Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
1
The authentic corporate citizen: The role
of relational transparency and stakeholder
relationship cultivation strategies
Corné Meintjes
University of Johannesburg
ABSTRACT
Corporate scandals have influenced stakeholder trust
globally. Corporate governance efforts to curb scandals
have failed to improve company behaviour, resulting
in pressure on society and stakeholders. A stakeholderoriented relational approach to corporate citizenship is
non-negotiable – it requires authentic companies to use
cultivation strategies to build authentic stakeholder
relationships. Companies’ integrated reports illustrate
their authenticity and ability to present balanced
information. The integrated reports of selected
JSE-listed South African companies were analysed
through quantitative and qualitative content analysis.
Relational transparency was found to be central to a
company engaging authentically with stakeholders,
evident through company behaviour and integrated
reporting. However, companies do not focus enough on
relational transparency and lack strategies that require
active involvement with stakeholders. Such strategies
include task-sharing, openness, assurances, positivity and
networking. Stakeholder relationships are dependent on
a company’s cultivation of authenticity and inclusivity.
The proposed framework for authentic company
stakeholder relationship networks could help companies
to understand authenticity in stakeholder relationships.
______________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Given the need for societal engagement beyond
customer and shareholder interest (Kruggel, Tiberius
and Fabro, 2020), corporate citizenship is no longer a
‘nice-to-have’. Yohn (2020) notes that companies need
to live up to higher public expectations while remaining
under increased pressure to add value to society through
their business practices and social responsibility efforts.
This tension comes as governments are no longer seen
as the exclusive social change agent to redress the past’s
injustices (Flores-Araoz, 2011). Unfortunately, distrust
exists among company stakeholders (Weibel, Sachs,
Schafheitle and Laude, 2020), which affects company
reputation. This is because of the scandals and misconduct
that include dishonourable and reckless business practices
(Badenhorst-Weiss, Bimha, Chodokufa, Cohen, Cronje,
Eccles, Grobler, Le Roux, Rudansky-Kloppers and
Botha, 2016). Highlighted scandals include, but are not
limited to, Enron, Merrill Lynch and Martha Stewart in
the US; Cadbury Nigeria Plc, Spring Bank PlC, Wema
Bank Plc in Nigeria (Ogbodu and Umoru, 2018); and,
KPMG, Transnet, McKinsey, Standard Chartered, HSBC,
SAP (The Economist, 2017; Nyamakanga and Diphoko,
2017), Steiner, Tongaat Hulett, VBS Bank, McKinsey
and Company, Eskom, Bosasa, and Gold Fields (Business
Insider SA, 2020) in South Africa.
Corporate governance efforts have increased globally with
interventions such as the UK Corporate Governance Code
of 2009, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in the US, and the
King Reports in South Africa. However, these do not seem
to have the desired effect on improving corporate behaviour
and citizenship (ACCA, 2020), while pressure continues
to mount from society and consumers (Ashcroft, Childs,
Myers and Schluter, 2016; van Coppenhagen and Naidoo,
2017). Corporate governance, as stakeholder management,
is a response to these societal expectations of corporate
citizenship (Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016; Rendtorff,
2020). Corporate citizenship refers to a company’s role and
responsibility towards society (Maignan, Ferrell and Hult,
1999). In other words, it is the contribution of the company
to the common good of society (Rendtorff, 2020).
Although the metaphor of citizenship emerged as early as
1886 where corporations’ rights were equated to that of a
natural person, research papers only started to appear in the
late 1960s (Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016; Kruggel et al.,
2020). During the 1980s, mention was made in management
literature of companies’ social role, while during the
late 1990s, companies increasingly devoted attention to
corporate citizenship initiatives (Maignan et al., 1999).
2
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
During this time, companies became aware of their
changing roles and responsibilities, and corporate
citizenship was introduced into the corporate social
responsibility discourse (Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016).
However, corporate social responsibility was seen as a
luxury ‘add-on’ that only the most successful companies
could afford (Freeman and Mcvea, 2001).
At the start of the new millennium, serious scholarly
discourse gained momentum (in 2004) on the first
big corporate scandal, Enron (2001). At the same
time, corporate citizenship research emerged in South
Africa with the Sustainability Institute at Stellenbosch
University offering a course in corporate citizenship in
2003; the University of South Africa (Unisa) establishing
a Corporate Citizenship Unit in the same year; and the
first academic conference on corporate responsibility
was held in 2005 (Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016). However,
at the start of 2010, corporate citizenship initiatives
have become less effective as some companies use these
initiatives to garner favourable publicity, rather than to
act authentically to help society (Hoeffler, Bloom and
Keller, 2010). Greenwashing, which occurs when
a company focusses on environmentally orientated
corporate social responsibility activities, is self-serving
window-dressing (Delmas and Burbano, 2011) and a
typical example of what Hoeffler et al. (2010) refer to.
In the US, the Boston College Centre for Corporate
Citizenship ‘2016 State of corporate citizenship’ study
found that those companies who aligned their citizenship
programmes with their business objectives reported
deeper customer and employee engagement; addressed
environmental and social issues that could have disrupted
their business; and created reputational assets while
contributing to the common good among others (Stangis
and Smith, 2017). In a study in 2018 by Changing Our
World Inc., it was found that 75 per cent of people think
companies are more talk than action when supporting
social issues. However, stakeholders see companies that
make a difference by leveraging their unique business
assets as authentic (Changing Our World Inc., 2018).
Academically, corporate citizenship research has stagnated
although it has a rich publication landscape mainly studied
in business, ethics, management, political science and
environmental studies. Most research originated from
the US (32 publications), England (16 publications)
and Germany (11 publications) (Kruggel et al., 2020).
Little academic research has emerged from Africa or
South Africa (Visser, 2005; Kruggel et al., 2020), with
papers focussed on related ideas such as individual ethics
(Roussouw 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000; Abratt and Penman,
2002), the Social Responsibility Index (Sonnenberg,
Reichardt and Hamann, 2004), stakeholder theory
(De Jongh 2004), corporate governance (Jeppesen and
Granerud, 2004) and sustainability reporting (Visser,
2002; Sonnenberg et al., 2004). Visser (2005) notes that
private institutions, rather than academics, conducted the
most comprehensive research on South Africa’s corporate
citizenship. Similarly, research on authenticity, corporate
citizenship and stakeholder relationships was mainly
led by private institutions (ACCA, 2019, Tepper, 2019;
Hewitt, 2020; Nooyi and Govindarajan, 2020).
As part of the corporate citizenship debate, greater emphasis
has been placed on stakeholder relationships in response
to shifts in the corporate world (Badenhorst-Weiss et al.,
2016, Rendtorff, 2020). Further importance is now placed
on inclusivity, sustainability and integrated reporting with
the establishment of the International Integrated Reporting
Council (IIRC) and the King Reports in South Africa
(King, 2016). A report released in 2018 assessing the
annual reports of all the companies in the Financial Times
Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 Index indicated that truthful
and authentic communication plays a key role in building
trust. This report highlighted that authenticity is about
more than being fair – it is about transparency, being
honest and open and telling the company’s story truthfully
(Black Sun, 2018).
The IIRC considers a company’s capacity to illustrate
its authenticity by presenting balanced information in
its integrated reports. The Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants (ACCA) found that impressions
management, which is the willful or unintentional process
in which companies endeavour to influence stakeholders’
perceptions about an issue, played a role in how companies
report positive performance more prominently than
negative performance (2019). Companies were found
to offer general information on risks and opportunities,
ultimately affecting trust and reputation among
stakeholders (ACCA, 2019). With the release of the third
King Report in 2009, South African companies that had
adopted the reports’ principles were considered among
the best-governed in the world’s emerging economies
(Institute of Directors, 2009). Since then, however, the
country has seen several governance-related scandals
such as Steiner, Tongaat Hulett, VBS Bank, McKinsey
and Company, Eskom, Bosasa, and Gold Fields (Business
Insider SA, 2020). This raises the question of whether
companies are authentic and reporting on their authentic
stakeholder relationships, which in turn affects whether
they are perceived as good corporate citizens. It is not clear
whether South African companies emphasise cultivating
stakeholder relationships as part of their efforts to be
authentic.
Therefore, this study aimed to analyse the integrated
reports of selected South African companies to gain
insight into how they report on their authenticity and
stakeholder relationship efforts. These insights will help
companies understand corporate citizenship and the role
of being authentic in cultivating authentic stakeholder
relationships. As an integral part of society, stakeholders
will consequently be able to view their expectations and
needs in the context of the authentic company, resulting in
a deeper appreciation for the complexities that companies
face. Based on these insights, a framework is proposed for
understanding an authentic stakeholder network.
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: First,
the research’s theoretical orientation is outlined, followed
by a discussion on corporate citizenship, authenticity, and
authentic stakeholder relationships. A description of the
analysis of the integrated reports of JSE-listed companies
follows before presenting and discussing the findings that
led to the proposed framework presented in this article.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
Research regarding stakeholder theory has intensified
over the past 30 years, resulting in new theoretical
propositions. This extends the traditional stakeholder
management research to ‘emphasise the optimistic view
of human beings and develop a stakeholder-oriented
relational approach that is based on kindness, honesty,
and positive values’ (Civera and Freeman, 2019: 41).
There is a focus in stakeholder theory to consider what
a company should or should not do with its stakeholders.
This means that companies should consider stakeholders
to foster relationships, cooperation, and individuality
of stakeholders, including the interdependency among
all the stakeholders in the network (Salvioni and Astori,
2013; Soundararajan, Brown and Wicks, 2016). Edward
Freemans’ 1984 publication Strategic management –
A stakeholder approach had the mutual influence and
impact of stakeholders on one another in mind (Civera and
Freeman, 2019), proposing a more pragmatic and honest
way of engaging with stakeholders (Rendtorff, 2020),
which is the foundation of this article.
Network theory underpins this research from a stakeholdermanagement perspective (Rowley 1997; Friendman and
Miles, 2006). The basic premise of network theory is that
companies exist in a complex social network. They try to
navigate multiple, interdependent stakeholder interests and
predict their reactions to competing stakeholder demands.
The theory highlights that companies do not respond to
one stakeholder group at a time and that the relationship
structures between companies and their stakeholders
influence management decisions. Thus, companies are
not always the nexus of interactions between stakeholders
(Yang and Bentley, 2017). Instead, it points to the network
of stakeholders with the company as a stakeholder
itself (Rowley, 1997; O’Conner and Shumate, 2018).
Stakeholder-relationship thinking aligns well with network
theory in that the company is not necessarily the central
actor but is instead part of creating value with stakeholders
through an emergent process (Civera and Freeman, 2019).
Corporate citizenship
Corporate citizenship is a means to link companies,
society, the economy and the environment to operate
sustainably (Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016). There are
various viewpoints of corporate citizenship, including
the limited, equivalent and extended views. The limited
and equivalent views of corporate citizenship merely link
it with philanthropy and corporate social responsibility
(Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016). These views decrease the
3
scope of corporate citizenship and are thus not relevant to
this research. The extended view of corporate citizenship
highlights the ethical foundation of the concept with
increased ethical expectations (Rendtorff, 2020) and a
critical view of companies’ social role and the pressure
from multiple stakeholders. This pressure refers to
the external need for the company to behave ethically
towards society and stakeholders and the internal need
for companies to build an ethical and authentic company
(Badenhorst-Weiss et al., 2016).
Authenticity
Dowling (2001) argues that employees anthropomorphise
their companies, thus endowing the companies with
humanlike qualities such as motives and intentions.
Leaders are perceived as symbolic actors, epitomising
the company, and their perceived authenticity, therefore,
acts as a criterion to judge whether any citizenship
activities such as corporate social responsibility (CSR)
are authentic. If employees as stakeholders can endow
humanlike qualities to their companies, so too can other
stakeholders. Likewise, if companies are given humanlike
qualities, stakeholders expect them to behave as authentic
leaders (Kim et al., 2018).
If something is considered authentic, it needs to
be what it professes it to be. However, stakeholder
expectations influence the evaluation of this authenticity
as company activities, and communication is relative
to these expectations. This means that a company may
act and communicate in a way that achieves seemingly
appropriate social and environmental impact, but is still
deemed inauthentic by stakeholders causing reputational
damage (Varga and Guignon, 2014). Stakeholders evaluate
companies’ authenticity by considering how the company’s
activities fit with a socially constructed norm about the
appropriate actions. This is called iconic authenticity.
Indexical authenticity is how the company’s activities or
actions fit with its identity (Ewing, Allen and Ewing, 2012),
also referred to as emblematic authenticity or identitybased authenticity, which is the perceived relation between
an action and the stakeholder’s perception of the company’s
identity (Grayson and Martinec, 2004). Skilton and Purdy
(2017) introduced the concept of observed identity,
which is a set of attributes that an observer (stakeholder)
believes are central to and enduring about a company. This
means that different observers (stakeholders) see different
attributes as consistent with and emblematic of the
company’s observed identity. This is particularly relevant
to this study as the relationship between a company and its
stakeholders is formed through a series of encounters, both
past, current and future (Ashcroft et al., 2016), and what
the company authentically communicates influences how
they cultivate the relationship with a particular stakeholder
(Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015).
Authenticity is conceptualised as comprising four factors:
self-awareness, an internalised moral perspective,
relational transparency, and balanced information-
4
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
processing (Kim et al., 2018). In this context, selfawareness refers to the extent to which a company
(as represented by its leader and members or employees)
is aware of its values, philosophy, outlook on the world,
its strengths and weaknesses, others’ evaluation of it and
the company’s impact on others (Kernis, 2003; Kernis and
Goldman, 2006; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing
and Peterson, 2008). The internalised moral perspective
refers to whether a company has ethical and moral
standards, formed by making decisions that develop selfawareness and behaving consistently with these ethical
and moral standards (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and
Walumbwa, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Relational
transparency and balanced information processes are ways
of conveying authenticity. Relational transparency refers
to the extent to which a company consistently behaves in
line with its authentic self (Kernis and Goldman, 2008;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Therefore, it also refers to the
company’s ability to express thoughts and emotions
and reliably provide information. Balanced information
processes refer to a company’s ability to analyse related
information before a decision is made objectively
(Gardner et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2018). These factors
are evident in the manner in which authentic leaders
behave towards stakeholders. This refers to displaying
qualities such as openness and clarity when sharing
necessary information, accepting input from others and
demonstrating their values, motives and sentiments.
Cumulatively, these qualities enable stakeholders to
assess the competence and morality of the leader. Through
anthropomorphisation, these leaders’ behaviour effectively
becomes the company’s behaviour, resulting in what may
be regarded as an authentic company.
In 2019, ACCA released a report entitled ‘Insights into
integrated reporting 3.0: The drive for authenticity’, which
highlighted that authenticity is demonstrated by the way
companies reflect on how they create value over time and
adhere to the IIRC’s integrated reporting (IR) framework.
The IIRC was established as a coalition of regulators,
investors, companies, standard setters, the accounting
profession
and
non-governmental
organisations
(NGOs), with the view that communication concerning
value creation is imperative for corporate reporting.
Communication concerning value creation is embedded
in integrated thinking, which refers to the company’s
active consideration of the relationships between its
various affected stakeholders (IIRC, 2013). The IIRC
established the IR framework on which countries may
base their reporting efforts. The IR framework indicates
that a company’s authenticity will be enhanced if it follows
the guiding principles of the framework. These principles
include having a strategic focus which is future-orientated,
considering the connectivity of information, providing
insight into the company’s stakeholder relationships,
disclosing information about matters that substantively
affect the company, ensuring the report is concise,
including all matters in a balanced way and presenting
the information in a manner that is consistent over time
and is material to its own ability to create value over time
(King, 2018). These principles closely align with the
factors of authenticity.
Authentic stakeholder relationships
A relationship exists between a person and a company in
which there is a series of encounters with each other through
actions and communication, shaped by the memory of
past encounters and an imagination of future encounters.
In these relationships, those involved are known to each
other (or knowable), and the actions of each can affect
another in a shared context or motivation. Stakeholder
relationships are not a mere add-on to a company’s
functioning, and require deliberate changes to how the
company views and responds to issues. Company processes
involved in decision-making are not normally designed
to bring relational issues to the fore. Pressure, both in
terms of time and as structural constraints, prevents the
building of strong relationships with stakeholders. When
companies are intentional about relationship-building,
they create the perception of being known and valued
(Ashcroft et al., 2016). To do this, the ethical principle of
respect for integrity is essential. This integrity is expressed
through trust, honesty and moral identity (Rendtorff,
2020). Stakeholders and companies are not stakeholders
to each other, but stakeholders in specific issues of mutual
interests (Saffer, 2019). The leadership of a company
should be actively involved in the management of issues
(Acros, 2013). However, issues cannot be seen in isolation
and always involve an actor or stakeholder that affects the
issue or is affected by it (Freeman, 1984).
A shift has been made from a company-centric perspective
of the roles and economic dependency of stakeholders,
towards the mutuality of influence and impact in
stakeholder relationships (Civera and Freeman, 2019).
Stakeholder dialogue through engagement is needed to
facilitate the mutuality of influence of stakeholders and
companies (Golob and Podnar, 2014).
Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement is a process of positive stakeholder
involvement and the basis for building a stakeholderoriented relational approach, which is necessary for value
creation (Strand and Freeman, 2015). Greenwood (2007)
argues that the more committed companies are towards
their stakeholders, the more accountable and responsible
they are, making them good corporate citizens. Civera,
De Colle and Casalenga (2019) state that there are two types
of engagement. The first is engagement with stakeholders
in which stakeholders’ interests have an intrinsic value that
is embedded in the company’s core decisions. The second
is engagement of stakeholders in which stakeholders feel
highly and positively committed to the company and
aligned with its values and purpose. Authentic engagement
is needed to enable engagement with and of stakeholders.
Freeman and Velamuri (2006) highlighted that
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
stakeholders consist of real people with names and faces
and children, and intensive communication and dialogue
with stakeholders are needed.
There are two levels of authentic engagement, namely
authentically engaging the self, and authentically engaging
others. Authentic engagement at all levels helps companies
live out their values (self-awareness) (Kim et al., 2018)
and similarly seek relationships with stakeholders with
comparable characteristics. Personal and company
approaches to diversity affect how authentic engagement
is enacted. Authentic engagement with others means that
the concepts of interconnection and inclusivity need to
be explored (relational transparency) (Kim et al., 2018).
This exploration starts with ‘inclusion as the normative
process through which people who are socially
marginalised and discriminated against are actively and
intentionally brought into companies as full participants
with voice and equal access to all benefits of membership’
(Antonio, Doehring and Hernandez, 2014: 60). Instead
of traditional stakeholder management approaches,
cultivation strategies targeted at stakeholder relationships
may assist in facilitating authentic engagement.
Cultivation strategies
Positive stakeholder involvement through engagement
strategies creates an antecedent for cultivating stakeholder
relationships (Civera and Freeman, 2019). Kim and
Hon (2009) developed six cultivation strategies, namely
access, positivity, openness, sharing of tasks, networking
and assurances. To determine which of these strategies
(not limited to one) a company is using, it is necessary to
determine the degree of effort that a company invests in
providing a variety of communication or media platforms
to assist stakeholders in making contact with it (namely
access, or what may be regarded as engagement channels).
Dawkins (2014) refers to this strategy as creating a
favourable environment for stakeholders to express their
needs and voices. The degree to which stakeholders benefit
from the company’s efforts to make the relationship more
enjoyable for stakeholders is referred to as positivity.
Van Buren (2001) considers this positivity as obtaining
stakeholder consent and trust. The company’s efforts
to share in working on projects or solving problems of
mutual interest with stakeholders (sharing of tasks) is
demonstrated when a company adopts a collaborative
mentality (Strand and Freeman, 2015). Openness refers
to a company’s efforts to provide information about the
nature of the company and what it is doing to establish
fairer relationships (Phillips, 1997). The degree of the
company’s effort to build networks with the same group
of stakeholders such as activists (networking) is related
to the company’s empowerment of more vulnerable and
key stakeholders to favour the individual stakeholder’s
contribution to the company (Civera et al., 2019). Any
efforts by a company to assure its stakeholders that they
and their concerns are attended to, are referred to as
assurances (Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015).
5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was approached from an interpretivist,
naturalistic paradigm as the focus was on interpreting
the text (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) associated with
authenticity and cultivating authentic stakeholder
relationships in the integrated reports of selected
companies. To the knowledge of the author, no research
has been conducted on how companies report on their
approaches to stakeholder relationships and to cultivating
authentic stakeholder relationships in their integrated
reports. Therefore, an exploratory and qualitative design
was adopted to gain new insights into this phenomenon
(McLeod, 2015).
In line with the guiding principles of the IR framework
developed by the IIRC, an integrated report should,
among others, provide insight into the nature and quality
of the company’s relationships with key stakeholders
and disclose information about matters that substantively
affect the company’s ability to create sustained value
(King, 2018). Therefore, the integrated report is the
ideal publicly available communication vehicle in which
companies are obliged to illustrate how they are cultivating
authentic stakeholder relationships. In the integrated
report, stakeholders get a sense of the authenticity of the
company through what its leaders are communicating.
Population and sampling
The population of the study included all JSE-listed
companies in South Africa that produced an integrated
report while the sample was chosen using non-probability
purposive sampling. The integrated reports included in
this research comprised all the winners and merit award
recipients in each of the categories of the Chartered
Governance Institute of Southern Africa’s Integrated
Report Awards of 2019 (Chartered Governance Institute of
South Africa, n.d). It was compulsory that the companies
were JSE-listed (JSE, n.d), and state-owned companies,
the public sector, and NGOs or non-profit organisations
(NPOs) were not considered. A total of nine winners and
merit award recipients existed and all were included in the
research.
Research instrument and data collection
The following framework was used to assess the integrated
reports through directed content analysis. The construction
of the framework was informed by the literature review.
The 2019 integrated reports of the companies selected
for inclusion in the research were downloaded from the
Internet. No supplementary documents or documents
referred to in the integrated reports were considered in
the analysis. All information included in the research are
in the public domain with no ethical implications for the
research.
6
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
TABLE 1
KEY CONCEPTS AS INITIAL CODING CATEGORIES
Conceptual component
Authenticity
(Kim et al., 2018)
Evidence of:
Self-awareness (how aware is a company of its values, philosophy, outlook, strengths and weaknesses,
including the evaluation of and impact of others?). Focus on governance, citizenship, King IV.
Internalised moral perspective (a company’s ethical and moral standards linked to sustainability, licence to
operate, social justice).
Relational transparency (the extent to which a company behaves in accordance with its values and principles,
and its ability to express thoughts and emotions and provide information in a reliable and responsive way).
Responsiveness.
Balanced information process (a company’s ability to objectively analyse related information before a
decision is made).
Authentic stakeholder relationships
(Ashcroft et al., 2016)
Intentional relationship-building efforts, not a mere add-on.
Structural openness and inclusion (authentic engagement) (Antonio et al., 2014).
Issues management (Acros, 2015). Emerging issues.
Access/engagement/channels (the effort that a company invests into providing a variety of communication
or media platforms to assist stakeholders in making contact). Stakeholder identification and the stakeholder
groups the company focussed on.
Cultivation strategies
(Kim and Hon, 2009)
Positivity (which stakeholders benefit from the company’s efforts to make the relationship more enjoyable
for stakeholders?).
Sharing of tasks (the company’s efforts to share in working on projects or solving problems of mutual
interest with stakeholders).
Openness (a company’s efforts to provide information about the nature of the company and what it is doing).
Networking (the company’s efforts to build networks with the same group of stakeholders such as activists).
Consultation.
Assurances (a company’s capacity to assure its stakeholders that they and their concerns are attended to
[needs]).
Analysis
A combination of quantitative and qualitative content
analysis was applied to the data as it focusses on the
characteristics of language as communication, paying
attention to the content or contextual meaning of text
(typically found in integrated reports). With content
analysis, both the explicit and implicit meanings of text
are considered. The directed approach to content analysis
of the data was guided by a structured process using the
concepts from Table 1 that emerged from the literature
review (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The directed approach
was adopted as the research extended existing theory
and research on authenticity and cultivating authentic
stakeholder relationships as a means to improve corporate
citizenship. The main advantage of this approach is that
existing theory can be supported and extended. However,
the challenges to the naturalistic paradigm are that the
data were approached with some bias related to the design
of the study, the data collection and analysis. To curb
these possible biases, the researcher was sensitive to and
conscious of the possibility of multiple interpretations of
especially the implicit meanings of the text. These were
also addressed by applying rigour to the study. The Atlas
Ti Version 8.4.25 software package was used to assist with
the analysis.
In Atlas Ti, content analysis techniques were applied to the
data. The initial coding categories from Table 1 were used
and evidence from the integrated reports was sought using
key words associated with each of the categories. The key
words were identified by creating word clouds and word
lists to identify whether the key ideas from Table 1 were in
fact present in the integrated reports. As a coding rule, the
key words were then used to code the text in the integrated
reports, upon which open coding was applied to ensure
that more implicit meanings in the reports were captured.
Through open coding, additional subcategories associated
with the categories from Table 1 were created and key
words added, until no new key words associated with
the categories were found. Redundant codes were then
identified and removed. The categories were organised
according to the main concepts of the authentic company,
authentic stakeholder relationships and cultivation
strategies. The key words used were: values, governance,
citizenship, King IV, sustainability, licence to operate,
social justice, responsiveness, transparency, balance,
openness, inclusion, issues, emerging issues, engagement,
stakeholder identification, stakeholder benefits, mutual
interest, activists, consultation, stakeholder needs,
employees, stakeholders, media, community, government,
regulators, NGOs, contractors, suppliers, analysts, clients,
customers, industry, investors, unions, civil society,
society, academic institutions, political parties.
Rigour
The four-dimensions criteria (FDC) created by
Lincoln and Guba (1986) were applied to this research.
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
Authenticity
To maintain credibility, credible and reliable sources of
data were selected. These included the integrated reports
of companies listed on the JSE and companies that were
award winners in the Chartered Governance Institute
of Southern Africa’s Awards for Integrated Reporting.
To ensure dependability, a rich description of the methods
used was provided and an audit trail established using
the Atlas Ti software package, to record the data analysis
process. For confirmability, a reflexive journal was kept
of the insights gained from reading the integrated reports.
To ensure transferability, purposive sampling was used to
ensure that the study could be replicated using a different
sample with the same inclusion criteria. Data saturation
was obtained during analysis.
The four factors of authenticity, namely self-awareness,
internalised moral perspective, relational transparency
and balanced information processes were identified in the
selected company’s integrated reports using key words and
phrases associated with these factors. Three companies
used the word ‘authentic’ in their integrated reports to
describe their philosophy towards engagement with their
stakeholders:
Our philosophy is to engage authentically, openly and
inclusively with our stakeholders, allowing us to better
understand and benefit from their insights, concerns,
and priorities, to seek areas of potential partnership,
mitigate risks to the business, and create mutual trust
and respect – Retailer 2
FINDINGS
The integrated reports from nine JSE-listed companies who
were winners or merit award recipients of the CGISA’s
Awards for Integrated Reporting of 2019 were analysed.
The length of these reports ranged from 78 to 178 pages.
The companies selected included banks, retailers, a
medical company, steel and wood manufacturers and
mining companies. The findings are presented per key
concept of authenticity, authentic stakeholder relationships
and cultivations by presenting tables indicating the
number of times a key word or phrase were coded to a
category, followed by an interpretive discussion of each of
the categories.
Evidence of balanced information processes was found
in the integrated reports (40.83 per cent of all the codes
associated with authenticity). The leadership of the
selected companies managed to show how they analysed
information before making decisions and how stakeholders
may have influenced these decisions. The medical services
company mentioned that:
…the integrated report gives us an opportunity to
reflect on, and assess, the fundamentals of [our]
value proposition to our stakeholders. Our ability to
execute confidently on a bold and responsive strategy;
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF THE CODING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATEGORIES
OF AUTHENTICITY
Coding of categories
Company
Balanced
information process
Gr = 334
n
Bank 1
Gr = 830
Steel manufacturer
Gr = 326
Mine 1
Gr = 543
Medical services
Gr = 705
Mine 2
Gr = 917
Bank 2
Gr = 884
Retailer 1
Gr = 837
Retailer 2
Gr = 791
Wood manufacturer
Gr = 616
Total
7
Internalised
moral perspective
Gr = 249
Relational
transparency
Gr = 41
Self-awareness
Gr = 194
Total
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
8
9.3
45
52.33
8
9.30
25
29.07
86
11
30.56
11
30.56
3
8.33
11
30.56
36
70
65.42
17
15.89
13
12.15
7
6.54
107
61
55.96
28
25.69
2
1.83
18
16.51
109
24
27.91
56
65.12
1
1.16
5
5.81
86
3
4.00
45
60.00
4
5.33
23
30.67
75
32
45.71
16
22.86
4
5.71
18
25.71
70
22
25.00
30
34.09
4
4.54
32
36.36
88
103
63.98
1
0.62
2
1.24
55
34.16
161
334
40.83
249
30.44
41
5.01
194
23.72
818
Note: Groundedness (GR) of the code indicates its relevance to the dataset
8
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
the underlying health of our operations and financial
position; and, the purpose and values that guide the daily
work of everyone at [the medical services company]
and our impact on society; are the cornerstones of this
value proposition.
This finding highlights the moral perspective of the
selected companies, which was evident across all the
companies (30.44 per cent of all the codes associated
with authenticity). Companies described their values and
ethical approach to business in the finest detail, including
a section focussed on purpose, vision and values:
Within its overarching values, the company has five
cultural themes including responsibility, adaptability,
openness and connectivity, diversity and ownership.
– Mine 1
Although the selected companies were aware of their
values, their philosophical outlook, as well as their
strengths and weaknesses, and placed emphasis on
evaluating their impact on others (23.72 per cent of all the
codes associated with authenticity), there was also a strong
focus on citizenship, governance and the King IV Report.
The steel manufacturer noted:
Good corporate citizenship, including the company’s
positioning and efforts in promoting equality,
preventing unfair discrimination and combatting
corruption, the group’s contribution to the development
of communities in which it operates or markets its
products and the group’s record of sponsorships,
donations and charitable giving.
This excerpt indicates an awareness and understanding
of what it means to be a good corporate citizen and
highlights its self-awareness of its values and impact
on others. However, this awareness and understanding
needs to be conveyed through relational transparency.
Relational transparency is the way in which the leadership
of a company express themselves and provide information
in a reliable way, while also allowing stakeholders to
freely express their views. This was evident in only
41 instances in the integrated reports, which raises
concerns over the ability of companies to listen to and
allow for the free expression of stakeholder viewpoints.
The mining company (Mine 1) was the exception to this,
dedicating six pages of its integrated report to stakeholder
management. They describe what they call their key
account management (KAM) approach as follows:
It is a purpose-driven process that supports [our]
stakeholder excellence objectives, our company’s
purpose and our culture themes of ‘ownership’ (resultsorientated, efficient and effective) and ‘open and
connected’ (collaborative, connected to the ecosystem).
Authentic stakeholder relationships
For stakeholder relationships to be authentic, the company’s
intentions need to be clear and inclusive. This is only
possible if the company’s structures and processes allow
for this inclusivity, while considering that stakeholders
are all connected through the issues that affect them.
These attributes were explored in the integrated reports
of the selected companies. While evidence for most of
these qualities was found, it was difficult to ascertain from
these reports whether structural openness was present.
Issues and the management thereof were strongly
represented in the texts of the integrated reports
(57.22 per cent of the codes), indicating a cognisance
of the importance of issues management in stakeholder
relationships. Mine 1 outlined the issues (material matters),
the stakeholders and its importance to both the mine
and the stakeholders in a comprehensive, but compact way.
However, for some companies, more focus was placed on
how these issues may affect the company alone. This was
demonstrated by Retailer 1 in the following statement:
Material issues are the factors that are likely to have
the most material impact on the Group’s revenue and
profitability, and therefore influence our ability to
create and sustain value for stakeholders.
This clearly indicates that in this instance, the focus is
first on revenue and profitability, followed by stakeholder
value.
In general, companies were quite intentional in their
relationship-building efforts (35.04 per cent of the
codes), demonstrating a recognition of the importance of
stakeholder relationships. The steel manufacturer noted:
Stakeholder engagement is based on the recognition
that what we do has an impact on others. We need to
understand what these impacts are (good or bad) and
manage them responsibly, taking other people’s rights
and priorities into account.
This not only highlights the company’s intention to
build relationships, but also addresses its moral and
ethical awareness. Unfortunately, not much evidence
was available of the companies’ efforts to be inclusive,
with only 6.62 per cent of the codes making mention of
inclusivity. If authentic stakeholder relationships are about
companies understanding their own authenticity, their
intentional relationship-building efforts and their ability to
be inclusive in the process (Antonio et al., 2014), then the
lack of a focus on inclusivity in their integrated reports is
concerning.
Cultivation strategies
Access, assurances and networking were found to a
greater or lesser extent in all the selected companies, while
openness, positivity and the sharing of tasks were only
identified in some companies.
Regarding cultivation strategies, access was used the
most (58.94 per cent of the codes related to cultivation
strategies), and was the most prominent strategy in
seven of the nine companies. This strategy involves
the effort that a company makes in providing various
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF THE CODING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATEGORIES
OF AUTHENTIC STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS
Coding of categories
Inclusion
Gr = 71
Company
Bank 1
Gr = 830
Steel manufacturer
Gr = 326
Mine 1
Gr = 543
Medical services
Gr = 705
Mine 2
Gr = 917
Bank 2
Gr = 884
Retailer 1
Gr = 837
Retailer 2
Gr = 791
Wood manufacturer
Gr = 616
Total
Intentional
relationship-building efforts
Gr = 376
n
%
n
%
9
12.16
50
67.57
2
11.11
10
2
8.33
13
Issues management
Gr = 614
Structural openness
Gr = 12
Total
%
n
%
11
14.87
4
5.40
74
55.56
5
27.78
1
5.56
18
4
16.67
16
66.67
2
8.33
24
14.77
64
72.73
9
10.23
2
2.27
88
16
5.71
66
23.57
196
70.00
2
0.71
280
7
3.87
38
20.99
136
75.14
0
0.00
181
11
4.53
60
24.69
171
70.37
1
0.41
243
10
8.77
61
53.51
43
37.72
0
0.00
114
1
1.96
23
45.10
27
52.94
0
0.00
51
71
6.62
376
35.04
614
57.22
12
1.12
1 073
n
Note: Groundedness (GR) of the code indicates its relevance to the dataset
EXTRACT 1
EXAMPLE FROM MINE 1’s INTEGRATED REPORT
n
9
10
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
Networking (5.59 per cent of the codes), openness
(2.14 per cent of the codes), positivity (2.46 per cent of
the codes), and the sharing of tasks (1.36 per cent) were
used to some extent. Although networking was not used
extensively, it was used in all of the companies. The reason
for this practice may be that it was used in specific instances
that required this strategy. The steel manufacturer’s
chairperson noted:
communication and media platforms to help stakeholders
engage with the company (Kim and Hon, 2009).
Examples included digital platforms, electronic and social
media, meetings, roadshows and reports, among others.
This was demonstrated by Retailers 1 and 2, who indicated
the following:
Issues which are material to our customers are identified
through daily interactions in our physical stores and
our digital and social media platforms. Customer focus
groups and surveys provide clear input to identify their
requirements, interests, and concerns. – Retailer 1
I honestly also believe that we are starting to engage
in a much more meaningful way with those nongovernmental companies which are concerned with
environmental justice and which consistently (and
commendably) hold up a lens to the performance of
industries such as ours.
Multiple communication channels are available to
address issues raised by employees. These include
a facility to pose anonymous questions to the CEO,
participation in staff satisfaction surveys, employee
roadshows, results presentations, in-store broadcasts,
digital communications and employment equity
forums. – Retailer 2
One company mentioned what they had learned from a
networking engagement, which illustrates how useful
the appropriate cultivation strategy is towards building
authentic stakeholder relationships:
Assurances were also utilised, and featured as the
most favoured strategy of two of the nine companies
(28.51 per cent of the codes). This is reassuring as it
indicates that companies thus made efforts to ensure
that their stakeholder needs and concerns are attended to
(Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015). Bank 2 noted:
Communication and lack of information were
highlighted as areas of concern by the wage employees.
– Wood manufacturer
Openness was not mentioned that often, which may be
explained by the fact that the integrated report itself is a
representation of openness; sharing detailed information
about the company with all interested parties. Some
companies, however, did make specific mention of
openness, such as the medical services company that had
Our brand reflects the value created from being close
enough to our clients to understand their needs and
agile in developing solutions.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF THE CODING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CATEGORIES
OF CULTIVATION STRATEGIES
Coding of categories
Company
Bank 1
Gr = 830
Steel manufacturer
Gr = 326
Mine 1
Gr = 543
Medical services
Gr = 705
Mine 2
Gr = 917
Bank 2
Gr = 884
Retailer 1
Gr = 837
Retailer 2
Gr = 791
Wood manufacturer
Gr = 616
Total
Access/
engagement /
channels
Gr = 432
Assurances
Gr = 209
Networking
Gr = 41
Openness
Gr = 23
Positivity
Gr = 18
Sharing of tasks
Gr = 10
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
21
28.77
40
54.80
2
2.74
1
1.37
6
8.22
3
4.11
73
29
64.44
9
20.00
5
11.11
2
4.44
0
0.00
0
0.00
45
66
66.67
21
21.21
6
6.06
4
4.04
2
2.02
0
0.00
99
64
62.14
31
30.10
5
4.85
1
0.97
1
0.97
1
0.97
103
81
86.17
3
3.19
5
5.32
2
2.13
2
2.13
1
1.06
94
42
55.26
31
40.79
3
3.95
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
76
43
61.43
14
20.00
5
7.14
3
4.29
4
5.71
1
1.43
70
56
60.22
24
25.81
4
4.30
6
6.45
2
2.15
1
1.08
93
30
37.50
36
45.00
6
7.50
4
5.00
1
1.25
3
3.75
80
432
58.94
209
28.51
41
5.59
23
3.14
18
2.46
10
1.36
733
Note: Groundedness (GR) of the code indicates its relevance to the dataset
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
the following statement as one of their pillars underpinning
their consistency of care strategy:
Driving a culture of openness and collaboration.
Positivity was difficult to identify as evidence to establish
the degree to which stakeholders benefit from what the
company does to make the relationship more enjoyable
(Kim and Hon, 2009) was not contained in the integrated
reports. While the companies did report on positivity,
they did not do so extensively. Bank 1 reported that they
were improving and leading client satisfaction metrics in
industry.
Similarly, evidence for the sharing of tasks was difficult to
locate in the integrated report. Only 10 instances across all
the integrated reports were found. The wood manufacturer
noted:
The company views its partnership within its
surrounding communities as critical to the success of
its operations. We believe that, with the combination
of resources available, we can achieve and improve
more than by operating in isolation. Through ongoing
community engagement and consultation in various
forums a sense of ownership is created around the
well-being of the community and the success of the
company. These communities are our prospective
employees and the company will therefore continue to
support, upskill and develop community members.
Six companies used all of the strategies available. The use
of the strategies depended on the nature of the stakeholder
and relationship that existed between the stakeholder and
the company. For example, one company used a digital
platform to communicate with clients, and employed the
sharing of tasks strategy when engaging with communities.
The relationship between authenticity, authentic
stakeholder relationships and cultivation strategies
The text coded to the three broad concepts of the authentic
company, authentic stakeholder relationships and
cultivation strategies and their subcodes are presented in
Digraph 1. The digraph also illustrates whether they are
linked with one another by associations or by being part of
a broader concept.
The letters G and D appear in each of the code blocks.
G refers to the groundedness of the code, that is, how
relevant the code is to the dataset, while D refers to density,
that is, how many codes are linked to another code. Access/
engagement/channels, intentional relationship-building
efforts, balanced information processes, internalised moral
perspective, corporate governance, sustainability focus
and issues management all have a groundedness score
above 200. These codes are thus relevant to the dataset.
Relational transparency is the only code with a density
score above 10 as many codes are linked to it.
From the digraph it is evident that relational transparency
is central to the company being authentic, to the
11
stakeholder relationships being authentic and to the
cultivation strategies used. This finding has implications
for a company’s stakeholder network as each element
of cultivating authentic stakeholder relationships is
influenced by a company’s relational transparency. This
means that the extent to which a company behaves and
expresses itself reliably and consistently influences whether
and how a stakeholder experiences the relationship.
Relational transparency is, therefore, the most important
component of authenticity in this context. Evidence of
relational transparency was scarce in Table 2, however,
indicating that although this is central to building authentic
stakeholder relationships, companies are unsure of how to
convey their authenticity in their integrated reports.
Internalised moral perspective and self-awareness are
only connected to authenticity, implying that these
two factors, although important, are only linked to
authentic stakeholder relationships and cultivation
strategies through relational transparency and balanced
information processes. This means that authenticity
consists of an inward-focussed component (internalised
moral perspective and self-awareness) and an outwardfocussed component consisting of relational transparency
and balanced information processes. The latter two refer
to instances in which stakeholders interface with the
company through the various cultivation strategies as well
as relationship-building efforts, which are intentional and
not merely an add-on to business practices.
Openness is the one area in Digraph 1 that is linked
to relational transparency, authentic stakeholder
relationships (through inclusion) and cultivation strategies.
However, limited evidence from the integrated reports
was found to support the idea that the companies are
open to or support openness, as seen in Table 3 (structural
openness) and Table 4 (openness as cultivation strategy).
This highlights not only the importance of openness when
engaging with stakeholders, but also of inclusivity.
DISCUSSION
Stakeholders endow companies with humanlike qualities,
expecting them to behave like authentic leaders would
behave (Kim et al., 2018). Such behaviour is reflected
in the relational transparency displayed by the company
and through the extent to which the company is able to
act consistently in line with its values, as well as its
ethical and moral standards (Kernis and Goldman, 2008).
South African companies do not place enough emphasis
on their relational transparency, although this is the one
area that has the most influence on the company’s ability
to engage with its stakeholders authentically. A company
that understands its own moral perspective has the ability
to express this outwardly through relational transparency,
using balanced information processes objectively
(Gardner et al., 2005). Stakeholders already distrust
companies (Weibel et al., 2020) due to the corporate
scandals persisting in the business environment, which
is exacerbated when companies fail to communicate and
illustrate their internal moral perspective.
12
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
DIGRAPH 1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY, AUTHENTIC STAKEHOLDER
RELATIONSHIPS AND CULTIVATION STRATEGIES
Notes: In the circles: P = Property of; R = Associated with; N = Cause of; G = Part of
In the blocks: CSR = Corporate social responsibility; UN = United Nations; G = Groundedness; D = Density
Authentic stakeholder relationships are characterised by
clear company intentions to build relationships through
inclusivity (Ashcroft et al., 2016). To ensure inclusivity,
issues management is important, not only in terms of how it
affects the company, but also how it affects the stakeholders
involved (Saffer, 2019; Civera and Freeman, 2019). These
relationships are dependent on the company’s authenticity,
and are closely associated with relational transparency, and
cultivation strategies through the enactment of authentic
engagement. Reporting by South African companies on
their inclusivity efforts is scant, although there is evidence
of their intentions to build authentic relationships with
their stakeholders. This raises concerns over their ability
to cultivate authentic relationships if inclusivity is not
pursued. The nature of authentic engagement involves
interconnectedness and inclusivity, both of which are
associated with relational transparency. This means that a
company that values inclusivity and interconnectedness is
able to show its authentic self in how it enacts relational
transparency. The inability of South African companies
to fully incorporate inclusivity in their intentional
relationship-building efforts, results in them losing out on
the opportunity to ensure complete authentic engagement
with marginalised or vulnerable stakeholders.
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
South African companies are mindful about issues
management, and in some cases go to great lengths to
address issues with stakeholders. These issues bring
stakeholders and companies together around their mutual
interests (Saffer, 2019). In this way, both relational
transparency and authentic stakeholder relationships
are supported as there is active involvement from the
leadership of the company (Acros, 2015). The benefit
of managing issues is that stakeholders feel that their
needs and expectations are considered by the company
(Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015), ultimately affecting their
levels of trust (ACCA, 2019).
Companies mainly use a variety of communication and
media platforms as a cultivation strategy as engagement
channels help stakeholders to express their needs and
expectations (referred to as access). The other cultivation
strategies of assurances and networking require a more
direct involvement of both the companies and stakeholders
and are therefore not used that often. Consequently, there
are implications for the ability of companies to build
trust (Van Buren, 2001), to solve problems collaboratively
(Strand and Freeman, 2015), to establish fairer
relationships (Phillips, 1997), to empower more vulnerable
13
stakeholders (inclusivity) (Civera et al., 2019), and to
assure stakeholders that their concerns are acknowledged
and attended to (Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015).
Trust is not built through the management of impressions,
in which companies merely offer generic information on
risk and opportunities affecting stakeholders (ACCA,
2019). Apart from access, other cultivation strategies are
necessary for relational transparency to materialise using
balanced information processes.
A framework to understand the stakeholder relationship
network of the authentic company is therefore proposed
based on the literature review and on the findings of this
study. The framework is presented in Figure 1.
In Figure 1, the authentic company is one of the actors
in a network of stakeholders. The authentic company is
conceptualised as having two dimensions. The first of these
dimensions is inward-focussed (two inner circles) with
moral perspective and self-awareness as factors, and the
second dimension is outward-focussed (two outer circles),
with relational transparency and balanced information
processes as factors. The circle representing relational
transparency is the largest as it is critical in communicating
FIGURE 1
THE AUTHENTIC COMPANY’S STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIP NETWORK FRAMEWORK
14
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
the moral perspective of the company with stakeholders
through the various cultivation strategies. The outermost
circle represents the authentic stakeholder relationships
developed through the company’s intentional relationshipbuilding efforts, structural openness, inclusion and issues
management. The stakeholders are in close proximity to
each other, linked with arrows that point in both directions
and are embedded in the authentic stakeholder relationship
circle.
The proposed framework illustrates that companies’
(stakeholders) authentic self is emergent, which they
need to be aware of, and which they need to express.
Through these expressions, relationships are formed and
issues addressed using relationship cultivation strategies,
which in turn influence the company’s authentic self.
The interconnectedness between the stakeholders assists
them in influencing each other within the stakeholder
network, while also holding each other accountable to
being fair, transparent and honest. This brings stakeholders
closer to each other, and assists them to practice relational
transparency, which cannot exist without their moral
perspective and self-awareness. Companies that are
cognisant of their role in the stakeholder network will
have a greater understanding of how their authenticity
influences their ability to be good corporate citizens.
CONCLUSION
Companies are expected to act as good corporate citizens,
and are under increased pressure to add value to society.
They are, however, failing to do so because of the
large number of corporate scandals affecting societal
and stakeholder trust. This is exacerbated by the fact
that the efforts to curb these corporate scandals do not
have the desired effect. One area of promise is that of
the shifting viewpoints on authentic communication,
which involves transparency, honesty, and inclusivity.
To communicate authentically, however, a company
needs to be authentic and build authentic stakeholder
relationships. As integrated reports form an integral
part of authentic communication, this research focussed
specifically on this regulatory communication vehicle, by
analysing the integrated reports of selected South African
companies to gain insight into how they report on their
authenticity and stakeholder relationship efforts.
The analysis of the integrated reports revealed that
relational transparency is the biggest contributor to
company authenticity. Although companies need to have a
strong internal moral perspective and an awareness of this,
these need to become evident in the company’s behaviour
and communication (relational transparency and balanced
information processes). Companies therefore need to shift
their focus from demonstrating intentional relationshipbuilding efforts to applying specific relationship-cultivation
strategies in which their true self and their behaviour
become evident to stakeholders. These strategies refer
to those that go beyond merely providing information,
but that require active engagement between the company
and stakeholders, solving problems collaboratively and
including more vulnerable stakeholders.
The authentic company’s stakeholder relationship network
framework offers a bird’s eye view of a company’s position
in a stakeholder network. Within this framework, the
company is also a stakeholder in a network of stakeholders,
in which each stakeholder requires authenticity in order
for authentic relationships to form in the network. It also
illustrates that stakeholders are connected through issues
and with relational transparency.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The importance of this research is twofold. Firstly,
applying the concept of authenticity to a company
endowed by stakeholders with humanlike qualities
provides for the opportunity to apply authentic leadership
factors to the company. Leaders act on behalf of a
company, while stakeholders develop feelings of trust
towards the company itself. Further research is needed
into the application of authenticity in a company and how
authenticity manifests in the engagement companies have
with stakeholders. Secondly, revealing the importance of
relational transparency as the link between the authentic
company and its stakeholders, highlights the contribution
authentic stakeholder relationships and engagement make
towards companies behaving as good corporate citizens.
More research is needed into how relational transparency
materialises from a stakeholder perspective, as this will
provide much-needed insight into the proposed authentic
company stakeholder relationship network framework.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
It is recommended that companies take cognisance of
authenticity and how it influences its relationships and
communication with stakeholders. Companies should
do more to move from merely creating platforms for
stakeholders to engage with them, towards actively
involving and placing more emphasis on inclusivity.
Using the authentic company’s stakeholder relationship
network framework to guide discussion on the company,
its authentic self and its role in a network of stakeholders,
will assist companies in realising their potential in
becoming good corporate citizens.
REFERENCES
Abratt, R. and Penman, N. 2002. Understanding factors
affecting salespeople’s perceptions of ethical
behaviour in South Africa. Journal of Business Ethics,
35(4): 269–80.
ACCA. 2019. Corporate governance: A South African
perspective (Online). Available: https://www.acca
global.com/ca/en/student/exam-support-resources/
fundamentals-exams-study-resources/f4/technicalarticles/corporate-governance-a-south-africanperspective.html [Accessed: 18 November 2020].
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
Ashcroft, J., Childs, R., Myers, A. and Schluter, M.
2016. The relational lens and In. The relational lens:
Understanding, managing and measuring stakeholder
relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antonio, E., Arora, K., Doehring, C. and Hernandez,
A. 2014. Theological education and economic
revitalisation: Creating sustainable companies through
authentic engagement. Theological Education, 48(2):
57–67.
Badenhorst-Weiss, H., Bimha, A., Chodokufa, K., Cohen,
T., Cronje, L., Eccles, N., Grobler, A., Le Roux,
C., Rudansky-Kloppers, S. and Botha, T. 2016.
Corporate citizenship. Cape Town, South Africa:
Oxford University Press Southern Africa. Available:
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&
AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=1588756&site=edslive&scope=site [Accessed: 23 March 2021].
Black Sun. 2018. Less perfection, more authenticity:
Analysis of FTSE 100 Corporate reporting trends in
2018 (Online). Available: https://www.blacksunplc.
com/en/black-sun-live/company-news/2018/Lessperfection-and-more-authenticity-needed-in-FTSE100-annual-reports.html [Accessed: 25 April 2019].
Business Insider. 2020. The biggest South African business
scandals over the last decade (Online). Available:
https://www.businessinsider.co.za/the-top-southafrican-business-scandals-the-past-decade-2020-1
[Accessed: 18 November 2020].
Changing Our World, Inc. 2018. Changing our world
corporate citizenship study (Online). Available: https://
changingourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/
The-Authenticity-Opportunity_PDF-for-Posting-orEmail.pdf [Accessed: 23 March 2021].
Chartered Governance Institute of South Africa. n.d.
Integrated Report Awards 2019. The benchmark for
integrated reporting (Online). Available: https://www.
chartsec.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view
=article&id=723&Itemid=268
[Accessed: 19 November 2020]
Civera, C., De Colle, S. and Casalegno, C. 2019.
Stakeholder engagement through empowerment: The
case of coffee farmers. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 28(2): 156–174.
Civera, C. and Freeman, R.E. 2019. Stakeholder
relationships and responsibilities: A new perspective.
Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, 1: 40–58.
Dawkins, C.E. 2014. The principle of good faith: Toward
substantive stakeholder engagement. Journal of
Business Ethics, 121(2): 283–295.
De Jongh, D. 2004. A stakeholder perspective on managing
social risk in South Africa. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 15 (Autumn 2004): 27–31.
Delmas, M. and Burbano, C.V. 2011. The drivers of
greenwashing. California Management Review,
54(1): 64–87.
15
Dowling, G.R. 2001. Creating corporate reputations:
Identity, image and performance. New York, USA:
Oxford University Press.
Ewing, D.R., Allen, C.T. and Ewing, R.L. 2012.
Authenticity as meaning validation: An empirical
investigation of iconic and indexical cues in a context
of ‘green’ products. Journal of Consumer Behavior,
11(5): 381–390.
Flores-Araoz, M. 2011. Corporate social responsibility in
South Africa: More than a nice intention. Polity. (Online).
Available: http://www.polity.org.za/article/corporatesocial-responsibility-in-south-africa-more-than-a-niceintention-2011-09-12 [Accessed: 19 August 2018].
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Massachusetts: Pitman Publishing.
Freeman, R.E. and Mcvea, J.F. 2001. A stakeholder
approach to strategic management. SSRN Electronic
Journal. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=
263511 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
[Accessed: 22 March 2021].
Freeman, R.E. and Velamuri, S.R. 2006. A new approach
to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility.
In Kakabadse, A. and Morsing, M. (Eds). Corporate
social responsibility. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and
Walumbwa, F. 2005. ‘Can you see the real me?’
A self-based model of authentic leader and follower
development. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 343–372.
Golob, U. and Podnar, K. 2014. Critical points of
CSR-related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 23(3): 248–257.
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. 2004. Consumer perceptions
of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on
assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of
ConsumerResearch, 31(2): 296–312.
Greenwood, M. 2007. Stakeholder engagement: Beyond
the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 74(4): 315–327.
Hewitt, A. 2020. Four ways corporations can achieve
authentic social impact (Online). Available: https://
ssir.org/articles/entry/four_ways_corporations_can_
achieve_authentic_social_impact
[Accessed: 23 March 2021].
Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P.N. and Keller, K.L. 2010.
Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate
citizenship initiatives: Managerial guidelines and
research directions. American Marketing Association,
29(1): 78–88.
Holtzhausen, D.R. and Zerfass, A. 2015. The Routledge
handbook of strategic communication. New York,
USA: Routledge.
IIRC. 2013. Value creation background paper (Online).
Available: https://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/08/Background-Paper-Value-Creation.
pdf [Accessed: 19 November 2020].
16
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
Institute of Directors (IoD). 2009. The King Report on
Governance (Online). Available: https://cdn/ymaws.
com/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/944450064F18-4335-B7FB-7F5A8B23FB2F/King_III_Code_
for_Governance_Principles_.pdf
[Accessed: 26 August 2021].
Jeppesen, S., and Granerud, L. 2004. Does corporate
social responsibility matter to SMEs? The case of
South Africa. Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary
CSR Research Conference. Nottingham, UK.
[Accessed: 22–23 October 2004].
JSE. n.d. Find an equity issuer (Online). Available: https://
www.jse.co.za/current-companies/companies-andfinancial-instruments [Accessed: 20 November 2020].
Kernis, M.H. 2003. Toward a conceptualisation of optimal
self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1): 1–26.
Kernis, M.H. and Goldman, B.M. 2006. A multicomponent
conceptualisation of authenticity: Theory and research.
In Zanna, M.P. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social
psychology. San Diego, USA: Academic Press.
Kim, E.J. and Hon, L. 2009. Testing the linkages among
the company–public relationship and attitude and
behavioural intentions. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19(1): 1–23.
Kim, B., Nurunnabi, M., Kim, T. and Kim, T. 2018. Doing
good is not enough, you should have been authentic:
Company identification, authentic leadership and
CSR. Sustainability, 10(2026): 1–16.
King, M. 2016. KING IV Report on Corporate Governance
for South Africa (Online). Available: https://www.
adams.africa/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/King-IVReport.pdf [Accessed: 19 November 2020].
King, M. 2018. Preparing an integrated report: A starter’s
guide (updated) (Online). Available: http://integrate
dreportingsa.org/ircsa/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
IRC_Starters_Guide_20180820_12663_LN.pdf
[Accessed: 19 November 2020].
Kruggel, A., Tiberius, V. and Fabro, M. 2020. Corporate
citizenship: Structuring the research field.
Sustainability, 12: 1–19.
Lincoln Y.S. and Guba E.G. 1986. But is it rigorous?
Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic
evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation,
1986(30): 73–84.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Hult, G.T. 1999. Corporate
citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4):
455–69.
McLeod, J. 2015. Reading qualitative research. European
Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 17(2):
194–205.
Nooyi, I.K. and Govindarajan, V. 2020. Becoming a better
corporate citizen (Online). Available: https://hbr.org/
2020/03/becoming-a-better-corporate-citizen
[Accessed: 23 March 2021].
Nyamakanga, R. and Diphoko, W. 2017. Corporate
corruption unpacked: SA lost billions. Cape Times,
14 July (Online). Available: https://www.pressreader.
com/south-africa/cape-times/20170714/2815522
90902588 [Accessed: 19 August 2018].
O’Conner, A. and Shumate, M. 2018. A multidimensional
network approach to strategic communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication,
12(4): 399–416.
Ogbodu, S.G. and Umoru, G.L. 2018. Imperatives of
corporate governance on corporate citizenship in
Nigeria. Annual Survey of International and Company
Law, 23: 133.
Phillips, R.A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of
fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7: 51–66.
Rendtorff, J.D. 2020. Corporate citizenship, stakeholder
management and sustainable development goals
(SDGs) in financial institutions and capital markets.
Journal of Capital Market Studies, 4(1): 47–59.
Rowley, T. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network
theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4): 887–910.
Roussouw, G.J. 1994. Business ethics in developing
countries. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(1): 43–51.
Roussouw, G.J. 1997. Business ethics in South Africa.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16(14): 1539–1547.
Roussouw, G.J. 1998. Establishing moral business culture
in newly formed democracies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17(14): 1563–71.
Roussouw, G.J. 2000. Defining and understanding fraud:
A South African case study. Business Ethics Quarterly,
10(4): 885–95.
Saffer, A.J. 2019. Fostering social capital in an international
multistakeholder issues network. Public Relations
Review, 45: 282–296.
Salvioni, D. and Astori, R. 2013. Sustainable development
and global responsibility in corporate governance.
Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, 1: 38–52.
Skilton, P.F. and Purdy, J.M. 2016. Authenticity, power and
pluralism: A framework for understanding stakeholder
evaluations of corporate social responsibility activities.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1): 99–123.
Stangis, D. and Smith, K.V. 2017. 21st century corporate
citizenship : A practical guide to delivering value
to society and your business. Bingley: Emerald
Publishing Limited (Gale Virtual Reference Library).
Available: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=1423572&
site=eds-live&scope=site [Accessed: 22 March 2021].
Strand, R. and Freeman, R. 2015. Scandinavian cooperative
advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder
engagement in Scandinavia. Journal of Business
Ethics, 127(1): 65–85.
Management Dynamics Volume 30 No 3, 2021
Sonnenberg, D., Reichardt, M. and Hamann, R. 2004.
Sustainability reporting in South Africa: Findings
from the first round of the JSE Socially Responsible
Index. Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary CSR
Research Conference, Nottingham, UK .
[Accessed: 22–23 October 2004].
Soundararajan, V., Brown, J.A. and Wicks, A.C. 2016.
An instrumental perspective of value creation through
multistakeholder initiatives, Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2016(1): 10598.
Tepper, T. 2019. Four core attributes of authentic corporate
citizenship (Online). Available: https://npengage.
com/companies/attributes-of-authentic-corporatecitizenship/ [Accessed: 23 March 2021].
The Economist. 2017. The big companies caught up in South
Africa’s ‘state capture’ scandal (Online). Available:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2017/12/09/
the-big-companies-caught-up-in-south-africas-statecapture-scandal [Accessed: 26 November 2020].
Van Buren, H. 2001. If fairness is the problem, is consent
the solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3): 481–499.
Van Coppenhagen, V. and Naidoo, S. 2017. The South
African King IV Report on Corporate Governance:
Themes and variations (Online). Available: https://
www.ensafrica.com/news/The-South-African-KingIV-Report-on-Corporate-Governance-themes-and va
riations?Id=2495&STitle=corporate%20commercial
%20ENSight%20 [Accessed: 19 August 2018].
17
Varga, S. and Guignon, C. 2014. Authenticity. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020
edition). In Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.) (Online) Available:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/
authenticity/ [Accessed: 23 March 2021].
Visser, W. 2002. Sustainability reporting in South Africa.
Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(1): 79–85.
Visser, W. 2005. Corporate citizenship in South Africa.
A review of progress since Democracy. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 18: 29–38.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing,
T.S. and Peterson, S.J. 2008. Authentic leadership:
Development and analysis of a multidimensional
theory-based measure. Journal of Management,
34(1): 89–126.
Weibel, A., Sachs, S., Schafheitle, S.D. and Laude, D.
2020. Stakeholder distrust-the neglected construct in
stakeholder relations (Online). Available: https://www.
alexandria.unisg.ch/259644/
[Accessed: 26 November 2020].
Yang, A. and Bentley, J. 2017. A balance theory approach
to stakeholder network and apology strategy.
Public Relations Review, 43: 267–277.
Yohn, D.L. 2020. Brand authenticity, employee experience
and corporate citizenship priorities in the COVID-19
era and beyond. Strategy and Leadership, 48(5): 33–39.
All correspondence should be addressed to: Dr Corné Meintjes, Department of Strategic Communication, University of Johannesburg, cmeintjes@uj.ac.za