – such as information technology (Quesenbery, 2004) and education, particularly in relation to the psychology of learning through engagement (Sadoski et al., 2000; Hidi, 2001) – have concluded that gaining participant interest is a vital precursor to them becoming engaged.
The influential AIDA (awareness, interest, desire, action) model developed by Russ and Kirkpatrick (1982) acknowledges the importance of securing participant interest through communication prior to seeking further response. Although their model was originally conceptualized to describe the process through which consumers made their purchasing decisions, it has also been applied to broader studies of communication including public relations. In public relations, the model has been used to demonstrate how the attitudinal and behavioral changes among stakeholders that organizations seek to achieve rely on securing the interest of those stakeholders (Kitchen, 1993; Robinson, 2006).
The synthesis of the two perspectives that gaining interest is a vital precursor to engaging participants, and that interest is a key stage en route to achieving the participation by stakeholders, is intrinsic to engagement. Therefore, securing stakeholder interest is a discrete and important element within the modeling of the process of engagement within the overall construct of stakeholder engagement.
In the model proposed in this paper, the type of communication in stakeholder engagement that arouses initial stakeholder interest does not necessarily require a direct response and might, therefore, be perceived as being one-way in direction (although more accurately it is part of the overall conduct of two-way communication). Its purpose is to achieve the stirring of stakeholder interest in what the organization has to say. This interest will be shown later in the model to result in impacts that include the conduct of further one-way and/or two-way communication between organizations and their stakeholders.
The one-way organizational communication proposed in this model as initiating the sub-process of engaging might be made interesting through appeals to stakeholders' fears (Witte & Allen, 2000), self-interest (Miller, 1999), or moral/ethical concerns (Hamilton, 1997). The analysis of strategies employed by organizations to initiate stakeholder interest in engaging, and the links between these strategies and both the antecedent context and/or the consequences of stakeholder engagement, would be a valuable area for future research.
Once organizations have aroused the interest of targeted stakeholders, the next stage in the process of engagement is to leverage off that interest to get stakeholders to actually engage with them.
Step 3 – Engaging (Implementation)
The next stage in the sub-process of engaging between organizations and stakeholders is referred to in the proposed process model of stakeholder engagement as the implementation stage or Step 3. The implementation that is part of engaging builds on the stakeholder interest in organizational communication secured in Step 2. Discussions on engaging with stakeholders in the extant literature demonstrate perspectives on three different elements of its implementation – the strategies through which stakeholder input is achieved, the methods by which the engaging is undertaken, and the purposes for which the organization uses the interaction.
Input Strategies
In the proposed process model of stakeholder engagement in CSR, the implementation stage begins with the adoption of an input strategy. The input strategies relevant to engaging with stakeholders can be summarized under three headings – interaction, involvement, and integration. These input strategies reflect increasing levels of stakeholder contributions sought by organizations. The existence of such a continuum is well-recognized in the literature, summarized in the work of Bowen et al. (2010). The labeling allocated to the points along these continuums varies, but this paper proposes interaction, involvement, and integration as terms that appropriately reflect the variations observed in the literature relating to CSR, and to the data obtained in the nine case studies analyzed for this research.
Interaction strategies are implemented in situations where organizations determine their motivation to undertake engagement will be met by providing information to their stakeholders, with minimal input from them. Such a strategy includes the communication of details of CSR-related activities or programs to stakeholders described by Noland and Phillips (2010), as well as informational initiatives described by (Grafé-Buckens & Hinton, 1998). This strategy also resembles the transactional engagement described by Bowen et al. (2010). The input received from stakeholders under interaction strategies might be relatively low in value, and could be seen as demonstrating a tokenistic approach to engaging by the organization concerned. Examples of this strategy, as seen in the cases as being listed under headings of ‘engagement’, include a ‘quarterly supplier newsletter and a vendor website will all relevant documents to ensure they [suppliers] have access to up-to-date information’ and ‘voluntarily publish[ing] an annual Sustainability Report to provide a broader spectrum of information regarding social, environmental and economic performance [to the organization's stakeholders].’
The implementation of involvement strategies requires organizations to seek a higher level of input from stakeholders. Stakeholders are invited to provide their thoughts, comments, and suggestions on given topics through a variety of channels to inform organizational decision-making. The topics on which stakeholders are invited to provide input are most often selected by the organizations concerned, and any resultant decisions are made solely by those organizations – although they may acknowledge the impact of stakeholder input on their decisions. Examples of this strategy, as noted from the cases, may include employee engagement surveys, customer surveys, and tracking and analyzing feedback from complaints received. This broadly aligns with the consultative initiatives described by Grafé-Buckens & Hinton (1998).
The third and final level of input strategy in the implementation stage of engaging with stakeholders is integration, which broadly aligns with Grafé-Buckens and Hinton's (1998) participative initiatives. This strategy is designed to elicit the highest level of input from stakeholders, reflecting the organization's willingness to open up its decision-making to active participation by those stakeholders. This ‘nexus of transactions’ (Foster & Jonker, 2005, p. 56) requires sustained and repeated inputs of meaningful information by stakeholders as well as their participation in the making of decisions by which the organization will abide. Examples of this strategy, as noted through the cases may include dialogue with various stakeholders and extensive consultation. Specific examples include ‘extensive consultation with the agriculture sector stakeholders in reviewing investment in sustainable agriculture’ and ‘dialogue with [not for profit organizations] for advice on sustainable fish and seafood sourcing.’ Many of the organizations studied also had community advisory type councils that would work with the organizations to determine key CSR issues, which in turn, would drive the organizations' CSR strategies.
Methods of Engaging
Both one-way and two-way communication methods are employed in the implementation stage of engaging (Owen & O'Dwyer, 2008). While there is considerable emphasis on the value and appropriateness of two-way communication in the literature on engagement, there is also an acknowledgement that there are some instances that might only require one-way communication (Noland & Phillips, 2010). These instances tend to be associated with the adoption of the type of input strategies labeled interaction in this model.
It has been suggested that one-way forms of communication cannot or should not be included in discussions of stakeholder engagement (Burchell & Cook, 2006; Manetti, 2011). However, organizations sometimes refer to the conduct of one-way communication in their descriptions of stakeholder engagement as it occurs in practice because it has been successful in engaging the interest of stakeholders (see for example, the discussion by Morsing and Schultz (2006) on the stakeholder information strategy, and Grafé-Buckens and Hinton's (1998) informational and consultative initiatives). The evidence that stakeholder engagement has occurred is provided not by any return of communication by the stakeholders involved, but rather by their resultant behavior. This behavior might consist of stopping or not undertaking behavior the organization perceives as being undesirable; or continuing with desirable behavior. In such cases, two-way communication might not occur, but it could be argued that stakeholder engagement has taken place.
However, there is a clearly expressed preference and expectation in the literature that stakeholder engagement should include two-way communication between organizations and their stakeholders (O'Riordan & Fairbrass, 2008; Noland & Phillips, 2010), even though such communication is often difficult (Pedersen, 2006). The consensus on the reason for this preference for two-way communication in stakeholder engagement is that it is perceived as providing richer and more meaningful information for the organization involved (Cheney & Christensen, 2001). The purpose to which this richer information is put can vary from developing enhanced means by which organizations can manage stakeholders, persuading them to share or accept organizational perspectives (Foster & Jonker, 2005); through to a device for facilitating negotiation and consensus-building among participants (Smircich & Stubbart, 1985). Thus, it is impossible to say that the conduct of two-way communication is associated with only some types of purpose in the process of engaging. This conclusion is discussed further in the section that follows.
Outcome of Engaging
The third aspect of the implementation stage of engaging is that of its outcome: in other words, what is the desired outcome of the sub-process of engaging within stakeholder engagement? This question is answered in the proposed model by maintaining an organization-centric perspective, although it is acknowledged that the answers thus obtained might differ from the outcome or purpose desired by stakeholders.
Step 3 of the implementation stage of the proposed process model of stakeholder engagement – and thus of the sub-process of engaging – achieves one of three outcomes: control, collaboration, or co-determination. These reflect the level of participation in organizational decision-making offered to stakeholders by organizations involved in stakeholder engagement. They bear some resemblance to the conclusions of previous studies that have identified similar outcomes to which stakeholder engagement has been put (see, for example, the description of stakeholder engagement used by organizations to control and collaborate with stakeholders provided by Sloan (2009)) but differ from them by clearly distinguishing between the outcomes and the methods that have led to them.
Control as an outcome of stakeholder engagement – or more accurately, as an outcome to which the sub-process of engaging can be put – is perceived as its use to manage, persuade, or coerce stakeholders to accept and/or share organizational perspectives or actions. These types of outcomes to which stakeholder engagement are put are widely acknowledged in the literature. Owen and O'Dwyer (2008), for example, describes how stakeholder engagement in CSR can sometimes take the form of corporate-led dialogue, or even monologues that do little to demonstrate the transparency or accountability of the organization's actions. The purpose of such engagement is, in their estimation, to use the appearance or seeming of engagement to guide stakeholders to conclusions the organization feels are reasonable – and certainly beneficial to the organization. Foster and Jonker (2005) similarly conclude that stakeholder engagement can be used by organizations to persuade and control stakeholders; while others (Owen et al., 2000) have noted that stakeholder engagement can be synonymous with managerial control.
Using stakeholder engagement – and specifically the unique characteristics of engaging, which have been discretely articulated in the proposed process model of stakeholder engagement – to control stakeholders might seem antithetical to some of its more idealized/idealistic perspectives (Manetti, 2011). However, it is noted and acknowledged in extant literature that this is sometimes the case, although it is soundly criticized by many including Greenwood (2007).
Critics (including Foster & Jonker, 2005) point out that although using stakeholder engagement to support instrumentalist approaches to stakeholder relationships might appear successful in the short term, it is not sustainable in the long run. Therefore, preference is given in the literature to those forms of stakeholder engagement that focus on achieving outcomes that contribute to the enhancement of stakeholder relationships. The type of outcome labeled ‘collaboration’ in the proposed process model of stakeholder engagement – based on the incorporation of stakeholder input into organizational decision-making – is regarded as making a positive contribution to the relationship between organizations and their stakeholders. The topics for consideration are chosen by the organization, and decisions are still made by the organization, but they include consideration of the input received from stakeholders. This type of outcome to which stakeholder engagement can be put has been acknowledged in the work of Greenwood (2007) and Noland and Phillips (2010) among others, and echoes the concept of transitional outcomes described by Bowen et al. (2010). It marks a midpoint on a continuum of purposes of stakeholder engagement based on their increasing accommodation of stakeholder input into organizational decision-making.
While stakeholder engagement resulting in collaboration is seen as providing organizations with a more sustainable approach to decision-making and stakeholder relationship management, there are those who suggest that this does not go far enough in incorporating stakeholder input. These scholars maintain that ‘true’ stakeholder engagement has a much broader remit at a societal level than simply providing good data for organizations to use in their decision-making (Lawrence, 2002; Few et al., 2007; Manetti, 2011). They see the co-creation or co-determination of organizational behavior by organizations and their stakeholders as the most desirable purpose to which stakeholder engagement can be put. This reflects the precepts of joint sense-making (as opposed to organizational sense-giving) advocated as a normative outcome of stakeholder engagement proposed by Greenwood (2007), and the notion of ‘transformational’ engagement described by Bowen et al. (2010). In the CSR context, this is evidenced in the use of stakeholder engagement to allow organizations and their stakeholders to co-determine what activities and programs are appropriate for inclusion in organizational CSR efforts (Tracey et al., 2005). Such outcomes have also been suggested as demonstrating higher levels of ethical organizational behavior (Gregory, 2003; Bowen et al., 2010; Noland & Phillips, 2010).
Sequencing and Linkages between Input Strategy, Method, and Outcome
The identification and decoupling of the three elements of the implementation of engaging approaches in stakeholder engagement – the input strategy, method, and outcome – allows them to be considered as separate variables within the overall process of stakeholder engagement. Logically, the sequence in which these elements are implemented in engaging with stakeholders can best be perceived as a linear progression, with input being sought using particular method/s leading to specific outcomes or purposes. However, the order of the decisions leading to the choice of each element might not necessarily reflect this linear order of implementation. For example, it seems possible that organizations might have a desired outcome in mind that inclines them to adopt a particular input strategy. There was insufficient data in this study to prove or disprove this proposition, so it presents a potentially rich area for future research. Additionally, the suggested independent nature of these three elements could possibly explain the dissatisfaction that some participants – particularly stakeholders – describe in relation to their experiences of stakeholder engagement, as in, for example, European Commission (2011) and Gardner et al. (2009). These tensions could emerge from inconsistencies in the organizational choice of one or more of the engaging elements they implement. For example, it might be reasonable to infer that an integration input strategy with its rich, repeated communication between organizations and stakeholders would be linked to higher levels of stakeholder participation in organizational decision-making, that is, collaboration or co-determination as outcomes. Where this is not the case, and the organization restricts the impact of stakeholder input to the extent that it becomes redundant, it can be hypothesized that stakeholder frustration and dissatisfaction is likely to occur. Again, the potential links between these tensions and dissonance in the implementation stage of engaging may prove a fruitful area for further research.
The sub-process of engaging within the process model of stakeholder engagement culminates in one of the purposes described above. The consequences of organizations undertaking this sub-process are discussed in the section that follows.
Consequences
Broom et al. (1997) highlight consequences as being a fundamental part of organization-public relationships. Similarly, the model proposed in this paper acknowledges that consequences are a fundamental part of the overall process of stakeholder engagement. However, while Broom et al. (1997) position consequences as outputs, such as goal achievement, dependency or loss of autonomy, or routine and institutionalized behavior, the model proposed in this paper considers the consequences of the overall process of stakeholder engagement itself. Using the cases as evidence, the model highlights legitimation as the consequence of the overall process of stakeholder engagement. More specifically, this paper suggests that legitimation of the overall process of stakeholder engagement refers to one (or all) of three things: legitimation of the process of engagement itself; legitimation of the decisions reached via engagement; and/or legitimation of the organization itself.
Upon consideration of the cases, it was noted that most of the organizations had external assurance performed in relation to their stakeholder engagement as a way in which to legitimize the overall process of stakeholder engagement. Closer evaluation of this revealed, however, that it served a number of purposes, in line with the above suggestions. First, it offered assurance that the organizations' processes of engagement were sound, hence legitimating the process of engagement. For example, the assurance reports typically acknowledged that the organizations were inclusive in their selection of stakeholders with which engagement occurred, as well as offering assurance on the methods of engagement employed. Secondly, the assurance served to legitimate the decisions reached via engagement. More specifically, the assurance reports highlighted the level of organizational responsiveness, thereby determining whether the organization adequately responded to stakeholder concerns, as raised through the process of engagement. Finally, some of the organizations studied included copies of their assurance reports at the end of their CSR reports, which, by extension, legitimated the organization itself, in the sense that it validated the organizations' practices and policies around CSR.
Lastly, this paper concludes these consequences feed into the structure of the antecedent context that influences the conduct of the process of engagement going forward. For example, one organization's assurance report highlighted that it should ‘develop a corporate approach to stakeholder engagement that guides engagement activities at the project level.’ Another organization was encouraged to continue improvements ‘in providing feedback and relevant performance information to communities and customers.’ These recommendations are a consequence of the overall stakeholder engagement process, and place expectations upon the organizations for the next round of stakeholder engagement. If these recommendations are not met, it is likely this would impact the legitimation of the overall process of stakeholder engagement. In this sense, therefore, the consequences become antecedents, influencing the conduct of the process of engagement going forward.
Conclusions and Future Research
This paper contributes to the growing body of literature on stakeholder engagement in theory and practice by proposing a process model that demonstrates how stakeholder engagement is operationalized in CSR, an area that has remained significantly under-theorized. Like most research, the study on which this paper is based has limitations. One that must be acknowledged is the choice of Australian organizations as the sample base. However, the model of stakeholder engagement operationalization that has resulted from this study does not appear to display any cultural idiosyncrasies. This might well be an aspect that could be determined and addressed by applying the model to a range of stakeholder engagement examples from other countries.
- It allows those who are facilitating the process of stakeholder engagement to break down what could be an overwhelming project into a series of more manageable tasks.
- It identifies the sequencing and linkages between each task, ensuring a logical flow and progression across the process.
- It enables more informed calculation of resource needs and allocation of scarce resources to each point in the process, ensuring no step is overlooked or under-costed.
- It provides a framework for the analysis and critique of stakeholder engagement as the process is being rolled out. The model's process steps provide ‘checks and balances’ points. These checkpoints increase the chance that practitioners can identify and rectify problems in the operationalization of stakeholder engagement as it is happening.
- It provides a clear and transparent lens on the conduct of stakeholder engagement as part of an organization's CSR efforts. Such transparency is likely to add to the trustworthiness of both the process of engagement itself, and the decisions that result from that process.
Perhaps of most significance, the model proposed in this paper allows organizations and practitioners to ensure there is consistency across the entire process of stakeholder engagement. One of the most enduring challenges to the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement is a lack of alignment between participant expectations and the reality of the process – and in particular, its outcomes and consequences. At this stage in the development of the model, practitioners can use it to identify disjunctures or misalignments between how they undertake stakeholder engagement, and the outcomes of that process that are available for consideration. For example, it can highlight the use of implementation techniques that imply a high degree of organizational responsiveness in decision-making, when the organization is simply looking for ways to secure stakeholder acceptance of decisions that have already been made. This would allow practitioners to revisit their engagement plan, making changes that increase the likelihood of setting and meeting the expectations of stakeholders and organizations. However, further research is required to truly understand the genesis of these mismatches, and how to avoid them occurring in the first place.
The development of this model raises questions of potential significance to the theorizing of the form and function of stakeholder engagement, although their answers are beyond the scope of this paper. In particular, the links between the elements of the implementation stage of engaging (input, method, and outcome) were not clear in the data available in the nine case studies. Further data gathering and analysis using the framework provided by our model could provide unique and valuable insights into the origins of stakeholder dissatisfaction with engagement, and thus provide ways to avoid or reduce such negative experiences.
Additional areas of future research include analyzing strategies employed by organizations to initiate stakeholder interest in engaging, and the links between these strategies and both the antecedent context and/or the consequences of stakeholder engagement. Other research could also move away from the organization-centric perspective presupposed in this paper to consider how stakeholders instigate engagement with the organization and in turn, the implications this has on sub-process of engagement and the overall process of stakeholder engagement.
Finally, the process model of stakeholder engagement proposed in this paper could be applied and considered in other areas of practice. CSR was chosen as the area within which this initial proposal was developed because of the close and well-documented links between CSR and stakeholder engagement. However, it could equally well be applied to other contexts and practice areas that integrate stakeholder engagement into their business practices, such as crisis or risk communication, and government communication. Applying the model to other relevant areas of practice would both refine and extend the model, leading to the development of a more generalized – and generalizable – construct to use as the basis of further theory development.
