From Disclosure to Democracy? A Content Analysis of Stakeholder Engagement Processes in Sustainability Reports

Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting

Stakeholder engagement refers to “various processes and strategies that firms and other organizations implement in their stakeholder relations” (Kujala et al., 2022, p. 1140). From a company perspective, it involves informing stakeholders about company activities (often to gain trust), understanding their expectations, and securing approval (Galeotti et al., 2025; Kujala et al., 2022). Stakeholder engagement is a mechanism for fostering dialogue, managing risks, and co-creating value (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Kujala et al., 2022; Stocker et al., 2020). It is also used to enhance transparency and to integrate diverse perspectives into decision-making (Bellucci et al., 2019; Stocker et al., 2020). Engagement includes strategy implementation, reporting, and accountability processes to enable stakeholder participation in shaping corporate policies and initiatives (Gagné et al., 2022; Galeotti et al., 2025; Stocker et al., 2020).

The ways in which organizations execute stakeholder engagement vary considerably, from providing basic information to having stakeholders more deeply involved in organizational processes. Early research identified engagement as informing, responding to, or involving stakeholders, with different implications for the depth and credibility of interaction (Herremans et al., 2016; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Subsequent work distinguished between indirect engagement methods, characterized by one-way, company-controlled communication flows, and direct engagement methods involving dialogic, iterative interaction oriented toward mutual learning and influence (Kujala et al., 2022; Torelli et al., 2020) (see Table 1). Indirect engagement methods include low-interactivity consultation—for example, one-way provision of information or firm-designed requests for feedback—used to scan expectations and gather inputs (i.e., “information” or “response” strategies) (Barone et al., 2013; Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Torelli et al., 2020). Typical techniques include newsletters, websites, press releases, stakeholder surveys and polls, and calls for comments. Direct engagement methods involve participative and dialogic exchanges aimed at mutual learning and influence, often in facilitated multi-party settings or in ongoing interactions between organizations and stakeholders (Barone et al., 2013; Burchell & Cook, 2006; Lehtimäki & Kujala, 2017). Examples include multi-stakeholder workshops and roundtables, participatory forums, advisory panels, and facilitated cross-organizational dialogues.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Indirect and Direct Methods of Engagement.

Engagement method	Conceptualization	Examples of techniques	Key references
Indirect	Company-controlled, one-way, or remote activities with limited interactivity, oriented toward information gathering	Surveys, questionnaires, analysis of external information, complaint or suggestion channels, press reviews, newsletters, websites, press releases, customer satisfaction polls, hotlines, suggestion boxes, social media announcements, corporate blogs	Barone et al. (2013); Foster & Jonker (2005); Lehtimäki & Kujala (2017); Torelli et al. (2020)
Direct	Participative, dialogic interaction with stakeholders, oriented toward reciprocal exchange, mutual learning, and influence	Focus groups, meetings, dedicated events, workshops, multi-stakeholder roundtables, participatory forums, advisory panels, stakeholder committees, facilitated cross-organizational dialogues, participatory scenario planning, co-creation workshops, joint task forces	Barone et al. (2013); Burchell & Cook (2006); Lehtimäki & Kujala (2017); Torelli et al. (2020)

Stakeholder engagement plays an important role in sustainability reporting in two interrelated ways. First, an effective reporting process relies on stakeholder engagement to identify and prioritize the most relevant, or material, ESG topics (Grushina, 2017). Actively involving stakeholders helps to ensure that sustainability reports reflect the issues that matter most to both the company and its stakeholders (Machado et al., 2021; Puroila & Mäkelä, 2019). Second, sustainability reports require companies to disclose the stakeholder engagement activities conducted throughout the year, thereby indicating whether and how stakeholder input has been considered in the reporting cycle. Hence, stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting is often presented as supporting transparency, participation, and accountability (e.g., Bellucci et al., 2019; Kujala et al., 2022; Manetti, 2011). These approaches are intended to enable stakeholders to hold organizations to account and to seek greater transparency in decisions affecting them (Bellucci et al., 2019; Grushina, 2017). Yet to hold the reporting organization accountable, stakeholders need to access reliable and relevant information, implying reciprocal information flows between the reporting organization and a wide range of stakeholders (Dillard & Vinnari, 2019; Gagné et al., 2022; Torelli et al., 2020).

Challenges in Stakeholder Engagement Processes and Disclosures

Although stakeholder engagement is institutionalized in sustainability reporting standards, disclosure does not necessarily yield transparency, as information flows often privilege managerial perspectives over stakeholder empowerment (Cho et al., 2015; Owen et al., 2001). Frameworks such as the GRI Standards, AccountAbility’s AA1000 principles, and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Sustainability Disclosure Standards assume that engagement enhances report quality by incorporating diverse perspectives (Fonseca et al., 2014; Leeson & Kuszewski, 2023). However, the informational quality of engagement disclosures frequently falls short of stakeholder expectations and offers limited insight into organizational responsiveness (Ardiana, 2023; Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014; Machado et al., 2021). In practice, disclosure is often compliance-oriented: reports foreground alignment with reporting standards and only selectively reflect stakeholder input, reinforcing legitimacy rather than enabling dialogic change (Brown & Dillard, 2015; Manetti, 2011). This dynamic is compounded by impression management practices: reports accentuate favorable initiatives while sidelining contentious issues, thereby offering legitimacy without enhancing transparency or responsiveness (Sandberg & Holmlund, 2015; Talbot & Boiral, 2018). Engagement activities can also be used strategically to manage legitimacy risks, reduce resistance, and co-opt critical voices (Journeault et al., 2021; Kujala et al., 2022), a dynamic described as the engagement-control paradox (Pietilä et al., 2025). As such, sustainability reports offer an indirect and constructed representation of stakeholder engagement, shaped by organizational priorities and disclosure choices, rather than a direct account of how engagement unfolds in practice.

Another challenge is the heterogeneity of stakeholders. Disclosures often present them as coherent and unified, although their interests may diverge and powerful or proximate voices are often privileged (de Villiers et al., 2024; Kaur & Lodhia, 2019). Depending on how they are organized, relational practices used in engagement processes can either bridge differences or deepen exclusion, and reporting commonly masks the range of positions held by different stakeholders and the potential disagreements between them (Bader et al., 2025). Evidence from the extractive industries shows that marginalized groups, such as Indigenous and local communities, may be formally recognized as stakeholders but are often excluded from meaningful participation. Engagement may serve to defuse criticism despite limited adherence to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) for Indigenous communities (Jenkins, 2004; Journeault et al., 2021). Although the GRI and the ISSB promote stakeholder inclusiveness, they offer limited guidance on who qualifies as a stakeholder or how to prioritize competing perspectives, allowing disclosures to oversimplify engagement and obscure representation and influence (de Villiers & Dimes, 2023; de Villiers et al., 2024; Gagné et al., 2022).

A related difficulty lies in the form and significance of the engagement methods. Distinctions between indirect and direct engagement highlight ongoing debates about what constitutes “meaningful engagement.” While many engagement activities remain tokenistic or procedural—granting voice without conferring influence (Kaur & Lodhia, 2019)—substantive practices demonstrably shape organizational priorities, commitments, or resource allocations (Wenzel et al., 2025). The literature generally prioritizes direct, dialogic formats, which facilitate joint problem framing and can prompt reciprocal position changes (Barone et al., 2013; Kujala et al., 2022; Lehtimäki & Kujala, 2017). Indirect methods are recognized for their breadth and value in early issue mapping, supporting stakeholder identification and surfacing a wide range of concerns at scale (Foster & Jonker, 2005; Torelli et al., 2020). Engagement thus spans from organization-controlled consultation to participatory practices capable of redistributing influence in decision-making. This wide range complicates assessments of how engagement contributes to accountability and inclusion.

Stakeholder Democracy, Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting

Stakeholder democracy has been advanced as a normative ideal, as it emphasizes organizational accountability to those affected by decisions and grants them a meaningful role in governance (Crane et al., 2004; Moriarty, 2014; O’Dwyer, 2005). It is conceived as redistributing voice and influence so that organizational practices are shaped not only by shareholders but also by those who bear the social and environmental consequences of corporate activity (Greenwood, 2007). For this redistribution to be legitimate, participants in engagement processes must both have a voice and represent their constituencies through clear ties of authorization and accountability. Without such connections, engagement may create the appearance of inclusiveness without fulfilling democratic representativeness (Jastram & Berberyan, 2023).

In the context of sustainability reporting, stakeholder democracy highlights engagement as a legitimate means of accountability and shared governance, provided it reflects meaningful information flows and representative stakeholder voices. Accountability requires organizations to provide stakeholders with information on resource use and the social and environmental consequences of their activities (Harrison & van der Laan Smith, 2015; Puroila & Mäkelä, 2019). Reporting can, in principle, enable such accountability by creating channels to access information, express concerns, and engage in dialogue. This perspective is reflected in the literature on dialogic accounting, which conceives of reporting as a space for interaction and deliberation between organizations and stakeholders (e.g., Bebbington et al., 2007; Brown & Dillard, 2015; Dillard & Vinnari, 2019). Yet scholars have questioned whether these processes constitute meaningful engagement, noting that reporting practices often remain tokenistic (Manetti, 2011) or lack the quality and specificity required to enhance accountability (Gagné et al., 2022). Critical studies further caution that reporting privileges managerial perspectives and constructs narratives that limit stakeholder influence (Cho et al., 2015; Owen et al., 2001). This debate highlights the tension between the aspirational ideals of stakeholder democracy and tokenistic practices observed in corporate reporting.

Illustrative cases highlight the promise and limits of stakeholder democracy in practice. ExxonMobil’s concealment of internal climate science in the 1980s and 1990s, despite pressure from NGOs, scientists, and investors, illustrates how the absence of meaningful accountability mechanisms enabled the marginalization of critical voices (Hall, 2015). At the other extreme, Patagonia’s 2022 transfer of ownership to a trust and an environmental non-profit reflects a far-reaching commitment to stakeholder democracy, positioning the natural environment as the residual beneficiary (McCormick, 2022). Between these extremes lies Ørsted, whose transformation from a fossil fuel utility to a renewable energy leader was shaped by sustained engagement with governments, investors, and civil society (State of Green, 2021). This case shows how more inclusive engagement can inform strategic redirection within conventional governance structures. Together, these examples suggest a continuum—from exclusionary or symbolic engagement to transformative, participatory governance—while underscoring that stakeholder democracy often remains aspirational and difficult to realize in mainstream corporate contexts.

International reporting standards have attempted to formalize democratic aspirations by embedding stakeholder engagement into their principles and guidelines. Both the GRI and the AA1000 standards emphasize that reports should be shaped by input from diverse stakeholder groups to enhance inclusiveness and responsiveness (Fonseca et al., 2014; GRI, 2016; Grushina, 2017). This multi-stakeholder orientation seeks to operationalize stakeholder democracy by institutionalizing processes that give stakeholders a voice in defining material issues and assessing performance (Kujala et al., 2022; Leeson & Kuszewski, 2023). In line with this orientation, the most recent GRI Standards include guidance on “meaningful engagement with stakeholders,” defined as ongoing, two-way, responsive communication that involves relevant stakeholders prior to decision-making (GRI, 2021). Yet, as research has shown, the extent to which these processes move beyond procedural compliance to embody democratic engagement remains uncertain.

Data Collection

The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines were used to select the initial sustainability reports included in this study. We chose the GRI guidelines because they are among the most widely recognized and adopted standards for sustainability reporting (KPMG, 2024). Using reports that follow the same framework enabled a systematic and consistent analysis, as these reports share common indicators and reporting principles.

The study adopts a comparative approach, analyzing sustainability reports from 2015 following the GRI G4 Guidelines, and reports from 2022 following the GRI Standards that replaced the GRI G4 Guidelines in 2016. Sustainability reports from the mining and energy sectors from 2015 were sourced from the GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database. ² At its closure in 2020, this database, which spanned over 20 years, listed 63,852 reports from 15,398 organizations, including 2,223 reports from 438 mining companies and 4,032 reports from 853 energy companies. Reports were selected based on their adherence to the GRI G4 Guidelines, an A or A+ application level under the earlier G3/G3.1 guidelines, and publication in English or French.

From G4 onward, the GRI framework placed a stronger and more explicit emphasis on stakeholder engagement, requiring organizations to describe how stakeholders are identified and consulted, and how their concerns influence strategy. Given this continued emphasis, the 2015 reports provide a suitable baseline. Reports from 2022, prepared in accordance with the GRI Standards, were added to capture changes in stakeholder engagement over time. By analyzing the 2022 reports alongside the 2015 reports, we offer a comprehensive analysis of stakeholder engagement practices in sustainability reporting in an evolving landscape, where sustainability reporting has become mainstream and stakeholder pressures have intensified.

In total, we analyzed 50 sustainability reports from 2015 that met the aforementioned criteria—20 from the mining sector and 30 from the energy sector. We included the same companies’ reports for 2022, except for four companies that either merged (e.g., Goldcorp and Newmont) or declared bankruptcy (e.g., SolarWorld). This resulted in a final dataset of 96 sustainability reports (see Appendix).

Data Analysis

The data analysis focused on the sections of the sustainability reports that explicitly addressed stakeholder engagement. Following the GRI framework, the sampled reports included a general statement on stakeholder engagement and a materiality assessment, for which engagement is a required component. The reports’ GRI content index with page references served as our primary tool for locating the relevant disclosures, complemented by reviewing the full report to capture contextual information on stakeholder engagement. When no such index was provided, we manually searched the report to identify stakeholder engagement sections, ensuring consistent analytical scope.

A qualitative content analysis was conducted, employing a mix of deductive and inductive approaches (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The selected content was coded using NVivo software. We developed a codebook for initial deductive coding. The codebook included basic information related to the reports (e.g., the GRI option chosen for the first selection of reports (Core or Comprehensive), other sustainability guidelines or standards followed, and the presence of external assurance) and stakeholder engagement indicators from the GRI G4 Guidelines (see Online Supplemental Files, Document A). These indicators were maintained in the last version of the GRI Guidelines—the GRI Standards (GRI, 2021)—which most companies followed for their 2022 sustainability reports (except two companies that transitioned away from this framework; their reports were retained for comparative purposes). Our coding, guided by the GRI Guidelines, captured how companies disclosed their stakeholder engagement, such as the stakeholders included, the methods used, the frequency of engagement, or the key topics and concerns raised. In line with prior studies, we distinguished between direct and indirect engagement methods based on classifications from the literature (see Table 1 for corresponding conceptualizations, examples of techniques, and key references). Additional codes were then introduced inductively to examine the extent of disclosure and to identify patterns among the initial codes (Qureshi & Ünlü, 2020). The 2015 and 2022 reports were coded using the same codebook to ensure consistency.

We conducted a comparative analysis of the 2015 and 2022 reports to identify developments in stakeholder engagement disclosures over time. Key trends for both 2015 and 2022 were extracted separately; data from both years were placed side by side in an Excel file for each company, enabling us to identify trends and highlight similarities and differences. The first and second authors conducted the comparative analysis independently, iteratively reviewing the reports, NVivo-coded data, and Excel files, followed by meetings (n = 10) to discuss findings and refine interpretations. This approach allowed us to compare the evolution of engagement methods—distinguishing direct from indirect approaches—and the stakeholder groups reported as engaged. Building on these insights, we developed a typology of reporting companies and classified them into five categories, ranging from front-runners to laggards. This classification was constructed to capture the trajectory of stakeholder engagement practices rather than a static snapshot. Companies were categorized into five groups based on their trajectory and positioning across both periods:

During the final phase of data analysis, involving multiple sessions with the research team (four people), three overarching themes emerged that shaped the presentation of our results:

Stakeholders Included in the Engagement Process: Who Gets a Voice?

The concept of stakeholder democracy emphasizes engagement processes that involve a broad range of stakeholders, including those most affected by corporate activities. The analysis of stakeholder categories reported over time reveals a relatively stable pattern in how companies disclose their engagement. Most reports mentioned a limited number of stakeholder groups, often without specifying individual actors or clarifying how they were involved. Although the disclosed stakeholders are highly diverse, they can be grouped into six main categories, with a seventh for reports that did not specify any stakeholders. Document B of the Online Supplemental Files provides an overview, including examples, definitions, and representations, across reporting years.

Across both years, financial stakeholders—such as investors, shareholders, and customers—featured most prominently, being mentioned in the majority of reports (94% in 2015 and 92% in 2022). Public and civil society stakeholders, including NGOs, advocacy groups, and media, were also widely represented (82% and 76%, respectively), suggesting that these actors held a recognized, though secondary, position in the engagement practices. Internal stakeholders appeared in 60% (2015) and 58% (2022) of the reports, reflecting a less prominent presence in engagement disclosures. Community stakeholders were identified in 38% and 42% of the reports in 2015 and 2022, respectively, pointing to a more selective inclusion of locally affected groups. Industry stakeholders accounted for 32% in both years, while references to “miscellaneous” stakeholders—such as universities and public organizations—remained comparatively limited (13% and 19%). A small minority of reports made no mention of stakeholders (6% and 8%), indicating that most organizations identify some form of engagement.

In addition, we identified challenges in the level of detail in disclosures of corporate engagement with these stakeholder groups. Reports often lacked detailed information about the nature of the interactions, particularly with Indigenous communities and other critical groups; some also provided very little information about who exactly they were engaging with. Unspecific and ambiguous information makes it difficult to clearly understand who was engaged with, among a broader stakeholder group, such as financial or industry stakeholders. For example, Denbury (2015, p. 5) identified its key stakeholders as the Board of Directors, senior management, employees, investors, and neighbors, yet offered no additional detail regarding these groups, making the scope and nature of their inclusion ambiguous. In their materiality assessment, Statoil (2015, p. 7) wrote that they had a dialogue with “investors and shareholders” and mentioned their majority owner, which is the Norwegian government, but provided no further information about their other investors.

Naming numerous groups at once makes it challenging to distinguish between the various stakeholder groups, and the reports often do not explain how these groups were engaged with. Rio Tinto (2015, p. 11) stated in its materiality assessment: “In 2015, we consulted with investors, suppliers, industry groups, NGOs and peer companies. This combined with media reviews was used to assign an external rating for each issue”. Similarly, while Eni (2022, pp. 16-17), in their materiality analysis, reported having engaged with approximately 3,000 stakeholders to steer their corporate strategy, they failed to disclose the specific actors they consulted or details on the focus of their input specifically for the materiality assessment. Instead, they disclosed “relevant themes” per broad stakeholder group for general engagement activities, as well as an overview of “main engagement activities” without consistently specifying the groups involved.

Certain stakeholder groups, such as Indigenous communities, may have had conflictual relations with reporting companies in the past, yet most firms provided no disclosures on specific communities, the quality of their meetings, or the nature of discussions. This limited disclosure raises concerns regarding stakeholder selection. Most reports referred only in generic terms to “Indigenous communities,” without specifying which Nations they engaged with. Most companies offered little to no explanation of who these rightsholders were, which specific topics were addressed, the rationale for their selection, or the nature of the engagement process. A notable exception is Teck, who outlined the key issues affecting communities of interest within a particular stakeholder group. In both their 2014 (p. 25) and 2022 (p. 63) reports, Teck clearly stated the names of the communities or Nations engaged with. Furthermore, Teck disclosed how issues such as water-related impacts of their operations and holistic approaches to engaging with Indigenous communities (including land use and related concerns) were incorporated into reporting. While such detailed disclosures remained uncommon, these cases demonstrate that specific reporting on Indigenous engagement is feasible within current reporting frameworks.

Overall, our findings highlight that organizations continue to emphasize economically and institutionally proximate stakeholders, while other groups, such as local communities, receive more variable attention. The lack of specificity is particularly consequential for community stakeholders, given their direct exposure to corporate impacts.

Type of Stakeholder Engagement Methods Used

A key dimension of stakeholder democracy concerns the type of engagement, distinguishing dialogic and participatory forms of interaction from more unidirectional approaches focused on gathering stakeholder input. Our analysis shows that indirect engagement methods remain predominant in the reports, with little change over time and generally limited detail in the description of engagement practices (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Stakeholder Engagement Methods: Examples and Occurrence.

Engagement method	Excerpts illustrating the type of engagement	Occurrence (proportion of reports, in %) a
		2015	2022
Direct	“Our engagement principles: The following principles guide our stakeholder interactions: - We want to share our knowledge and expertise with our stakeholders - We act and operate with transparency and integrity - We want to create value for all our stakeholders and foster long-term partnerships of mutual value - We are always available for dialogue and respond to input and feedback in a timely and agile manner - We believe in collaboration and base our engagement on genuine dialogue—we engage, listen and act” (Vedanta, 2022, pp. 22–23). “ALROSA regularly interacts with stakeholders on environmental issues by holding public hearings. In 2022, public hearings, followed by positive conclusions, were held on two projects—construction of a shift camp at the Division and reconstruction of the truck scale facility at one of the deposits. The Company also takes a responsible approach to timely responding to environmental complaints and is open to engagement with stakeholders on controversial environmental issues” (Alrosa, 2022, p. 124). “In FY 2014 we recorded a significant community incident at our Cerro Matoso asset in Colombia, relating to a protest by local indigenous communities. Following on from this incident, agreement has been reached with the communities regarding the provision of community support and the establishment of a regular forum to engage with the rural communities located closest to our operation to better facilitate the resolution of concerns and complaints at an early stage” (BHP Billiton, 2014, p. 37). “Review: The 20 issues were reviewed and prioritized in interviews and a round-table discussion with key internal stakeholders. Listen: External stakeholders and sustainability experts reviewed the updated issues at our annual multi-stakeholder forum, in discussion with our internal teams” (De Beers, 2015, p. 10). “In March 2015, we invited a group of external Communities of Interest (COI) to provide feedback on our materiality assessment process applied in the preparation of this report, as well as the results of this assessment. We presented the results of our materiality assessment to participants and asked for feedback in terms of the selection of issues and their prioritization. This feedback, which was integrated into the assessment, included: - The COI panel indicated that biodiversity was more significant to them than we had estimated - The panel expressed the view that human rights have increased in importance for the mining industry. However, given the jurisdictions of Teck’s operations, certain aspects of human rights performance were agreed to be of less relevance to our company. Recommendations were made to highlight our due diligence efforts with respect to human rights in the report” (Teck, 2015, p. 24).	60%	61%
Indirect	“MMG’s commitment to the ICMM Sustainable Development Principles, including the commitment to community dialogue and position on Free, Prior and Informed Consent regarding Indigenous people, guides our approach to stakeholder engagement. We undertake community perception surveys every three years, at a minimum, to obtain a valued external perspective on the key measures of engagement and communication, such as whether our stakeholders consider we are addressing their key concerns” (MMG Limited, 2015, p. 10). “The SMM Group has commissioned a specialized external organization to conduct employee awareness surveys in order to communicate with its employees, who are important stakeholders, and to create a better company and workplace. These surveys have been conducted every three years since FY2010, with the fifth survey conducted in FY2021. Their purpose is to gain a quantitative understanding of how employee awareness has changed over the three years since the previous survey and what kind of awareness employees currently have about working at the Company, and to use this information to develop measures to create an even better company and workplace. A total of 5,153 people were surveyed, with a total of 141 questions. The response rate was 94.4%. In the FY2021 survey, the ratio of employees who feel pride in working at the Company, which is a target for improvement in our Vision for 2030, was 63.7%, a 0.9-point improvement from the previous survey” (Sumitomo Metal Mining, 2022, p. 110). “The analysis of external and internal stakeholders’ feedback and preferences with regard to the disclosure of information was completed by researching and assessing the answers provided in the online feedback forms compiled following the 2013 Annual Report. The results from over 100 submitted online feedback forms showed that stakeholders highly appreciated a joint Annual and Sustainability and Environmental Responsibility Report; the substantive issues reflected in the 2013 Annual Report complied in line with the information requirements of the target audience. Stakeholders’ recommendations on improving the previous year’s report included a more detailed disclosure of information on the following key issues: ▶ risk management; ▶ procurement; ▶ salaries and remuneration; ▶ development of a personnel talent pool; ▶ graduate training schemes and co-operation with higher education institutions; social programmes employees; assessment of the efficiency of charity initiatives; ▶ the amount of the Group’s social investments; ▶ engagement with retired professionals of energy industry; ▶ S&A investments, the introduction of a new technology and equipment in the S&As. All stakeholder comments and suggestions were taken into account during the drafting of the Report” (Inter Rao UES, 2014, p. 3). “During 2022 we received 422 grievances across the group. This was a 6% decrease compared to 2021. While this is encouraging, we do not consider year-on-year change in grievances received as a meaningful metric. We believe that receiving grievances is a yardstick to reflect the state of community relations and the effectiveness of the grievance mechanism. For example, zero grievances received could potentially reflect a lack of trust in the mechanism and poor overall relations rather than no issues or concerns” (Barrick Gold, 2022, p. 33). “Ethical notice channels, suggestions and complaints systems are accessible to employees as well as contractors, suppliers and the local community. Complaints and suggestions submitted through these channels are carefully handled and finalized. To ensure systematic management of these channels, Petkim incorporated the ISO 10002 standard for customer satisfaction management system into its integrated management system” (Socar, 2022, p. 70).	84%	83%
Unspecified	“In line with our values of being open and collaborative, we actively and regularly engage with internal and external stakeholders to discuss our strategy, approach, and performance. It is important to engage to enrich and challenge our priorities and positions, so that we can continuously improve our performance and strategic direction” (Equinor, 2022, p. 37). “Stakeholders play a significant role in the decision-making mechanism of HELLENiQ ENERGY. For this reason, the Group—periodically and in accordance with the principles and values, strategy, activities, market and proximity—redefines the stakeholders that influence and/or are significantly affected by its business activities. Moreover, the composition of all stakeholders and the ways of communicating with them is also redefined in order to ensure an effective two-way communication, while their concerns and needs are being systematically recorded” (Hellenic Petroleum, 2022, p. 24).	16%	17%

Note. MMG = Minerals and Metals Group; ICMM = International Council on Mining and Metals SMM; = Sumitomo Metal Mining.

a

For both 2015 and 2022, the percentages do not sum to 100%, as they represent the proportion of reports mentioning an engagement method relative to the total number of reports analyzed for that year. Notably, all companies that disclosed direct engagement methods in a given year also reported the use of indirect methods in that same year.

Evolution of Stakeholder Engagement Disclosure Practices

In analyzing the evolution of corporate stakeholder engagement practices between 2015 and 2022, we observed variability in the level of detail of disclosures but limited overall progress. This led us to identify five distinct categories of stakeholder engagement disclosure practices: front-runners, improvers, maintainers, decliners, and laggards (Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Categorization of Stakeholder Engagement Practices.

Category	Definition	Organizations 4	Proportion of reports (in %)
Front-runners	Organizations that demonstrated more comprehensive disclosures and a focus on direct stakeholder engagement methods in their sustainability reporting. They provided descriptions of multi-directional dialogue processes, including items such as engagement frequency and formats, stakeholder group identification with clear rationales, or achieved outputs and uptake of stakeholder input in their sustainability strategy and decision-making.	Bangchak Petroleum, BHP, BPCL, Implats, Kinross, Nornickel, Teck Resources, Vedanta Resources	17%
Improvers	Companies that progressed from disclosing minimal or mostly indirect stakeholder engagement methods to more comprehensive disclosures and more direct engagement methods. These organizations demonstrated evolution from basic stakeholder identification or indirect communication toward more opportunities for interactive dialogue and direct interaction.	Barrick Gold, CLP Holdings Limited, De Beers, Dolphin Energy, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Glencore, Minerals and Metals Group (MMG), Sibanye Stillwater, MOL Group, Newmont Mining Corporation, Rio Tinto	24%
Maintainers	Organizations that maintained consistent but limited levels of stakeholder engagement disclosures throughout the study period. These organizations mainly reported indirect engagement methods and typically showed limited evidence of how stakeholder feedback influences their sustainability strategy and decision-making.	Exxon Mobil, Eni, GS Caltex, Naturgy, PT Kaltim Prima Coal, S-oil, Socar, Sumitomo Metal Mining, Wärtsilä Corporation	20%
Decliners	Organizations that initially reported more comprehensive stakeholder engagement practices with more focus on direct methods and more detailed processes, but over time reduced the breadth and/or depth of their engagement disclosures. Their later report showed less detail about engagement methods, fewer direct interaction mechanisms, or diminished evidence that stakeholder input was integrated into their sustainability strategy and decision-making.	Alrosa PJSC, Covia, Gail (India) Limited, Galp Energia, Harbour Energy, Masdar, PTT Exploration and Production Public Company, Qatargas, Rosatom, Thai Oil, Verbund	24%
Laggards	Organizations that consistently provided minimal detail about stakeholder engagement disclosures throughout the study period. These organizations typically offered mostly general statements about “consulting stakeholders,” mentioned predominantly indirect engagement methods, or provided no specific details about engagement processes.	ENMAX, Equinor, Frontera Energy, Gold Fields, Hellenic Petroleum, OMV, Suncor Energy	15%

Note. BHP = Broken Hill Proprietary; BPCL = Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; OMV = Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung Aktiengesellschaft.

Contributions

This article advances research on sustainability reporting and stakeholder democracy (e.g., Ardiana, 2023; Crane et al., 2004; Wenzel et al., 2025) by critically examining stakeholder engagement disclosures in sustainability reports from the mining and energy sectors. Despite the mainstreaming of sustainability reporting and increasing institutional pressure, our findings show that these disclosures remain uneven in breadth (who is engaged) and depth (how engagement occurs), and that practices associated with stakeholder democracy remain selective and limited. Indirect engagement methods continue to dominate, and many reports lack methodological specificity—such as stakeholder selection criteria, respondent distribution, or clear explanations of how stakeholder input informed decisions. These patterns reinforce concerns raised in prior research that stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting often remains discretionary, generic, and procedurally framed rather than substantively participatory (Bellucci et al., 2019; Gagné et al., 2022; Puroila & Mäkelä, 2019; Torelli et al., 2020). While reporting frameworks present engagement as supporting transparency and accountability, our findings suggest that the form of engagement disclosed does not systematically translate into demonstrable influence on organizational decision-making.

Building on research that conceptualizes sustainability reports as mediated arenas in which stakeholder voices are filtered through managerial framing (Cho et al., 2015; Talbot & Boiral, 2018), our analysis illustrates how engagement is represented rather than directly observed. In high-impact extractive sectors, where legitimacy pressures and social license to operate concerns are pronounced (Böhling et al., 2019; Jenkins, 2004), reporting practices may be shaped by incentives to manage how stakeholder expectations are portrayed. Consistent with this reasoning, we observe that financial stakeholders are more prominently represented, while Indigenous and local communities—whose claims may challenge corporate operations or legitimacy—are more frequently described in generic and limited terms. Although we do not assess engagement practices directly, uneven representation in disclosures raises important questions about whose concerns are rendered visible and whose influence is traceable in reported decision-making processes (Jastram & Berberyan, 2023). In doing so, our findings extend critiques of impression management in sustainability reporting by showing how selective representation operates not only for performance metrics but also for stakeholder engagement disclosure (Cho et al., 2015; Gagné et al., 2022; Sandberg & Holmlund, 2015). Taken together, considering financial stakeholder prioritization, continued reliance on indirect techniques, and sparse engagement of marginalized groups, our results suggest that without meaningful reform, sustainability reporting will continue to privilege corporate perspectives over inclusive, dialogic engagement and robust accountability. This is particularly concerning in the mining and energy sectors, where structural obstacles to meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities remain pronounced (Böhling et al., 2019; Jenkins, 2004; Journeault et al., 2021; Zharfpeykan, 2021). As corporate accountability scholarship underscores, insufficient attention to Indigenous communities’ histories, cultures, and political structures—alongside the risks of tokenism—can impede genuine dialogue and further erode trust (Jenkins, 2004; Journeault et al., 2021).

A central conceptual contribution of this study is to refine how engagement disclosures are evaluated. Previous research has primarily assessed engagement through the presence of stakeholder categories, the classification of methods, or dialogic aspirations (Bellucci et al., 2019; Puroila & Mäkelä, 2019; Torelli et al., 2020). We extend this work by introducing uptake—the extent to which reported engagement practices are visibly embedded in organizational processes and outcomes—as a complementary evaluative dimension. Across our sample, many disclosures describe stakeholder groups and interaction formats but provide limited traceability for decisions, strategic adjustments, resource allocation, or other organizational changes. Advancing dialogic accounting scholarship, which emphasizes deliberation, plurality, and the risk of managerial capture in accountability processes (Bebbington et al., 2007; Brown & Dillard, 2015), we argue that democratic potential depends not only on the existence of engagement mechanisms but on disclosure of how stakeholder input is incorporated. Uptake and traceability thus become necessary conditions for assessing whether sustainability reporting supports democratic forms of corporate accountability.

Extending this analysis over time by examining disclosures longitudinally, the study moves beyond static snapshots to reveal divergent trajectories: while some firms broadened or diversified their engagement disclosures between 2015 and 2022, others regressed or stagnated, resulting in limited aggregate progress. This variation within a shared regulatory and institutional environment suggests that institutionalization alone does not guarantee deeper or more democratic engagement practices. In line with research demonstrating that the formal adoption of sustainability standards does not necessarily transform underlying practices (Boiral, 2013; Cho et al., 2018; Hahn et al., 2023), our findings challenge assumptions that the mainstreaming of sustainability reporting yields cumulative progress toward participatory accountability. Rather than converging toward consistent and increasingly dialogic forms of engagement, disclosure trajectories appear fragmented and, in some cases, reversible. This divergence reinforces our earlier finding that engagement disclosure remains mediated by organizational interpretation of reporting requirements.

Finally, our findings highlight a persistent gap between the normative expectations embedded in reporting frameworks and disclosed practices. The GRI standards emphasize materiality, stakeholder inclusiveness, and meaningful engagement, positioning stakeholder participation as integral to identifying priority issues and shaping reporting outcomes. However, many reports in our sample provide insufficient detail to demonstrate how stakeholders are identified, how material topics are prioritized, and how stakeholder input influences decisions. This gap nuances literature that portrays reporting frameworks as mechanisms for enhancing democratic accountability (Kujala et al., 2022; Leeson & Kuszewski, 2023); it also supports critical scholarship documenting implementation gaps between formal adherence and substantive change (Hahn et al., 2023; Talbot & Boiral, 2018). In this sense, our findings suggest that while sustainability reporting has become institutionalized, its democratic potential remains contingent on organizational choices regarding transparency, traceability, and inclusion rather than guaranteed by formal standard adoption.

Taken together, these contributions demonstrate that the mainstreaming and standardization of sustainability reporting have not systematically translated into cumulative progress toward inclusive and dialogic engagement. Instead, engagement disclosures remain uneven and selectively detailed, reflecting ongoing organizational discretion in how stakeholder engagement is represented. By foregrounding breadth, depth, and uptake as complementary dimensions, our study clarifies the conditions under which sustainability reporting may support democratic accountability—and the structural limits that continue to constrain its realization, particularly in high-impact extractive sectors (Böhling et al., 2019; Talbot & Boiral, 2018).

Managerial and Policy Implications

To enhance stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting, companies could adopt more systematic approaches to both conducting and disclosing engagement processes. In-depth stakeholder engagement is crucial for enabling broader participation and more democratic forms of corporate decision-making. This implies embedding dialogue mechanisms upstream of reporting, rather than treating stakeholders as passive recipients of sustainability reports. Greater stakeholder involvement throughout the reporting cycle may strengthen the credibility and balance of corporate sustainability narratives. For example, multi-stakeholder committees or advisory panels could be involved in key stages of the reporting process, such as identifying material issues, documenting stakeholder expectations, clarifying trade-offs between divergent interests, and reviewing how such considerations are reflected in organizational decisions and disclosed information.

Given the centrality of stakeholder engagement to frameworks like GRI, regulators could strengthen structured guidance to enhance consistency and accountability. This guidance may include clear methodologies for identifying, consulting, and integrating perspectives of underrepresented groups—Indigenous communities, and other marginalized stakeholders. Tailored strategies such as participatory decision-making, culturally appropriate consultation, and long-term relationship-building may help address power asymmetries and support more meaningful incorporation of stakeholder concerns.

At the same time, any such guidance must resist the temptation to prescribe a single universal model of engagement. What constitutes meaningful stakeholder engagement is shaped by cultural context, historical relationships, and industry-specific dynamics. Engagement with Indigenous rightsholders in a Canadian mining context, for instance, carries distinct legal and relational dimensions that differ from engagement with affected communities in a Gulf-region energy company or a South African extractive operation. Regulators and companies alike should therefore treat reporting frameworks as enabling structures rather than compliance checklists; they should provide a common floor of accountability while preserving the flexibility necessary for contextually grounded practices. A one-size-fits-all approach risks reducing engagement to a procedural exercise.

Limitations of the Study and Avenues for Future Research

This study has several limitations. Its focus on extractive industries, namely mining and energy, limits generalizability to other sectors. Future research could extend this analysis across industries and use larger, geographically diverse samples to explore region-specific patterns. Longitudinal studies examining how engagement practices evolve in response to regulatory changes would also be valuable. Each framework—GRI, SASB, IFRS, or CSRD—encourages stakeholder engagement differently, making comparative analysis of their impacts worthwhile. For instance, our 2022 data show several companies outside the European Union now adopting double materiality, a CSRD principle requiring both inside–out (impact/stakeholder) and outside–in (financial) perspectives. This may encourage companies to broaden stakeholder inclusion beyond investor concerns when selecting prioritized ESG topics. In addition, while our study examines what companies report about stakeholder engagement, future research should investigate stakeholder perspectives on these processes—including whether and how stakeholders actually participate in sustainability reporting, whether they find these engagement opportunities meaningful, and what barriers they face in having their voices heard.

Although we categorized stakeholder engagement into direct and indirect forms, we initially intended to conduct a more granular analysis across stakeholder groups (e.g., employees, customers, communities, investors) and trace changes between 2015 and 2022. However, this was constrained by the limited detail provided in most sustainability reports, particularly regarding specific engagement methods and the stakeholder groups to which they were directed. The lack of granularity in the disclosures restricted more nuanced analyses of the patterns of engagement and their evolution. Future research would benefit from accessing richer data sources or alternative research methods, such as interviews, surveys, ethnography, or participant observation, to capture the complexity and variation in stakeholder engagement practices across different groups and periods.

Prior research on impression management suggests that in their sustainability reports, companies tend to highlight what they regard as their most favorable initiatives (Sandberg & Holmlund, 2015; Talbot & Boiral, 2018). As a result, our analysis captures only the practices that companies themselves consider most substantive or exemplary and does not provide a comprehensive picture. Future research could address this limitation by examining the decision-making processes behind stakeholder disclosures and the challenges companies face in engaging stakeholders meaningfully. Such studies could analyze conflicts of interest, political trade-offs, and legitimacy considerations that shape disclosure choices, and explore discrepancies between organizational practices and their representation in reports. This would shed light on the mechanisms of filtering, simplification, and impression management that underlie the disclosure of information on stakeholder engagement.

Finally, in line with Crane and Matten (2021), there is a growing need to revisit stakeholder identification models, which may overlook marginalized or underrepresented groups. Future studies could develop frameworks for stakeholder identification that better reflect evolving societal expectations and emerging stakeholder voices. In addition, future research could also examine sustainability reporting with greater attention to organizations’ social obligations, particularly toward employees and affected communities, including Indigenous communities. By advancing these research directions, scholars can contribute to a more critical and inclusive understanding of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting.