Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach

Sustainability reporting is the process by which companies describe how they deal with their own economic, environmental, and social impacts, thus making stakeholders able to recognize the value of sustainable practices. As stressed in the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines, which act as a de facto standard for sustainability reporting, sustainable reports should take into account the stakeholders’ view. In particular, engaging stakeholders is essential to carry out the materiality analysis, by which organizations can identify their own more relevant sustainability aspects. Yet, on the one hand, the existing guidelines do not provide specific indications on how to get stakeholders actually engaged; on the other hand, research on quantitative techniques to support stakeholder engagement in materiality analysis is scarce. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is the development of a quantitative structured approach based on multi-attribute group decision-making techniques to effectively and reliably support stakeholder engagement during materiality analysis in sustainability reporting. As it more strictly guides the reporting process, the proposed approach at the same time simplifies materiality analysis and makes it more reliable. Though any company can adopt the approach, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are expected to particularly benefit from it, due to the quite limited implementation effort that is required. With this respect, the approach has been validated on a sample of Italian SMEs belonging to different sectors.

[1]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[2]  Simone de Colle,et al.  Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art , 2010 .

[3]  L. Preston,et al.  Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View , 2002 .

[4]  A. Friedman,et al.  Stakeholders: Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[5]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[6]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[7]  M. Clarkson.  A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance , 1995 .

[8]  Thomas J. Chermack,et al.  Theory Building in Applied Disciplines , 2013 .

[9]  J. Schermerhorn,et al.  Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business , 2004 .

[10]  T. Massaro.  Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action , 2011 .

[11]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  S. Waddock.  Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics, and the Progress of Corporate Citizenship , 2004 .

[13]  S. Lynham.  The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines , 2002 .

[14]  Z. Yue.  Developing a straightforward approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers , 2012 .

[15]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[16]  D. Wheeler,et al.  Including the stakeholders: The business case , 1998 .

[17]  Giacomo Manetti.  The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points , 2011 .

[18]  Zhibin Wu,et al.  A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  A. Scherer,et al.  Organizing Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Large Firms: Size Matters , 2011 .

[20]  Mehdi Amini,et al.  Corporate sustainability: an integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research , 2014 .

[21]  A. Calabrese,et al.  A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting , 2016 .

[22]  E. Forman,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Roberta Costa,et al.  A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[24]  Ann Buchholtz,et al.  Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management , 2005 .

[25]  Arun Abraham Elias,et al.  Stakeholder Analysis for R&D Project Management , 2002 .

[26]  D. Chang.  Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP , 1996 .

[27]  M. Reed.  Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[28]  T. Saaty.  The Analytic Network Process , 2001 .

[29]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making , 2009, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[30]  Krishnamurty Muralidhar,et al.  The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance , 1998 .

[31]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[32]  H. Schneider.  Failure mode and effect analysis : FMEA from theory to execution , 1996 .

[33]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Uncertain Multi-Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications , 2015 .

[34]  Tamar Frankel.  [The theory and the practice...]. , 2001, Tijdschrift voor diergeneeskunde.

[35]  M. Greenwood.  Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility , 2007 .

[36]  David Wheeler,et al.  The Stakeholder Corporation , 1997 .

[37]  M. Perry,et al.  Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the perspective of small-business owners , 2011 .

[38]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[39]  Chia-Wei Hsu,et al.  Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation , 2013 .

[40]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  Linguistic multiperson decision making based on the use of multiple preference relations , 2009, Fuzzy Sets Syst..