en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 3/2021 
Volume 29 
Issue 1

Stakeholder Engagement in Corporate Social Practices and Non-Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review

Ewelina Zarzycka
University of Lodz

Joanna Krasodomska
Cracow University of Economics

Dorota Dobija
Kozminski University

3/2021 29 (1) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.43


Purpose: The goal of the article is to systematize the literature related to the role of stakeholder engagement in corporate social practices and related disclosures by identifying the main theoretical lenses, research methods, and topics undertaken by authors of articles under scrutiny.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The article systematically reviews and discusses existing studies in the area of management, social and environmental accounting, intellectual capital, ethics, and accounting. We identify and subsequently analyze 68 articles published over the years 2010–2020.

Findings: According to the study findings, stakeholder theory is most often used as a theoretical background. The survey is the most popular research method, while stakeholder engagement in social practices is the most common research problem investigated by the articles’ authors. Corporate stakeholders’ communication on social media is a new topic that emerged in the literature in the studied period.

Research Limitations/Implications: Our analysis is restricted to articles published in journals included in the ABDC Journal Quality List that are ranked B, A, and A* in a 10-years period.

Practical Implications: The article’s findings may be useful for researchers and practitioners who deal with corporate social practices, disclosures, and stakeholders’ roles in these processes.

Originality/Value: The paper offers an up-to-date literature review, identifies the main themes, research gaps, and provides relevant guidance for future research.


  1. Abeysekera, I. (2018). Intangibles Disclosure on Entrepreneurial Small Businesses’ Websites to Influence Stakeholders’ Impressions. Australian Accounting Review, 30(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12277. [Google Scholar]
  2. Agostino, D. and Sidorova, Y. (2017). How social media reshapes action on distant customers: some empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2136. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, S.E. and Høvring, C.M. (2020). CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.030. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ardiana, P.A. (2019). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting: Evidence of Reputation Risk Management in Large Australian Companies. Australian Accounting Review, 29(4), 726–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12293. [Google Scholar]
  5. Barone, E., Ranamagar, N. and Solomon, J.F. (2013). A Habermasian model of stakeholder (non)engagement and corporate (ir)responsibility reporting. Accounting Forum, 37(3), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.12.001. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellucci, M. and Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 874–905. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2122. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boesso, G. and Kumar, K. (2009). Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and US, Accounting Forum, 33, 162-175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheah, E.T., Jamali, D., Johnson, J.E.V. and Sung, M-Ch. (2011). Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility Attitudes: The Demography of Socially Responsible Investors. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00744.x. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper, S.M. and Owen, D.L. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.001. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cotter, J. and Najah, M. (2012). Institutional Investor Influence on Global Climate Change Disclosure Practices. Australian Journal of Management, 37(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896211423945. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crane, A. and Glozer, S. (2016). Researching CSR Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1223–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12196. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crilly, D., Hansen, M. and Zollo, M. (2016). The Grammar of Decoupling: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective on Firms’ Sustainability Claims and Stakeholders’ Interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 705–729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0171. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cundill, G.J., Smart, P. and Wilson, H.N. (2018). Non‐financial Shareholder Activism: A Process Model for Influencing Corporate Environmental and Social Performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12157. [Google Scholar]
  14. Danso, A., Adomako, S., Lartey, T., Amankwah-Amoah, J. and Owusu-Yirenkyi, D. (2020). Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.038. [Google Scholar]
  15. David, R.J. and Han, S.K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 39–58, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.359. [Google Scholar]
  16. Davila, A., Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. and Elvira, M.M. (2018). Engaging Stakeholders in Emerging Economies: The Case of Multilatinas. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 949–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3820-7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.04.001. [Google Scholar]
  18. Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In: D. Buchanan and A. Bryman (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dias, A., Rodrigues, L.L., Craig, R. and Neves, M.E., (2018). Corporate social responsibility disclosure in small and medium-sized entities and large companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(2), 13–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2017-0090. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D. and Wenstøp, F. (2013). How stakeholders view stakeholders as CSR motivators. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(1), 137–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111311307868. [Google Scholar]
  21. Driessen, P.H., Kok, R.A.W. and Hillebrand, B. (2013). Mechanisms for stakeholder integration: Bringing virtual stakeholder dialogue into organizations. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x. [Google Scholar]
  23. Elijido‐Ten, E., Kloot, L. and Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: An exploratory study from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(8), 1032–1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011092547. [Google Scholar]
  24. Erkens, M., Paugam, L. and Stolowy, H. (2015). Non-financial information: State of the art and research perspectives based on a bibliometric study. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit, 21(3), 15–92. https://doi.org/10.3917/cca.213.0015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. and Ruiz, S. (2013). Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gallego-Álvarez, I. and Ortas, E. (2017). Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review, 26(2), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003. [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327. https://doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gunawan, J. (2015). Corporate social disclosures in Indonesia: stakeholders’ influence and motivation. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(3), 535–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2014-0048. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hales, J., Moon Jr., J. R., Swenson, L.A. (2018). A new era of voluntary disclosure? Empirical evidence on how employee postings on social media relate to future corporate disclosures, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 68–69, 88–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2018.04.004. [Google Scholar]
  30. Haller, A., Link, M. and Groß, T. (2017). The term 'non-financial information'–a semantic analysis of a key feature of current and future corporate reporting, Accounting in Europe, 14(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2017.1374548. [Google Scholar]
  31. Herremans, I.M., Nazari, J.A. and Mahmoudian, F. (2015). Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2634-0. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N. and Dunfee, T.W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community investment: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166125. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hess, D. and Warren, D.E. (2008). The Meaning and Meaningfulness of Corporate Social Initiatives. Business and Society Review, 113(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2008.00317.x. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hillenbrand, C. and Money, K. (2013). Unpacking the Mechanism by Which Corporate Responsibility Impacts Stakeholder Relationships. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00794.x. [Google Scholar]
  35. Høvring, C.M., Andersen, S.E., and Nielsen, A.E. (2018). Discursive Tensions in CSR Multi-stakeholder Dialogue: A Foucauldian Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3330-4 . [Google Scholar]
  36. Howieson, W.B., Burnes, B. and Summers, J.C. (2019). Organisational leadership and/for sustainability: future directions from John Dewey and social movements. European Management Journal, 37(6), 687–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.003. [Google Scholar]
  37. ISEA (1999). AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000): Standard, Guidelines and Professional Qualification. London: Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility. [Google Scholar]
  38. ISO. (2010). ISO 26000 and OECD Guidelines. Practical overview of the linkage. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jeffrey, C. and Perkins, J.D. (2013). Social Norms and Disclosure Policy: Implications from a Comparison of Financial and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 33(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2012.748468. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: A study of Australian local councils. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1), 338–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2014-1901. [Google Scholar]
  41. Khojastehpour, M. and Shams, S.M.R. (2020). Addressing the complexity of stakeholder management in international ecological setting: A CSR approach. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, C., Kim, J., Marshall, R. and Afzali, H. (2018). Stakeholder influence, institutional duality, and CSR involvement of MNC subsidiaries. Journal of Business Research, 91, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.044. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kleyn, N., Abratt, R., Chi K. and Goldman, M.M. (2012). Building a strong corporate ethical identity: Key findings from suppliers. California Management Review, 54(3), 61–76, https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.61. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lai Cheng, W., and Ahmen, J. (2010). Incorporating stakeholder approach in corporate social responsibility (CSR): a case study at multinational corporations (MNCs) in Penang, Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 593–610. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111011083464. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lardo, A., Dumay, J., Trequattrini, R., and Russo, G. (2017). Social media networks as drivers for intellectual capital disclosure Evidence from professional football clubs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 63–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2016-0093. [Google Scholar]
  46. Liesen, A., Hoepner, A., Patten, D. and Figge, F. (2015). Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(7), 1047–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013–1547. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lodhia, S. and Martin, N. (2012). Stakeholder responses to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act: An agenda setting perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211191770. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lodhia, S. and Stone, G. (2017). Integrated reporting in an internet and social media communication environment: conceptual insights. Australian Accounting Review, 27(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12143. [Google Scholar]
  49. Looser, S. and Wehrmeyer, W. (2015). Stakeholder mapping of CSR in Switzerland, Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4), 780–830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2014-0071. [Google Scholar]
  50. Loulou-Baklouti, S. and Triki, M. (2018). Preparers’ and users’ perception of intellectual capital information usefulness: A Tunisian exploratory study, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(3), 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-2016-0147. [Google Scholar]
  51. Manetti, G. and Bellucci, M. (2016). The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 985–1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2014-1797. [Google Scholar]
  52. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational Stages and Cultural Phases: A Critical Review and a Consolidative Model of Corporate Social Responsibility Development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00278.x. [Google Scholar]
  53. Michelon, G., Rodrigue, M. and Trevisan, E. (2020). The marketization of a social movement: Activists, shareholders and CSR disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 80, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2019.101074. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mirvis, P.H. (2012). Employee Engagement and CSR: Transactional, Relational, and Developmental Approaches. California Journal of Management, 54(4), 93–117, https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mishra S. and Suar, D. (2010). Do stakeholder management strategy and salience influence corporate social responsibility in Indian companies? Social Responsibility Journal, 6(2), 306–327, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471111011051784. [Google Scholar]
  56. Noland, J. and Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and Strategic Management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 39–49, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00279.x. [Google Scholar]
  57. Norifumi, K., Strange, R. and Zucchella, A. (2018). Stakeholder pressures, EMS implementation, and green innovation in MNC overseas subsidiaries. International Business Review, 27(5), 933–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.02.004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., West, D. and Menéndez, H.D. (2020). Exploring digital corporate social responsibility communications on Twitter. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.028. [Google Scholar]
  59. Onkila, T., Joensuu, K. and Koskela, M. (2014). Implications of Managerial Framing of Stakeholders in Environmental Reports, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(3), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2013.870488. [Google Scholar]
  60. Park, B.I., Chidlow, A. and Choi, J. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders influence on MNEs' activities. International Business Review, 23(5), 966–980, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.02.008. [Google Scholar]
  61. Parker, C.M., Bellucci, E., Zutshi, A., Torlina, L., and Fraunholz, B. (2015). SME stakeholder relationship descriptions in website CSR communications, Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 364–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2013-0114. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pérez, A., López, C. and García-De los Salmones, M. (2017). An empirical exploration of the link between reporting to stakeholders and corporate social responsibility reputation in the Spanish context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 668–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjme.2017.05.003. [Google Scholar]
  63. Phiri, O., Mantzari, E. and Gleadle, P. (2019). Stakeholder interactions and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices: Evidence from the Zambian copper mining sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 26–54, https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2016-2540. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pisano, S., Lepore, L. and Lamboglia, R. (2017). Corporate disclosure of human capital via LinkedIn and ownership structure An empirical analysis of European companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 102–127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2016-0016. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pucci, T., Casprini, E., Galati, A. and Zanni, L. (in press). The virtuous cycle of stakeholder engagement in developing a sustainability [Google Scholar]
  66. culture: Salcheto winery. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.009. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ramírez Córcoles, Y., Santos Peñalver, J. F. and Tejada Ponce, Á. (2011). Intellectual capital in Spanish public universities: stakeholders’ information needs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(3), 356–376, https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111154689. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ramírez, Y. and Tejada, Á. (2019). Digital transparency and public accountability in Spanish universities in online media. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(5), 701–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2019-0039. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M. and Boulianne, E. (2013). Stakeholders’ Influence on Environmental Strategy and Performance Indicators: A Managerial Perspective. Management Accounting Research, 24, 301–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.004. [Google Scholar]
  70. Scandelius, C. and Cohen, G. (2016). Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders – The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3487–3499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037. [Google Scholar]
  71. Surroca, J., Tribó, J.A. and Zahra, S.A. (2013). Stakeholder Pressure on MNEs and the Transfer of Socially Irresponsible Practices to Subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 549–572, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0962. [Google Scholar]
  72. Taghian, M., D’Souza, C. and Polonsky, M. (2015). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility,reputation and business performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 340–363, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2012-0068. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tang, Z. and Tang, J. (2018). Stakeholder Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation Congruence, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Environmental Performance of Chinese Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 634–651, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12255. [Google Scholar]
  74. Thijssens, T., Bollen, L. and Hassink, H. (2015). Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 873–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2623-3. [Google Scholar]
  75. Thomson, I., Dey, C. and Russell, S. (2015). Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over tobacco control. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 809–845. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2013-1439. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A. and Maon, F. (2012). Strategically leveraging corporate social responsibility to the benefit of company and society: a corporate branding perspective. California Management Review, 54(3), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.34. [Google Scholar]
  77. West, B., Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., Ghobadian, A. and Ireland, R.D. (2016). Exploring the Impact of Social Axioms on Firm Reputation: A Stakeholder Perspective. British Journal of Management, 27(2), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12153. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yu, S. and Rowe, A L. (2017). Emerging phenomenon of corporate social and environmental reporting in China. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(3), https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2016-0064. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Zarzycka, Ewelina & Krasodomska, Joanna & Dobija, Dorota (2021). Stakeholder Engagement in Corporate Social Practices and Non-Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review. (2021). Stakeholder Engagement in Corporate Social Practices and Non-Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review. Central European Management Journal, 29(1), 112–135. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.43 (Original work published 3/2021AD)

MLA style

Zarzycka, Ewelina and Krasodomska, Joanna and Dobija, Dorota. “Stakeholder Engagement In Corporate Social Practices And Non-Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review”. 3/2021AD. Central European Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 112–135.

Chicago style

Zarzycka, Ewelina and Krasodomska, Joanna and Dobija, Dorota. “Stakeholder Engagement In Corporate Social Practices And Non-Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 29, no. 1 (2021): 112–135. doi:10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.43.