Skip to main content

Forms of Stakeholders Communication by Socially Responsible Enterprises in Slovakia and Poland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Social Responsibility in the Manufacturing and Services Sectors

Part of the book series: EcoProduction ((ECOPROD))

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to examine forms of communication with stakeholders across countries and sectors. Seven forms of communication with stakeholders are examined, namely: inclusion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) assumptions in strategies of enterprise development, CSR reporting, publication of information about CSR activities on websites, pro-environment actions, initiatives for development of local communities, actions for employees, and codes of ethics in place. Two research hypotheses are posited in connection with this objective: country is a variable differentiating forms of enterprise communication with stakeholders and sector is a statistically significant variable affecting choice of forms of enterprise communication with stakeholders. Large enterprises operating in Slovakia and Poland are evaluated. Country is not found to be a factor differentiating forms of stakeholder communication, whereas sector diversifies selected forms of communication, i.e. CSR reports, codes of ethics and enterprise strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a broad review of components of stakeholder definitions, cf. Miles (2017).

References

  • AccountAbility. (2015). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J., Waddock; S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S. S. (Eds.). (2002). Unfolding stakeholder thinking: theory, responsibility and engagement (pp. 137–154). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The doubleedge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beconyte, G., & Kryžanauskas, A. (2010). Geographic communication for sustainable decisions. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 603–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, Official Journal of the European Union L330/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundey, D., & Zaharia, R. M. (2008). Sustainable incentives in marketing and strategic greening: The cases of Lithuania and Romania. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 14(2), 130–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, C., & Saxton, G. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freemen, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruning, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hąbek, P., & Wolniak, P. (2016). Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Quality & Quantity, 50, 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Ch W L, & Jones, G. R. (1995). Strategic management theory: An integrated approach. Boston: Hougton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Berman, S. L., & Post, J. E. (2003). Re-examining the concept of “stakeholder management”. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 145–161). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kriṡtofik, P., Lament, M., & Musa, H. (2016). The reporting of non-financial information and the rationale for its standardization. E&M Ekonomie a Management, XIX, 2, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lament, M. (2015). Trends in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 5(4), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A. T. (2002). The drivers of stakeholder engagement: Reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement (pp. 185–200). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ledingham, J. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingaard, T. (2006). Creating a corporate responsibility culture. The approach of Unilever UK. In A. Kakabadse & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility. Reconciling aspiration with application (pp. 86–104). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, H., & Whitney, D. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations. Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maráková, V., Lament, M., & Wolak-Tuzimek A. (2015). Reporting standards in socially responsible enterprises. The Economic Annals—XXI Journal (9–10), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maráková, V., Dyr, T., & Wolak-Tuzimek, A. (2016). Factors of tourism’s competitiveness in the European Union countries. E&M Ekonomie a Management, XIX, 3, 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. P., & Carboni, J. L. (2014). Stakeholder communication in service implementation networks: Expanding relationship management theory to the non profit sector through organizational network analysis. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder THEORY CLASSIfiCATION: A theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcikova, K., Stefanikova, L., & Rypakova, M. (2015). CSR reporting as an import an tool of CSR communication. 4th World Conference on Business, Economics and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stekeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimpa, N. (2017). Responsibility for poverty: Sustainable management by mining multinational corporation in the Mekong countries. The Journal of Developing Areas, 51(3), 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation, stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. J. (1999). Strategic communications in crisis management lessons from the airlines industry. Westport: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakalauskas, L. (2010). Sustainability models and indicators. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 16(4), 567–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrzek-Lubalińska, M., Dyjas-Pokorska, A., Kudrewicz-Roszkowska, M., Makuch, Ł., Stanek-Kowalczyk, A., & Uhl, H. (2011). CSR—Opinions and experiences of Polish organizations. In polish: Ocena stanu wdrażania standardów społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu. Warszawa: PARP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 45(4), 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ściborska-Kowalczyk, I. (2013). Corporate social responsibility as a method of development of business relationship with stakeholders. In polish: Społeczna odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw jako metoda kształtowania relacji z interesariuszami. Nauki o zarządzaniu. Management Sciences, 1(14), 98–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Śmiechowski, K., & Lament, M. (2017). Impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting on pro-ecological actions of tanneries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 991–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S. J. (2002). Can consumers’ scepticism be mitigated by claim objectivity and claim extremity. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(1), 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tay, Ch. (2015). The impact of the internet on trade in education. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(6), 833–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubrežiova, L., Stankovič, L., Mihalčová, B., & Ubrežiova, A. (2013). Perception of CSR in companies of Eastern Slovakia region in 2009 and 2010. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, LXI, 7, 2903–2910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachowiak, P. (2014). Employee as an Enterprise’s Key Stakeholder. In polish: Pracownik—kluczowy interesariusz przedsiębiorstwa. Handel Wewnętrzny, 4(351), 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D. (2010). The use of social media by nonprofit organizations: An examination from the diffusion of innovations perspective. Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, D. (2002). Stakeholder responsibilities: lessons for managers. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. S. Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement (pp. 137–154). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolak-Tuzimek, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility as a contemporary concept of business management. In: International conference Hradec economic days 2014 (pp. 437–446). Hradec Králové: Univerzita Hradec Králové.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanda Maráková .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Maráková, V., Lament, M., Wolak-Tuzimek, A. (2019). Forms of Stakeholders Communication by Socially Responsible Enterprises in Slovakia and Poland. In: Golinska-Dawson, P., Spychała, M. (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility in the Manufacturing and Services Sectors. EcoProduction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33851-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics