University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

244
Consultative participation is characterised by a deeper level of involvement and the
aim of the company to better understand stakeholders´ views, values and attitudes.
Therefore, it is a two-way communication and stakeholders are seen as active
counterparts who can contribute to any given question. Nevertheless, decisions are
taken by the company management. This level of participation is also valued for its
potential to increase commitment of stakeholders.
The third level, decisional participation is characterised by actual participation of
stakeholders in decision-making processes of companies, e.g. regarding CSR
activities. Involving stakeholders is considered to happen at an early stage of a
project or process.
Similarities in this terminology can easily be observed regarding the three
communication strategies as defined by Morsing and Schultze outlined above. Hence,
it has to be stated that communication definitely is a major part of stakeholder
participation, yet not the only on, although it is recognised that terms such as
stakeholder dialogue, communication or participation are used to label a whole set of
processes and activities carried out for a number of different purposes (Pretty & Shah,
1994).
Stakeholder Dialogue
Some authors see stakeholder dialogue as a forth level of participation in between
consultative and decisional participation (Gao, Zhang 2006). Although not rejected,
the author sees stakeholder dialogue as a communicative management instrument
which is included in both participation levels and starts somewhere in consultative
participatory processes and is part of decisional participative processes. This view
also fits to Crane and Livesey who distinguish between stakeholder dialogue
designed for a) “asymmetrical persuasive and instrumental purposes” (that would be
the ones being regarded under consultative participation), and b) “genuine or “true”
two-way symmetric practice” (Crane and Livesey 2003) aiming for win-wins.
As stakeholder perspectives are dynamic and, as outlined above, CSR can only be
co-constructed by various stakeholders it is important to monitor and understand
stakeholders’ views, concerns, opinions and attitudes. This enables companies to
address relevant and important issues and meet stakeholder expectations (Green,
Hunton-Clarke 2003). Ongoing stakeholder dialogue can be seen as a logical
conclusion of this understanding. Furthermore, nowadays companies are more and
more pressured by civil society actors for more transparency (see section above on
CSR reporting) as well as the consideration of their views and involvement in
companies decision-making. From a company´s view, stakeholder dialogue “helps to
address the question of responsiveness to the generally unclear signals received from
the environment” (Garriga, Mele 2004).
Outcomes of the CRADLE project reveals the following insights into stakeholder
dialogues (Burchell, Cook 2006):