IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i4p379-d68387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Bellantuono

    (Politecnico di Bari, Viale Japigia, 182, 70126 Bari, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo

    (Politecnico di Bari, Viale Japigia, 182, 70126 Bari, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Barbara Scozzi

    (Politecnico di Bari, Viale Japigia, 182, 70126 Bari, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2016. "Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:4:p:379-:d:68387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/4/379/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/4/379/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michelle Greenwood, 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 315-327, September.
    2. Dorothée Baumann-Pauly & Christopher Wickert & Laura Spence & Andreas Scherer, 2013. "Organizing Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Large Firms: Size Matters," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 693-705, July.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    4. Giacomo Manetti, 2011. "The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 110-122, March.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 2006. "The Analytic Network Process," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process, chapter 0, pages 1-26, Springer.
    6. Zeshui Xu, 2015. "Uncertain Multi-Attribute Decision Making," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-662-45640-8, March.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    8. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    2. Jian Xue & Zeeshan Rasool & Aqsa Gillani & Ahmad Imran Khan, 2020. "The Impact of Project Manager Soft Competences on Project Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Shibu Das & Kaushal Kumar Sharma & Suranjan Majumder & Indrajit Roy Chowdhury, 2025. "Evaluating sustainable agricultural livelihood security in West Bengal, India: a principal component analysis approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 4769-4816, February.
    4. Norbert Taubken & Tim Y. Feld, 2018. "Impact measurement and the concept of materiality—new requirements and approaches for materiality assessments," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 87-100, December.
    5. Inten Meutia & Shelly F. Kartasari & Zulnaidi Yaacob, 2022. "Stakeholder or Legitimacy Theory? The Rationale behind a Company’s Materiality Analysis: Evidence from Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Justyna Dyduch & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Polish Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, October.
    7. Yasanur Kayikci & Yigit Kazancoglu & Nazlican Gozacan‐Chase & Cisem Lafci, 2022. "Analyzing the drivers of smart sustainable circular supply chain for sustainable development goals through stakeholder theory," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3335-3353, November.
    8. Simona Fiandrino & Alberto Tonelli, 2021. "A Text-Mining Analysis on the Review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive: Bringing Value Creation for Stakeholders into Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Alamo Alexandre da Silva Batista & Antonio Carlos de Francisco, 2018. "Organizational Sustainability Practices: A Study of the Firms Listed by the Corporate Sustainability Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Diana Reinales & David Zambrana-Vasquez & Aitana Saez-De-Guinoa, 2020. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Product Value Chains Under a Circular Economy Approach: A Case Study in the Plastic Packaging Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Juan Aranda & David Zambrana-Vásquez & Felipe Del-Busto & Fernando Círez, 2021. "Social Impact Analysis of Products under a Holistic Approach: A Case Study in the Meat Product Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2020. "Sustainability Reporting Quality of Peruvian Listed Companies and the Impact of Regulatory Requirements of Sustainability Disclosures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, February.
    13. Christian Felber & Vanessa Campos & Joan R. Sanchis, 2019. "The Common Good Balance Sheet, an Adequate Tool to Capture Non-Financials?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Bing Liu & Hui Jiang, 2019. "Are Distances Barriers to Sustainability for Venture Capital Syndication?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2019. "Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-28, August.
    16. Bastiaan Linden & Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 2024. "How to Assess Multiple-Value Accounting Narratives from a Value Pluralist Perspective? Some Metaethical Criteria," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(2), pages 243-259, June.
    17. Tiziana De Cristofaro & Domenico Raucci, 2022. "Rise and Fall of the Materiality Matrix: Lessons from a Missed Takeoff," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, December.
    18. Akinlotu Olufisayo & Cavlan Gözde Inal, 2023. "Organizational Integration, Knowledge Management, and Sustainable Entrepreneurship for SMEs in Developing Economies," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberto Castaneda & Pilar Arroyo & Lourdes Loza, 2020. "Assessing Countries Sustainability: A Group Multicriteria Decision Making Methodology Approach," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(1), pages 174-174, July.
    2. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    3. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    4. Letizia Lo Presti & Mario Testa & Vittoria Marino & Pierpaolo Singer, 2019. "Engagement in Healthcare Systems: Adopting Digital Tools for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Shafiee, Afsaneh, 2021. "Barriers to renewable energy technologies penetration: Perspective in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 971-983.
    6. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Daniela M. Salvioni & Alex Almici, 2020. "Transitioning Toward a Circular Economy: The Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on Sustainability Culture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-30, October.
    8. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    9. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    10. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    11. Junxi Zhu & Chia-Liang Lin, 2024. "Research on Service Quality for China’s Ceramic Product Design Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-27, September.
    12. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    13. Seyhan Sipahi Author_Email: sipahi@istanbul.edu.tr & Erdal Tekarslan & Aysegul Karaeminogullari, 2011. "Multicriteria Approach For Prioritizing Objectives In A Strategic Plan: A Case Study From Higher Education," 2nd International Conference on Business and Economic Research (2nd ICBER 2011) Proceeding 2011-165, Conference Master Resources.
    14. Miodrag Čelebić & Dragoljub Bajić & Sanja Bajić & Mirjana Banković & Duško Torbica & Aleksej Milošević & Dejan Stevanović, 2024. "Development of an Integrated Model for Open-Pit-Mine Discontinuous Haulage System Optimization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Panagiotis K. Marhavilas & Michael G. Tegas & Georgios K. Koulinas & Dimitrios E. Koulouriotis, 2020. "A Joint Stochastic/Deterministic Process with Multi-Objective Decision Making Risk-Assessment Framework for Sustainable Constructions Engineering Projects—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Shang, Delei & Yin, Guangzhi & Li, Xiaoshuang & Li, Yaoji & Jiang, Changbao & Kang, Xiangtao & Liu, Chao & Zhang, Chi, 2015. "Analysis for Green Mine (phosphate) performance of China: An evaluation index system," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 71-84.
    17. Anne-Laure P. Winkler & Jill A. Brown & David L. Finegold, 2019. "Employees as Conduits for Effective Stakeholder Engagement: An Example from B Corporations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 913-936, December.
    18. PrasannaVenkatesan, S. & Goh, M., 2016. "Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 124-142.
    19. Keon Chul Park & Dong-Hee Shin, 2017. "Security assessment framework for IoT service," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 193-209, January.
    20. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:4:p:379-:d:68387. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.