University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

and needs of CSR-for-SD as outlined above. In conclusion the way is paved for the
introduction of participatory evaluation of CSR.
247
The challenge of complexity: In some cases CSR reporting relies on meticulous and
comprehensive lists of indicators which often contribute to more confusion than
clarity and also do often not show interlinkages between the three pillars of
sustainability. Specific, and often, critical information about the negative effects of
business activity which would be crucial for an appropriate understanding of the
situation are missing in the reports. Stakeholder dialogue is at the heart of meeting
this challenge through the meeting of various stakeholders and the exchange of
knowledge, ideas and experiences. Nevertheless, the details of the type of
stakeholder dialogue are the crucial factor. Solely short-term oriented and ad-hoc
types of stakeholder dialogue that might not be much more than disseminating
information do not address this issue accordingly.
The challenge of contextuality: Yet, the uptake and content of CSR reports varies
greatly and are in general issued as one-size-fits-all conglomerates. Moreover,
stakeholders are rarely and selectively involved in defining the grounds for later
performance evaluation in regards of CSR and sustainable development. Stakeholder
dialogue has the potential to lead to a mutual construction of the CSR relevant
context, but it has to be executed in a way that allows utilising that potential. As CSR
are issues are dynamic an ongoing stakeholder dialogue process needs to be
established in order to regularly redefine a company´s relevant CSR context and also
to be timely informed of relevant developments in its environment.
The need for collective action: CSR reports are normally the end of a data collecting,
assessment and presentation journey of companies which can trigger collective
action inside of companies. Nevertheless, chances for taking CSR reports as a
starting point for continuous learning to approach sustainable development are not
systematically utilised. Stakeholder dialogues are an appropriate tool to tackle
specific issues of concern to a company (e.g. special dialogue in regards of climate
change). Nevertheless, the companies getting active in this regards have to make sure
that they are prepared for transparency and open to the outcomes of such a process
which will be co-shaped by stakeholders. Genuine, intrinsic collective action can
only be expected if value is added to all participating parties which inevitably will
lead to compromise.
The need for trust: As companies´ motivation to issue CSR reports is still dominated
by an instrumental approach of adding value to the financial bottom line, often seem
to selectively focus only on the good sides of business, civil society prefers to consult
company-external sources and the general public is not very keen on reading the
reports anyway, trust creation is very unlikely to happen. If the stakeholder dialogue
is implemented in a way that it is open to the contributions of all participating
stakeholders, is aiming for mutual objectives and expectations are clear from the
beginning, trust can be achieved. Dialogue leads stakeholders to co-create shared
realities and values (Cheney and Christensen 2001, Winn 2001).
The need for mutual responsibility: As mentioned above, current CSR reports are
clearly reflecting business perspectives aiming to show how the sustainability
responsibilities are met in order to obtain a license to operate rather than to report