Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Who matters to UK and German firms? Modelling stakeholder salience through corporate social reports

By Kenneth Amaeshi

Abstract

Drawing from a longitudinal study of stakeholder salience in the UK and Germany, using data from corporate social reports and relying on the varieties of capitalism theoretical framework, we found that investors and employees came top on UK list while collaborative networks (including suppliers and alliances) and management were top on German list of important stakeholders. This finding suggests that stakeholder salience, to a large extent, reflects dominant characteristics of UK and Germany capitalist systems, respectively and gives further credence to the embedded nature argument of corporate stake-holding practices

Topics: HD
Publisher: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1881

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1994). (Eds.) Handbook of organization studies, 2nd Edition: 215-254. London:
  2. (1979). Advertisements. doi
  3. (1998). and networks, doi
  4. (2005). Capitalist Diversity and Change: Recombinant Governance and Institutional Entrepreneurs, doi
  5. (2002). Competing Capitalisms: Institutions and Economies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Yin, Robert K.
  6. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture. doi
  7. (1984). Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. doi
  8. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, doi
  9. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management – new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. doi
  10. (1979). Corporate social reporting in the Federal Republic of Germany: An overview. doi
  11. (1980). Culture, media, language (Hutchinson, London) doi
  12. (1979). Demand for social responsibility information by university investors. The Accounting Review, LIV(1):23-37Page 27
  13. (1963). Endangered public relations.
  14. (1992). Ethics: A European Review, doi
  15. (1996). Imag[in]ing annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, doi
  16. (1999). Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR - A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review doi
  17. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In doi
  18. (2001). Mythmaking in Annual Reports. doi
  19. (2000). people in the picture: art and aesthetics in photography and in understanding organisational life. doi
  20. (1991). Photograph analysis: a method to capture organisational belief systems. In doi
  21. (1984). Photography: The key to a successful annual report.
  22. (2000). Reflections on Quantification in Corporate Social Reporting Content Analysis Accounting, Auditing & doi
  23. (2005). The construction of a social account: a case study in an overseas aid agency. doi
  24. (2001). The end of the corporate environmental report? Or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and communication. doi
  25. (2004). The responsibility of business to the whole http://www.flora.org/library/mai/responsibility.html visited
  26. (1985). The usefulness and use of social reporting information. Accounting, Organizations and Society, doi
  27. (2003). Transparency and assurance: minding the credibility gap.
  28. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, doi
  29. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review doi
  30. (1990). Visual Images of American Society: Gender and Race in Introductory Sociology Text-books. Gender and Society doi
  31. (1999). Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values, The Academy of Management Journal, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.