IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US


  • Boesso, Giacomo
  • Kumar, Kamalesh


This study investigates the considerations that might be made by managers when choosing between mutually exclusive stakeholder expectations and reaching and engaging in a dialogue with them. In addition, the study also examines if there are systematic differences across countries (Italy and the US) in the decision to address the concerns of various stakeholder groups. Data was collected from 244 managers and 72 companies simultaneously in two different national business contexts, Italy and the US. The results of the study provide some evidence that managerial perception of three stakeholder group characteristics – power, legitimacy, and urgency – form a parsimonious group of variables that explain the process of stakeholder prioritization. However, only limited support was found for the relationship between salience accorded to a stakeholder group and engagement efforts directed toward the group. The results of the study also show that the managerial decision as to which of the stakeholder groups’ demands to address will be influenced by society-specific expectations. The significance of this study lies in investigating the stakeholder prioritization and engagement process, as it is being practiced, which, one could argue, would help in developing guidelines for effective stakeholder management that stands a realistic chance of being adapted and followed.

Suggested Citation

  • Boesso, Giacomo & Kumar, Kamalesh, 2009. "Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 162-175.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:accfor:v:33:y:2009:i:2:p:162-175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.010

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Black, Bernard S. & Gilson, Ronald J., 1998. "Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 243-277, March.
    2. Gary K Meek & Clare B Roberts & Sidney J Gray, 1995. "Factors Influencing Voluntary Annual Report Disclosures By U.S., U.K. and Continental European Multinational Corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 26(3), pages 555-572, September.
    3. van der Laan Smith, Joyce & Adhikari, Ajay & Tondkar, Rasoul H., 2005. "Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 123-151.
    4. Giacomo Boesso & Kamalesh Kumar, 2007. "Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: A framework and empirical evidence from Italy and the United States," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 20(2), pages 269-296, April.
    5. John Holland, 1998. "Private Voluntary Disclosure, Financial Intermediation and Market Efficiency," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1&2), pages 29-68.
    6. Core, John E., 2001. "A review of the empirical disclosure literature: discussion," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 441-456, September.
    7. repec:bla:joares:v:31:y:1993:i:2:p:246-271 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Catherine C Langlois & Bodo B Shlegemilch, 1990. "Do Corporate Codes of Ethics Reflect National Character? Evidence from Europe and the United States," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 21(4), pages 519-539, December.
    9. Roberts, Robin W., 1992. "Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 595-612, August.
    10. Healy, Paul M. & Palepu, Krishna G., 2001. "Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 405-440, September.
    11. Unerman, Jeffrey & Bennett, Mark, 2004. "Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 685-707, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:kap:jbuset:v:150:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3194-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Päivi Myllykangas & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2010. "Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 65-72, August.
    3. Thomas Thijssens & Laury Bollen & Harold Hassink, 2015. "Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(4), pages 873-891, December.
    4. André Habisch & Lorenzo Patelli & Matteo Pedrini & Christoph Schwartz, 2011. "Different Talks with Different Folks: A Comparative Survey of Stakeholder Dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 381-404, May.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:accfor:v:33:y:2009:i:2:p:162-175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.