IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020ispecial2p733-746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building Stakeholder Relations through Ongoing Engagement and Constructive Dialogue: Lessons from Large Biopharmaceutical Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Dyczkowska
  • Tomasz Dyczkowski

Abstract

Purpose: This study elaborates on how biopharmaceutical companies interact with their stakeholders. The paper also emphasises the role of a dialogue with stakeholders as an essential element of stakeholder engagement. Design/Methodology/Approach: The article provides a multi-case study of 27 large biopharmaceutical companies that spent over 1 billion EUR on R&D annually in the period of 2017-2018. The study employs content analysis of the annual statements, CSR, sustainability and integrated reports as well as stakeholder portals run by the examined companies. The contents analysis was performed using predefined questions and processed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Findings: The results of the research indicate that a small number of companies developed both stakeholder engagement policies and processes. However, the degree of stakeholder involvement in the materiality determination processes should be positively assessed. Nearly half of the examined companies explained how they engaged stakeholders in determining material issues. Practical Implications: The study provides evidence that maintenance of sustainable relations with stakeholders by biopharmaceutical companies entails the necessity of a multifaceted approach based on the development of engagement policies and processes as well as stakeholder engagement activities and methods. Originality/Value: The study adopts a multi-stakeholder approach while searching for appropriate engagement methods to build a constructive dialogue with stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Dyczkowska & Tomasz Dyczkowski, 2020. "Building Stakeholder Relations through Ongoing Engagement and Constructive Dialogue: Lessons from Large Biopharmaceutical Companies," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 733-746.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:733-746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1895/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Knauer & George Serafeim, 2014. "Attracting Long-Term Investors Through Integrated Thinking and Reporting: A Clinical Study of a Biopharmaceutical Company," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 26(2), pages 57-64, June.
    2. Lara Tarquinio & Domenico Raucci & Roberto Benedetti, 2018. "An Investigation of Global Reporting Initiative Performance Indicators in Corporate Sustainability Reports: Greek, Italian and Spanish Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Francesco Perrini & Antonio Tencati, 2006. "Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 296-308, September.
    5. Lars Moratis & Satu Brandt, 2017. "Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI‐based stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 312-325, July.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    7. Ubaldo Comite, 2020. "From Health Care Services to Healthcare Profiling within the COVID-19 Emergency: The Role of the Health Quality Impact Assessment inside the Local Health Unit," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 475-507.
    8. Irene M. Herremans & Jamal A. Nazari & Fereshteh Mahmoudian, 2016. "Stakeholder Relationships, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 417-435, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jaime-Andres Correa-Garcia & Maria-Antonia Garcia-Benau & Emma Garcia-Meca, 2018. "CSR Communication Strategies of Colombian Business Groups: An Analysis of Corporate Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Lars Moratis & Satu Brandt, 2017. "Corporate stakeholder responsiveness? Exploring the state and quality of GRI‐based stakeholder engagement disclosures of European firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 312-325, July.
    3. Helna Almeida de Araujo Góes & Ghulam Fatima & Ronaldo de Oliveira Santos Jhunior & João Maurício Gama Boaventura, 2023. "Managing for stakeholders towards corporate environmental sustainability," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1561-1572, July.
    4. Bonetti, Lisa & Lai, Alessandro & Stacchezzini, Riccardo, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the public utility sector: Evidence from Italian ESG reports," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Bart Manning & Geert Braam & Daniel Reimsbach, 2019. "Corporate governance and sustainable business conduct—Effects of board monitoring effectiveness and stakeholder engagement on corporate sustainability performance and disclosure choices," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 351-366, March.
    6. Fabricio Stocker & Michelle P. de Arruda & Keysa M. C. de Mascena & João M. G. Boaventura, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A classification model," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2071-2080, September.
    7. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    8. Simona Cosma & Rossella Leopizzi & Simone Pizzi & Mario Turco, 2021. "The stakeholder engagement in the European banks: Regulation versus governance. What changes after the NF directive?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 1091-1103, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Tsalis, Thomas A. & Nikolaou, Ioannis E. & Konstantakopoulou, Fotini & Zhang, Ying & Evangelinos, Konstantinos I., 2020. "Evaluating the corporate environmental profile by analyzing corporate social responsibility reports," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 63-75.
    11. Anne Elizabeth Fordham & Guy M. Robinson, 2018. "Mapping meanings of corporate social responsibility – an Australian case study," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Andrea Caccialanza & Riccardo Torelli, 2024. "The role of trade associations in promoting corporate sustainability transition and reporting: A case study in the food supply chain," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4469-4486, September.
    13. Andrea Venturelli & Simona Cosma & Rossella Leopizzi, 2018. "Stakeholder Engagement: An Evaluation of European Banks," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 690-703, July.
    14. Anne Bridget Lane & Bree Devin, 2018. "Operationalizing Stakeholder Engagement in CSR: A Process Approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 267-280, May.
    15. Anne Elizabeth Fordham & Guy M. Robinson, 2018. "Mechanisms of change: Stakeholder Engagement in the Australian Resource Sector through CSR," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 674-689, July.
    16. 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.
    17. María‐Florencia Amorelli & Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, 2020. "Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 204-221, January.
    18. Andrej Miklosik & Peter Starchon & Milos Hitka, 2021. "Environmental sustainability disclosures in annual reports of ASX Industrials List companies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16227-16245, November.
    19. Alberto Romolini & Silvia Fissi & Elena Gori, 2014. "Scoring CSR Reporting in Listed Companies – Evidence from Italian Best Practices," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 65-81, March.
    20. Wesley Friske & Atanas Nik Nikolov & Todd Morgan, 2024. "Making the grade: An analysis of sustainability reporting standards and Global Reporting Initiative adherence ratings," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2098-2108, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biopharmaceutical companies; constructive dialogue; stakeholder engagement.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:733-746. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.