This paper explores the critical role of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting within the framework of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Through case studies of leading companies such as Unilever, VAUDE, and the Royal BAM Group, it analyzes successful strategies for effective stakeholder inclusion. The study provides practical insights and guidance for readers seeking to better understand CSRD requirements, stakeholder management, and sustainable corporate practices.
Table of contents
List of abbreviations 1
List of tables 1
1. Introduction 2
2. CSRD and stakeholder engagement 2
3. Stakeholder theory and CSR 4
4. Case study analysis 7
4.1 Methodology and selection of case studies 7
4.2 Researchdesign 8
4.3 Data collection and analysis, quality criteria and limitations 8
4.4 Case study analysis Unilever 8
4.5 Case study analysis VAUDE 13
4.6 Case study analysis Royal BAM Group 18
5. Discussion 20
6. Conclusion 22
Table of contents
Abstract
The original term paper, written as part of a mandatory internship in sustainability Consulting, examines the essential role of stakeholder engagement within corporate sustainability reporting, specifically in the context of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requirements. Companies face increasing pressure to conduct materiality analyses that accurately identify key topics and risks associated with their business models while addressing stakeholder expectations. This paper investigates how effective stakeholder engagement can be achieved during the double materiality assessment process to meet CSRD requirements. Through case studies of Unilever, VAUDE, and the Royal BAM Group, the study highlights strategies for successful stakeholder inclusion and explores established methods from stakeholder theory. Findings suggest that the success of materiality analysis and sustainability reporting is closely linked to the approach taken in stakeholder engagement, which enables organizations to create a holistic view of their sustainability culture and respond effectively to stakeholder needs. The study offers practical recommendations for companies to address challenges in CSRD-compliant stakeholder engagement, with implications for improved transparency and reporting quality. Finally, limitations of the study and avenues for future research are discussed to further illuminate stakeholder engagement in double materiality assessments.
List of abbreviations
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
List of tables
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
1. Introduction
In view of the increasing demands on sustainability reporting and the growing importance of sustainable business practices, Companies are faced with the challenge of precisely identifying relevant topics and risks of their business model while taking into account the expectations of their stakeholders. This term paper analyses how companies can carry out an effective materiality analysis within the framework of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), with a particular focus on stakeholder involvement. The research question is: How can companies successfully implement effective stakeholder engagement as part of the materiality analysis in accordance with the requirements of the CSRD?
The central thesis of the work is that the success of the materiality analysis and sustainability reporting as a whole depends to a large extent on the way in which stakeholders are involved. Targeted and effective involvement of the relevant interest groups enables companies not only to paint a comprehensive picture of their sustainability culture, but also to fulfil the requirements and needs of their stakeholders. As part of the paper, a case study analysis is conducted of three companies that are considered pioneers and role models in the implementation of materiality analyses and stakeholder engagement. In addition, relevant academic literature on stakeholder theory and best practices in stakeholder engagement will be used to develop a deeper understanding of successful strategies and processes. The findings of this thesis are intended to provide practical recommendations for companies to overcome the challenges of implementing effective CSRD stakeholder engagement and thereby improve the quality of their sustainability reporting.
Finally, the limitations of the study are highlighted and suggestions for further research are made in order to shed more light on the topic of stakeholder engagement in materiality analysis in the future.
2. CSRD and stakeholder engagement
The CSRD is an EU directive that obliges companies to prepare comprehensive sustainability reports with the aim of improving the transparency and comparability of sustainability information and supporting the transition to a sustainable economy.
The reporting obligations are being introduced in stages: From 1 January 2024, large companies that are already required to report will be affected. From 1 January 2025, companies that were not previously required to report but meet the CSRD criteria (e.g. balance sheet total > €25 million, sales revenue > €50 million, > 250 employees) will follow. From 1 January 2026, listed SMEs, small credit institutions and captive reinsurers must also report. Non-EU companies with relevant EU activities will be required to report from 1 January 2028 (European Commission, 2024, p. 12). The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) of the European Commission provide the framework for reporting. A central element of this standard is the so- called ‘double materiality’, which includes both the climate-related financial risks (financial materiality) on the company and the company's impacts on the environment and society (impact materiality). Companies must carry out a materiality analysis as part of the CSRD in order to identify and assess relevant sustainability topics (known as IROs or ‘Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities’) (e.g. according to the scale of damage to the environment) (cf. European Union, 2022). An important part of this analysis is the involvement of stakeholders.
The two main groups, affected stakeholders and ‘users’ of sustainability reports, are differentiated as follows: Affected stakeholders are individuals or groups whose interests may be directly or indirectly affected by a company's activities, such as employees, local communities and suppliers. The ‘users’ of sustainability reports primarily include investors, lenders and other financial interest groups, primarily for decision-making purposes (ibid., pp. 5-6).
Companies must systematically involve these stakeholders in the process to ensure that the materiality assessment of ten thematic ESG standards reflects the actual and potential impacts, risks and opportunities from their perspective. This also includes the transparent communication of the results of this involvement in the sustainability statement (ibid., pp. 5-8). The prioritisation of stakeholders is also an important aspect, i.e. addressing them specifically depending on their relevance and impact, as is the consideration of ‘silent stakeholders’ such as the environment, which cannot express its interests itself It is recommended that scientific sources or representatives of these groups be included in the analysis (ibid., pp. 22-23).
The strategy that relates to or influences sustainability aspects, the business model and the value chain must specify how the interests and viewpoints of the company's stakeholders are taken into account (ibid., p. 46). The company must also state the objectives in relation to material sustainability aspects, noting whether and how stakeholders were involved in setting these objectives (ibid., p. 54).
There is also a particular focus on the involvement of stakeholders in the social standards when it comes to labour conditions, affected communities such as indigenous peoples and con- sumers/end users and their safety (ibid., p. 67).
Involvement is crucial as it helps companies to better understand and assess the actual and potential impacts of their activities on people and the environment. According to the EFRAG guidelines for conducting materiality assessments, consultation with affected stakeholders is an important process for identifying and prioritising relevant sustainability issues. However, this consultation is not strictly prescribed; it is up to the Companies to decide how they organise and implement stakeholder engagement (cf. EFRAG, 2024, p. 6).
This room for manoeuvre poses a challenge for those companies that have not yet pursued active, strategic stakeholder engagement and communication and therefore have little indication of how successful engagement can be achieved. The next section will therefore first provide an overview of theoretical concepts for stakeholder engagement. This will be followed by a case study analysis of previous reports and documents on sustainability reporting from three companies in order to gain an overview of efficient approaches to engagement.
3. Stakeholder theory and CSR
Stakeholder theory, developed in the 1980s, responds to the increasingly complex business environment and offers a framework that includes all relevant interest groups - stakeholders (cf. Freeman and McVea, 2001, pp. 1-2). Its flexibility is considered a strength, but harbours the risk of diluting its applicability (cf. Phillips et al., 2003, pp. 480-481). The theory promotes proactive management by building long-term relationships with stakeholders (cf. Freeman and McVea, 2001, pp. 16-17). This also includes actors outside traditional company boundaries such as suppliers and customers or local communities (cf. Phillips et al., 2019, pp. 3-4). One debate within the theory concerns the handling of stakeholders, whereby an instrumental view often dominates, which sees stakeholders as a means to achieve objectives (cf. Phillips et al., 2003, p. 480). However, Phillips et al. (ibid.) emphasise that, in addition to the allocation of resources, decision-making processes should also be taken into account, as these are just as important as the results (pp. 487-488). Contrary to the assumption that all stakeholders are treated equally, the authors propose a meritocratic perspective in which stakeholders are treated differently according to their contribution (ibid., pp. 488-489). Furthermore, the theory does not represent a comprehensive moral doctrine, but a specific theory of organisational ethics that focuses on moral obligations within organisations (ibid., pp. 493-494).
Stakeholder theory emphasises values and ethics in corporate relations and discusses whether a value-based definition of the corporation that integrates multiple stakeholder interests is appropriate. This discussion raises the fundamental question of ‘for whose benefit and at whose expense’ a company should be managed (cf. Phillips et al., 2019, pp. 6-9). The theory also points to the limitations of formal contracts, as normative and social dimensions such as trust and fairness are often not taken into account (ibid., pp. 7-8).
In practice, the application of the theory can be seen in the fact that Companies actively incorporate stakeholder interests into their strategic planning. The model by Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), which categorises stakeholders according to power, legitimacy and urgency in order to prioritise their demands, is particularly influential (cf. Johnson-Cramer et al., 2022, pp. 1085-1101). Historically, stakeholder theory has gained both theoretical and practical importance and continues to be considered fertile ground for the research and application of managementtheories (ibid., pp. 1096-1103).
In summary, stakeholder theory calls for managers to integrate both competitive and cooperative strategies to not only optimise financial performance, but also to develop sustainable ‘cooperative superiority’ through harmonious collaboration with stakeholders (cf. Freeman et al., 2021, pp. 1763-1766). It is also applicable to small businesses, non-profit organisations and government agencies (cf. Phillips et al., 2003, pp. 494-495). Current research shows that effective stakeholder management is essential for business performance, but requires a balanced prioritisation of stakeholders. Laplume et al. (2022) identify an inverted U-shaped relationship between stakeholder management performance and organisational performance, where moderate differences are beneficial but extreme differences can be detrimental. Harrison et al. (2010) emphasise that a detailed understanding of stakeholder preferences enables a more efficient allocation of resources and leads to increased demand, efficiency, innovation, adaptability and a sustainable competitive advantage. These advantages are difficult to imitate due to path dependency and causal ambiguity. However, challenges exist in the risk of over- allocation of resources and the difficulty of measuring the value created.
Stakeholder theory has also established itself as an integral part of the discussion on corporate social responsibility (CSR) by encouraging companies to integrate ethical and social aspects into their strategic planning and decision-making processes in order to achieve sustainable success (cf. Johnson-Cramer et al., 2022, pp. 1085-1087). The relationship between stakeholder theory and CSR is complex and is interpreted differently in the literature. One perspective views stakeholder theory as an instrument for achieving CSR goals or as a stage in the development of CSR. In contrast, it is argued that CSR offers a broader perspective, while stakeholder theory focusses too much on specific stakeholders. These differences often lead researchers to focus on either CSR or stakeholder theory, leaving potential synergies untapped (cf. Dmytriyev et al., 2021, pp. 1448-1449). Despite these differences, there are overlaps. Both concepts are based on normative principles, with CSR placing a stronger emphasis on social responsibility. In addition, both approaches emphasise the importance of stakeholder relationships for the financial success of a company. The integration of both approaches could therefore enable a more comprehensive management strategy that maximises both the company's results and social benefits (ibid., pp. 1451-1454).
Stakeholder Influence Capacity (SIC) plays a central role here, as it describes the potential of a company to improve relationships with stakeholders through CSR measures and to derive financial benefits from them (cf. Barnett, 2007, pp. 21-22). This ability is path-dependent and strengthens the effectiveness of CSR measures in the long term (ibid., pp. 22-23). In addition, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reports show that stakeholder engagement is increasingly seen as a central component of CSR reporting. In GRI G4 (2013), companies must report in detail which stakeholder groups are included in the reporting process and how the concerns of these groups are taken into account, which further emphasises the importance of stakeholders in strategic corporate planning (cf. Grushina, 2017, pp. 372-377).
The implementation of stakeholder theory in sustainability management offers advantages such as the integration of economic, environmental and social goals and the promotion of innovative solutions to sustainability problems, which creates new business opportunities and competitive advantages (cf. Hörisch et al., 2014, pp. 331-341). Education plays a crucial role in this context in order to sensitise stakeholders and company managers to sustainable practices and to impart the necessary knowledge. Regulation should create incentives that promote innovation and cooperation, such as through ISO standards (ibid., pp. 338-339). Stakeholders must also develop common interests in sustainability in order to ensure the success of such projects, for example through mechanisms such as emissions trading (ibid., pp. 339-340).
An examination of corporate governance also shows that the composition (proportion of women) and independence of the board of directors are decisive factors for the effectiveness of CSR strategies and their disclosure (cf. Shaukat et al., 2016, pp. 574-575). Companies in emerging markets with strong stakeholder influence show increased CSR disclosure, even if the CEO has considerable power (cf. Rashid et al., 2021, pp. 1279-1281). Torelli et al. (2020) show that active stakeholder engagement improves the quality of the materiality analysis in sustainability reporting. They recommend involving stakeholders directly and comprehensively through focus groups, workshops and meetings in order to understand their expectations precisely. In addition, a structured approach to systematic engagement and the use of international standards to support comprehensive engagement are recommended. Regular reviews of changing expectations and conditions, transparent communication and strategic anchoring are also suggested to ensure long-term success (ibid., pp. 477-481). In the context of effective stakeholder engagement in the construction sector, Bal et al. (2013) emphasise the importance of a structured model. After identifying and prioritising stakeholders, specific sustainability goals are assigned according to their skills and knowledge. Regular communication, training and workshops ensure that all stakeholders understand and actively support their role in achieving the sustainability goals. A central component of the process is the measurement of stakeholder performance using key performance indicators (KPIs) in order to monitor their contributions to the sustainability goals (pp. 703-706).
To summarise, the study by Beske et al. (2020) shows that many companies are not sufficiently transparent in their reports about how they identify relevant stakeholders and include their concerns in the materiality analysis. Management-centred approaches often dominate, with reporting topics shaped more by internal priorities than by the actual needs of stakeholders. As a result, reporting often serves to legitimise rather than take into account the specific interests of stakeholders in accordance with stakeholdertheory (ibid., pp. 166-180).
4. Case study analysis
4.1 Methodology and selection of case studies
This paper follows a deductive case study approach according to Yin (2018) to analyse stakeholder engagement. The aim is to identify the effectiveness and characteristics of stakeholder engagement by analysing and comparing three case studies.
Three companies are analysed that are characterised by their leading role in sustainability and pursue different approaches to stakeholder engagement. This selection is based on the criteria of sector, company size, degree of stakeholder involvement and pioneering role in the area of sustainability:
- Unilever: As an international pioneer in sustainability, Unilever is known for its comprehensive stakeholder involvement. The company is often cited as a benchmark in sustainability issues and therefore provides an ideal case study. (ERM Insights, 2024)
- VAUDE: This medium-sized company based in Germany is a pioneer in the textile industry and has been recognised several times for its transparency and commitment to sustainability. (VAUDE Blog, 2024)
- Royal BAM Group: This group of companies from the construction industry is characterised by its early adoption of the ESRS. The involvement of external stakeholders is particularly noteworthy. (Haufe Sustainability, 2024)
4.2 Research design
The multiple case study analysis is used to comparatively analyse the different approaches of the Companies. The analysis is carried out in five steps:
1. Identification of stakeholders: Stakeholder groups & prioritisation
2. Stakeholder involvement
3. Strategic integration
4. Evaluation of stakeholder involvement
5. Transparency & communication
4.3 Data collection and analysis, quality criteria and limitations
The data collection is based on a content analysis of sustainability and annual reports as well as other relevant documents. A descriptive and comparative analysis is carried out in order to compare stakeholder engagement practices between companies and draw conclusions for the implementation of CSRD requirements.
In addition to internal documents, external sources such as media reports and scientific studies are also used to ensure validity and reliability. One possible limitation is the selection of pioneering companies, which could restrict generalisability. The analysis is mainly based on secondary data, which limits the depth of the investigation and excludes primary data such as interviews or surveys.
4.4 Case study analysis Unilever
Unilever is a multinational consumer goods company and is one of the largest and oldest companies in the world, with over 400 brands available in 190 countries. Around 3.4 billion people use the company's products every day. Headquartered in London, Unilever employs around 128,000 people worldwide and achieved a turnover of 59.6 billion euros in 2023 (cf. World Benchmarking Alliance, 2024; Unilever, 2024a).
Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever from 2009 to 2018, placed a strong focus on ethical and sustainable business practices during his tenure and laid the foundation for trialling multistakeholder approaches. After the 2008 financial crisis, Polman recognised the need to restore trust in companies and focused on greater involvement of all stakeholders - not just shareholders, but also employees, customers, suppliers and society. He called on shareholders to make a long-term commitment, abolished quarterly financial reports and advised those who did not believe in the philosophy not to invest in Unilever (cf. Financial Times, 2018).
This philosophy manifested itself in the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan (USLP) introduced in 2010, which was intended to improve health, the environment and livelihoods worldwide with over 70 specific goals (Unilever, 2021). In its new strategic direction, Unilever consistently pursues the corporate purpose of ‘Making sustainable living commonplace’, which guides all business decisions (cf. Polman and Bhattacharya, 2016, p. 36). For this reorganisation, a great deal was invested in the company's own corporate culture and employees in order to transform them as well. Managers undergo an intensive development programme to integrate sustainability principles into their leadership role and develop a ‘Purpose Into Impact’ project that has a social and business impact. Sustainability training is continuously anchored in existing programmes. 76 per cent of the 170,000 employees feel empowered by their role to contribute to the sustainability agenda over time, with the company's ethical standards being a reason for many to work at Unilever. Unilever promotes sustainability champions at all levels and supports innovative ideas through programmes such as the ‘Small Actions, Big Difference Fund’ (ibid., pp. 37-38). Progress is measured by indicators and shared with both stakeholders and employees, for example through a quarterly updated sustainability scoreboard and the annual review of the USLP. Naming and faming employees, for example through the ‘Unilever Heroes Award’, also promotes commitment and emphasises the importance of sustainability within the company (ibid., p. 39). Central aspects of the USLP were cooperation and partnerships with governments, NGOs, other companies or international organisations, such as UNICEF (Unilever, 2021, p. 9). Another example is thejoint project ‘Vaseline Healing Project’ in cooperation with the humanitarian organisation Direct Relief to improve the living conditions of people in disadvantaged regions (ibid., p. 10). Another focus was on working closely with suppliers to ensure that agricultural raw materials such as palm oil and tea are grown sustainably. This included the introduction of water management plans and the promotion of sustainable cultivation methods in order to reduce the ecological footprint (ibid., p. 19).
An important aspect of the plan was the pursuit of systemic change that goes beyond the company's own business activities. Unilever recognised that tackling global challenges such as climate change requires whole systems change. Therefore, the company engaged in industry initiatives and policy discussions to drive sustainable solutions such as the use of renewable energy to support systemic change (ibid., pp. 5-6).1
Unilever plans to enter a new era of sustainability. The Company will focus on targeted measures and implement systematic actions to achieve greater and measurable impact. The Company also plans to make its efforts more systematic and effective to maximise sustainable outcomes both within and beyond its own sphere of influence (cf. Unilever Germany, 2024). ‘The Unilever Compass for Sustainable Growth’ is the current strategy for sustainable growth, which is intended to position Unilever as a global market leader in sustainable business. It includes measures to promote growth, improve the health of the planet and people and create a socially inclusive world. Stakeholder engagement and a commitment to transparency are integral parts of the foundations for responsible business (cf. Unilever, n.d.). The Unilever Compass provides the framework of the multi-stakeholder model and how the strategy is designed to deliver value to all stakeholders. An initial overview of how the current multistakeholder model is structured is provided in the following table (Table 1), summarised on the basis of the analysis criteria. Unilever does not yet publish a separate sustainability report, but will report for the 2024 financial year as part of the CSRD. The following data in Table 1 is taken exclusively from the Annual Report 2023.
Table 1: Stakeholder engagement in Unilever's Annual Report 2023, own presentation.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Unilever, 2024a
To expand on the table of stakeholder engagement in relation to sustainability issues, Unilever's official website (2024b) ‘Engaging with stakeholders’ provides an overview of important factors. It states that good reputation and building trust with stakeholders require the highest standards ofbehaviour. Transparency and honest communication are key for Unilever.
Consumers are involved through data generation, including consumer data or feedback via social media, the consumer carelines and surveys. The context of sustainability is not explicitly addressed. In terms of collaboration with science, research in the areas of health, the environment, society and the economy is mentioned, with reference to ensuring objectivity and integrity as the basis for Unilever's approach to responsible innovation.
The focus is clearly on involvement and cooperation with governments, NGOs, trade associations and peer companies. Unilever is actively involved in political dialogue, contributes to the development of laws and regulations and focuses on climate change and product safety standards. One example of this is Unilever's contributions to the European Commission regarding cooperation between companies in the area of sustainability. The Commission wants to clarify the competition rules for collective sustainability initiatives along the value chain. A detailed submission was submitted to the Commission in 2020.2 In 2022, the company contributed to the consultation on the new guidelines for horizontal cooperation agreements, which will include a separate chapter on sustainability.3
Cooperation with NGOs is generally linked to the implementation success of the Compass strategy. There are numerous partnerships and collaborations (local programmes) led by the global and market-based sustainability teams. One example of this is the Unilever project to improve livelihoods along the global value chain (Unilever, 2024c). As part of this project, Unilever is working with various partners to support smallholder farmers, improve agricultural practices and ensure a living income. By 2026, 250,000 smallholder farmers are to be involved in corresponding programmes and suppliers who account for 50% of the procurement volume are to sign the ‘Living Wage Promise’. In addition, 2.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises in the retail sector are to be supported. This project involves smallholder farmers, suppliers, SMEs and various coalition partners working together for fairer working conditions and more sustainable agriculture. Unilever pursues very successful, long-standing partnerships, such as the 25-year collaboration between Unilever and the Forumfor the Future organisation (Forum for the Future, 2024) or the Living Wage Initiative (Sustainable Business Now, 2024).
Relationships with trade associations are very important for the involvement of Unilever's stakeholders. However, if the political positions of associations do not coincide, the company either withdraws or issues a public statement explaining its divergent position. In general, Unilever emphasises itsjoint commitment to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement and, in particular, to implement the climate policy demands of the ‘We Mean Business Coalition’. An open letter from Unilever CEO Alan Jope in 2019 to trade associations and business groups underlines this.4 In 2022, a total of 10.2 million euros was spent on 612 trade associations. The largest share was spent on water, climate protection and sustainable packaging, three key elements of the Compass strategy.
Other relevant initiatives, similar to the USLP, relate to employees, suppliers and communities. Employees are actively involved in the implementation of the Compass strategy with regular updates, events and Q&A sessions. The ‘Board Workforce Engagement Policy’5 of Unilever, which came into effect on 21 July 2021, aims to ensure effective and meaningful employee involvement in the company's decision-making processes. From 2011 to 2020, Unilever ran the ‘Partner to Win’ programme, a strategic partnership initiative aimed at driving sustainable growth together with suppliers. The programme focused on the transition from purely transactional relationships to strategic partnerships characterised by collaborative innovation. In 2020, the programme was further developed and realigned under the name ‘Partner with Purpose’ to better reflect Unilever's sustainability commitments. Under the new programme, strategic suppliers are integrated into Unilever's sustainability strategy by committing tojointly develop new products and sustainable innovations and to actively support sustainability goals in the areas of climate, nature, plastics and livelihoods through close collaboration, process optimisation and waste reduction (cf. Unilever, 2024d). Suppliers must meet the requirements of the ‘Responsible Sourcing Programme’6 which is based on compliance with human rights and environmental standards. Only suppliers that fulfil these requirements can work with Unilever in the long term. The Unilever ‘Climate & Nature Fund’, launched in 2020 to invest €1 billion in projects to reduce climate and nature impacts and reduce waste, aims to have a positive impact on communities as stakeholders through its projects by delivering environmental as well as social and economic benefits. The investments aim to improve living standards, strengthen economic resilience and create jobs and educational opportunities in the affected regions. By protecting nature and promoting regenerative agricultural practices, the risk of natural disasters is also reduced. Partnerships with local organisations and NGOs are intended to ensure that the measures meet the needs of the communities and have a lasting impact. Around 300 million euros have been spent and committed by the end of 2023 (cf. Unilever, 2024e).
Iglesias et al. (2023) summarise Unilever's diverse and complex multi-stakeholder approach: Unilever uses its corporate purpose ‘Making sustainable living commonplace’ as the central guiding principle for the entire business strategy and relationships with business partners. This purpose is deeply integrated into the corporate strategy and characterises the actions of all stakeholders. Unilever pursues a balanced stakeholder perspective that takes into account not only the interests of shareholders, but also those of all other relevant groups such as employees and suppliers. The company attaches great importance to a long-term perspective that goes beyond short-term profits and strives for social and ecological improvements (p. 8-9). Through strategic co-creation, Unilever works closely with various partners, including suppliers and NGOs, to develop innovative and sustainable solutions. Programmes such as ‘Partner to Win’ ensure that business partners share Unilever's strategic goals and values. The partnership includes strict criteria and continuous monitoring (ibid., pp. 10-11).
However, the challenge remains to find the balance between stakeholder engagement and shareholder expectations. Unilever is under pressure from shareholders who demand financial returns while the company pursues its ambitious sustainability goals.7
4.5 Case study analysis VAUDE
VAUDE is one of the leading outdoor brands (mountain and bike sports) in Europe and sells its products worldwide, including mainly clothing and backpacks (cf. VAUDE Blog, 2024b). Vaude's total turnover in 2023 was approximately €133 million (-6.9%) (VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024a). The company is a German family business founded in 1974 (100 per cent family-owned) with its headquarters in Tettnang. Vaude currently employs 650 people. With its innovative and sustainable products, VAUDE is a pioneer and winner of numerous awards for its social and ecological commitment, economic performance and successful brand positioning (cf. VAUDE Blog, 2024b). Since Antje von Dewitz, the daughter of company founder Albrecht von Dewitz, took over as CEO in 2009, the company has made progress in its sustainable transformation from year to year. The company is continuously setting itself more ambitious goals in a broad spectrum of sustainability and ensures that all stakeholders are involved in value creation and communication. In 2020, the ‘VAUDE Academy’ was launched to support other companies on their way to a more sustainable orientation (cf. VAUDE Blog, 2024c).
VAUDE strives to improve quality of life and promote the common good. Its value-based management is based on partnership, fairness and trust and is orientated towards the UN sustainability goals and the concept of planetary boundaries. As a pioneer of the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) with audited balance sheets, VAUDE is committed to social cohesion and responsible consumer behaviour. VAUDE is guided by its mission statement - not by shortterm profit maximisation (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024b). It is clear that sustainability is deeply rooted in the corporate strategy and is an integral part of the daily actions of all employees. There is no separate sustainability strategy, but rather a holistic corporate strategy that is consistently geared towards sustainability. The ‘Green Shape’ environmental standard emphasises this approach by defining and ensuring strict environmental criteria for the company's own products (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024c). Some aspects of the strategy paper directly address the involvement of stakeholders: VAUDE relies on innovative solutions and packaging to gain the trust of younger generations in particular and to specifically involve them as a target group. Together with the employees, a future-orientated working model is being developed that meets modern requirements. VAUDE is also working intensively on the transparency and software-supported further development of the supply chain in order to make it sustainable and fit for the future. A well-networked, interdisciplinary team is promoting digital expertise throughout the company. At the same time, the customer approach is optimised through a deep understanding of the end customer perspective, service expertise is improved and communication is personalised (cf. VAUDE, 2023, p.l).
Since 2013, sustainability reports have been prepared for VAUDE Sport GmbH & Co. KG in accordance with the requirements of the GRI. Other standards such as the Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and the Fair Wear Foundation (FW) are also implemented. VAUDE is subject to numerous external audits, for example by the Partnershipfor Sustainable Textiles, the Green Button and the ECG. Particularly with regard to the ECG Index8 and the general commitment to the principles of the ECG9, this requires an ambitious and comprehensive involvement of all social and societal stakeholders.
The CSRD must be reported on for the year 2025. However, the preparation of a materiality analysis and the introduction of double materiality has already begun in the 2023 Sustainability Report (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024d). To this end, a cross-company team was formed with direct contact to stakeholders to identify material sustainability issues with a focus on the impact on people and the environment. Material topics were integrated into the strategy development process, harmonised with the corporate goals and firmly anchored in the company's strategic priorities (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024e).
As part of the Greenpeace Detox Commitment 10, VAUDE has committed to ensuring comprehensive transparency throughout the entire supply chain, working closely with suppliers and reporting publicly on progress and challenges. This commitment strengthens the dialogue with retailers, consumers and partners, makes the complex sustainability requirements of the textile industry easier to understand and promotes awareness among all stakeholders. One example is the ‘Environmental Stewardship in the textile Supply Chain’ project launched in 2015, which supports suppliers in systematically implementing sustainable environmental protection (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024t).11
How the systematic dialogue with external stakeholders is ensured at VAUDE is communicated openly via the websites with reference to the GRI Standards. In the thematic context, there are corresponding strategic measures for the points defined in the strategy concept, which are linked to specific targets and an analysis of the current and desired conditions.12 An overview is provided by the websites, which contain information on who the stakeholders are (VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024g) and how the value-oriented exchange is organised (VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024h). This information is summarised in the table (Table 2), which is sorted according to prioritised stakeholder groups (green = priority 1, blue = priority 2, orange = priority 3). In addition, the topic-related websites are added and the source references for each stakeholder group are listed in the corresponding cell.
Table 2: Stakeholder engagement in Vaude's Sustainability Report 2023, own presentation.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024g; VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024h
VAUDE particularly emphasises successful examples such as the project for a sustainable and climate-neutral energy supply in Obereisenbach, which was implemented in cooperation with politics, business and associations, as well as chemical management in the supply chain, which represents successful cooperation with suppliers. A further example cited is the establishment of an independent advisory board with representatives of the most important stakeholder groups involved in environmentally friendly outdoor products to review the VAUDE ‘Green Shape’ environmental standard (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2024h). As a manufacturing company, VAUDE attaches particular importance to dialogue and cooperation with its own employees as well as with suppliers and retailers in its initiatives, projects and strategic directions. An extract from VAUDE's audit report by the ECG emphasises that, despite its low market power, the company has established exemplary supplier management with strict ecological and social criteria, which is verified by external auditors. As a result, VAUDE has achieved the status of a leader (cf. VAUDE Sustainability Report, 2018).
Compared to Unilever, it is evident that VAUDE cannot focus on large campaigns, active lobbying and far-reaching global cooperation due to its smaller size, internationalisation, resources and influence, although political influence is also present at national level (e.g. Partnership for Sustainable Textiles). However, it is becoming clear that VAUDE uses its resources in a targeted manner (e.g. renewable energy supply in the district) to utilise certain levers and achieve a continuous positive impact on people and the environment. At the same time, the company efficiently addresses stakeholders (e.g. for the Advisory Board), involves them and promotes long-term dialogue. VAUDE sets exceptionally high standards in terms of transparency and communication and thus fulfils demanding standards. In public media (e.g. soq.de, 2024) and in scientific analyses, VAUDE is recognised as a pioneer in the areas of sustainability (strategy) and stakeholder engagement (Wunder, 2024; Plant Values, 2024).
4.6 Case study analysis Royal BAM Group
The Royal BAM Group is an international construction and engineering company based in Bunnik, the Netherlands, and is one of the leading companies in the industry in Europe. Founded in 1869, the company employs around 13,439 people and generated sales of around USD 8.6 billion in 2022. The Group is primarily active in the civil engineering and non- residential construction sectors and operates in the Belgian, German, Irish, Dutch and UK markets and is one of the 2000 most influential companies in the world. The Royal BAM Group discloses its sustainability strategy, including the identification of relevant impacts, but has not published group-wide targets for significant parts of the value chain. It also lacks a clear framework for assessing the compliance of its trade associations with nature-positive guidelines (cf. World Benchmarking Alliance, 2022). The sustainability strategy introduced in 2023 is closely linked to the corporate strategy ‘Focus - Transform - Expand’, which aims to select profitable, sustainable projects, transform products and services and tap into new growth opportunities. In the coming years, BAM will increasingly work with partners and stakeholders to achieve a positive impact on people and the environment (cf. BAM, 2024a). The Group has a policy for dialogue with relevant stakeholders in order to incorporate their interests into the sustainability strategy. The importance of regular dialogue with stakeholders such as employees, shareholders and other relevant groups is emphasised. In special cases, the Executive Board decides whether additional dialogue is necessary (cf. BAM, 2024b). In general, the BAM Group is moving towards greater ambition in terms of stakeholder involvement. Within the company itself, Wouter Schakel, Group Head of Sustainability, says: ‘My responsibility is to work with as many colleagues as possible to implement BAM's sustainability strategy.’ (LinkedIn, 2024). Schakel and Mark van Kruijsbergen, Director Strategy & Sustainability, underline the importance of constructive dialogue, especially with NGOs such as Milieudefensie, where honesty plays a central role. Van Kruijsbergen also emphasises the successful collaboration on circular building projects (such as Circl), the development of innovative solutions with universities and start-ups and the training of managers by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. He stresses that more structure is needed in the processes (cf. Management Scope, 2023). BAM reports annually on its stakeholder engagement in the Annual Report. The report for 2023, which covers the entire Royal BAM Group, is particularly significant as it focuses on stakeholder engagement in the sustainability reporting process, especially in the context of the implementation of ESRS. The company sees it as preparation to familiarise stakeholders with the new approaches under ESRS 1 and 2 now, which is why the focus is on the engagement description. During the development of the sustainability strategy, the dialogue with external stakeholders was intensified and the exchange with external stakeholders continued in numerous discussions on various ESG topics in 2023. The material sustainability topics emphasise BAM's commitment to providing transparent information to stakeholders and at the same time form a basis for a responsible and resilient business approach (cf. Royal BAM Group nv, 2024, p. 83-85). It is mandatory for the Group for the year 2024. The following table (Table 3) is compiled on the basis of the annual report (ibid.) and provides an overview of the Royal BAM Group's stakeholder engagement:
Table 3: Stakeholder engagement in the Royal BAM Group's Annual Report 2023, own presentation.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Source: Royal BAM Group nv, 2024
The Royal BAM Group is at the beginning of ESG Integration and is currently focusing on training and sensitising employees to ESG issues, dual materiality and ESRS requirements, while at the same time intensifying cooperation with all stakeholders in order to create a solid basis for future sustainability initiatives. This includes engaging in dialogue with NGOs and expanding cooperation with suppliers and authorities in the area of sustainability. BAM has high aspirations and strives to play a leading role in the industry in the area of sustainability (ibid., p. 68).
5. Discussion
The case studies of Unilever, VAUDE and the Royal BAM Group offer valuable insights into the different approaches and challenges of stakeholder engagement in corporate sustainability strategy and reporting. This analysis not only highlights the many ways in which companies can engage stakeholders, but also the need to integrate these processes deeply into the corporate strategy in order to be successful and sustainable in the long term. The analysis of the case studies shows that each company interprets and applies Freeman's (1984) stakeholder theory differently. Unilever pursues a very comprehensive approach in which almost all relevant stakeholders - from consumers to suppliers and NGOs - are integrated into strategic planning. This is in line with theory, which emphasises that companies must consider the needs of all relevant stakeholders in order to be successful in the long term. VAUDE, on the other hand, focuses more on social and environmental responsibility towards direct stakeholders in the supply chain and its own employees. The Royal BAM Group, which is still at an early stage of comprehensive stakeholder involvement, is showing initial progress in the integration of external stakeholders, particularly in the context of sustainability reporting in accordance with the ESRS guidelines. The results of the case studies fit well into the broader context of research on stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Unilever and VAUDE can be seen as examples of best practice in stakeholder engagement that are often highlighted in the current literature. The Royal BAM Group, on the other hand, illustrates the challenges faced by companies that have only recently embarked on the path of systematically integrating sustainability aspects. This analysis shows the relevance of continuous stakeholder engagement for the development of sustainable business strategies, a topic that is gaining increasing importance in current research.
However, there are methodological limitations that must be taken into account. The selection of pioneering companies, such as Unilever and VAUDE, could limit the generalisability of the results, as these companies have already reached a high level of maturity in their sustainability strategy. The analysis would be even more in-depth if primary data, such as interviews or surveys, were integrated in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of internal stakeholder dynamics. A key limitation of this study is the focus on companies that are already considered pioneers in sustainability. This limits the transferability of the results to less advanced companies or other industries. Future research could focus on a broader range of companies, including those that are still at the beginning of their sustainability strategy. The case studies provide practical insights for companies that want to improve their stakeholder engagement. In particular, the integration of stakeholder perspectives into strategic planning, as in the case of Unilever and VAUDE, offers valuable approaches for other companies. The results are also relevant for political decision-makers, as they show which regulatory framework conditions are required to support companies in implementing sustainable practices. The CSRD requirements play a central role here in motivating companies to systematically strengthen stakeholder involvement. Companies have a responsibility to protect not only the interests of their shareholders, but also those of their wider stakeholder base. This requires balanced and transparent communication and consideration of the power asymmetries that can exist in the relationships between companies and their stakeholders. The case studies show that Unilever and VAUDE have already made great progress in this respect, while the Royal BAM Group is still at the beginning of thisjourney.
6. Conclusion
The case studies illustrate that the success of the materiality analysis and sustainability reporting in accordance with the CSRD requirements depends crucially on targeted stakeholder involvement and a high degree of transparency. Unilever and VAUDE show that the integration of relevant stakeholders into the corporate strategy not only contributes to the fulfilment of CSRD requirements, but also strengthens the sustainability culture. The Royal BAM Group, which is still at an earlier stage, is also benefiting from structured stakeholder involvement and is beginning to utilise transparency as the key to trust and long-term success. Overall, the central thesis that a successful materiality analysis can only be achieved through systematic stakeholder involvement and transparent communication is confirmed. Future research could explore how smaller organizations can scale stakeholder engagement strategies effectively.
Table of contents
Bal, Menoka, David Bryde, Damian Fearon, and Edward Ochieng. 2013. "Stakeholder Engagement: Achieving Sustainability in the Construction Sector." Sustainability, 5(2): 695710.
BAM. 2024a. Royal BAM Group nv. https://www.bam.com/en/sustainability/our- sustainability-strategy. Accessed on19 August 2024.
BAM. 2024b. Royal BAM Group nv. https://www.bam.com/en/sustainability/dialogue-with- stakeholders. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
Barnett, Michael L. 2007. "Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility." Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794816.
Beske, Felix, Ellen Haustein, and Peter C. Lorson. 2020. "Materiality Analysis in Sustainability and Integrated Reports." Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1): 162-186.
Dentoni, Domenico, and Margreeth Veldhuizen. 2012. "Building Capabilities for MultiStakeholder Interactions at Global and Local Levels: The case of Unilever." International Food andAgribusinessManagementReview, 15(B): 1-12.
Dmytriyev, Sergiy D., R. Edward Freeman, and Jacob Hörisch. 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management." Journal of Management Studies, 58(6): 1441-1470.
EFRAG. 2024. EFRAG. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
ERMInsights. 2024. ERM. https://www.erm.com/insights/2024-sustainability-leaders-survey/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
European Commission. 2024. "Frequently asked questions on the implementation of the EU corporate sustainability reporting rules." https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/frequently- asked-questions-implementation-eu-corporate-sustainability-reporting-rules_en. Accessed on 19August 2024.
European Union. 2022. European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
Financial Times. 2018. The Financial Times Ltd. https://www.ft.com/content/e7040df4-fa19- He8-8b7c-6fa24bd5409c. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
Forbes. 2022. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobeccles/2022/02/10/unilevers-purpose- and-sustainability-test-of-its-shareholders/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Forum for the Future. 2024. Forum for the Future. https://www.forumforthefuture.org/25- years-of-visionary-collaboration-with-unilever. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Freeman, R. Edward, Sergiy D. Dmytriyev, and Robert A. Phillips. 2021. "Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm." Journal ofManagement, 47(7): 1757-1770.
Freeman, R. Edward and John McVea. 2001. "A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management." SSRN Electronic Journal.
Grushina, Svetlana V. 2017. "Collaboration by Design: Stakeholder Engagement in GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines." Organization & Environment, 30(4): 366-385.
Harrison, Jeffrey S., Douglas A. Bosse, and Robert A. Phillips. 2010. "Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage." Strategic Management journal, 31(1): 58-74.
Haufe Sustainability. 2024. Haufe Sustainability.
https://www.haufe.de/sustainability/strategie/csrd-ein-praxisorientierter-blick-auf-die-ersten- berichte_575772_627198.html. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
Hörisch, Jacob, R. Edward Freeman, and Stefan Schaltegger. 2014. "Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management: Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities, and a Conceptual Framework." Organization & Environment, 27(4): 328-346.
Iglesias, Oriol, Michela Mingione, Nicholas Ind, and Stefan Markovic. 2023. "How to build a conscientious corporate brand together with business partners: A case study of Unilever." Industrial Marketing Management 109: 1-13.
Johnson-Cramer, Michael E., Robert A. Phillips, Hussein Fadlallah, Shawn L. Berman, and Heather Elms. 2022. "What We Talk About When We Talk About Stakeholders." Business & Society, 61(5): 1083-1135.
Laplume, André O., Jeffrey S. Harrison, Zhou Zhang, Xin Yu, and Kent Walker. 2022. "Evidence of an Inverted U-Shaped Relationship between Stakeholder Management Performance Variation and Firm Performance." Business Ethics Quarterly, 32(2): 272-298.
LinkedIn. 2024. LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sustainability-involves-everyone- royal-bam-group-j43te. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
Management Scope. 2024. Management Scope.
https://managementscope.nl/en/magazine/article/5327-five-best-practices-stakeholder- engagement. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Phillips, Robert A., Jay B. Barney, R. Edward Freeman, and Jeffrey S. Harrison. 2019. "Stakeholder Theory*." In The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory, ed. Jeffrey S. Harrison, Jay B. Barney, R. Edward Freeman, und Robert A. Phillips, 3-18. Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, Robert, R. Edward Freeman, and Andrew C. Wicks. 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory Is Not." Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4): 479-502.
Plant Values. 2024. Plant Values. https://plant-values.de/nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-beispiele- unternehmen/6176/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Polman, Paul, and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2016. "Engaging Employees to Create a Sustainable Business." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Autumn 2016.
Rashid, Afzalur. 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: Meeting Stakeholders Expectations or Efficient Allocation of Resources?" International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 29(2): 280-304.
Royal BAM Group nv. 2024. Annual Report 2023. Building a Sustainable Tomorrow. Royal BAM Group nv.
Shaukat, Amama, Yan Qiu, and Grzegorz Trojanowski. 2016. "Board Attributes, Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy, and Corporate Environmental and Social Performance." Journal ofBusinessEthics, 135(3): 569-585.
soq.de. 2024. soq.de. https://soq.de/vaude-engageirt-sich-fuer-faire-arbeitsbedingungen/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Sustainable Business Now. 2024. Sustainable Business Now. https://www.sustainablebusinessnow.org/posts/unilevers-living-wage-initiative#. Accessed on 19August 2024.
Torelli, Riccardo, Federica Balluchi, and Katia Furlotti. 2020. "The Materiality Assessment and Stakeholder Engagement: A Content Analysis of Sustainability Reports." Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2): 470-484.
Unilever. 2021. Unilever. Unilever Sustainable Living Plan 2010 to 2020. Summary of 10 years’ progress.
Unilever. 2024a. Unilever. Realising our full potential. Unilever Annual Report and Accounts 2023.
Unilever. 2024b. Unilever. https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/responsible- business/engaging-with-stakeholders/. Accessed on 19 August2024.
Unilever. 2024c. Unilever. https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/livelihoods/. Accessed on 19August 2024.
Unilever. 2024d. Unilever. https://www.unilever.com/suppliers/partner-to-win-programme/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Unilever. 2024e. Unilever. https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/nature/unilever-climate- nature-fund/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
Unilever. n.d. Unilever. https://www.unilever.com/files/8f9a3825-2101-411f-9a31- 7e6f176393a4/the-unilever-compass.pdf. Accessed on 19 August2024.
Unilever Germany. 2024. Unilever Germany. https://www.unilever.de/news/2024/eine-neue- ara-nachhaltiger-unternehmensfuhrung/. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE. 2023. VAUDE. https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri-wAssets/pdf/BPC- 2023/VAUDE-Handout-Strategiepapier-2023.pdf. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Blog. 2024a. VAUDE. https://www.vaude.com/de/de/blog/post/deutscher- nachhaltigkeitspreis-2024.html. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Blog. 2024b. VAUDE. https://www.vaude.com/de/de/blog/category/vaude-infos- fakten.html. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Blog. 2024c. VAUDE. https://www.vaude.com/de/de/blog/post/vaude-historie.html. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2018. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/2018/gri/csr-standards/gemeinwohloekonomie.php.
Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024a. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/unsere-maerkte.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024b. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/unternehmensphilosophie.php. Accessed onl9 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024c. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/strategie-und-schwerpunkte.php. Accessed onl9 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024d. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/berichtsumfang.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024e. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/wesentliche-aspekte.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024f. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/strategie-und-schwerpunkte.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024g. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/wer-sind-unsere-stakeholder.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024h. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/konstruktiver-und-aktiver-dialog.php.
Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024i. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/csr-team.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024j. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/unsere-lieferkette.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024k. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/menschen/unsere-verantwortung.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 20241. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/menschen/mitspracherecht.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024m. VAUDE.
https://nachha1tigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/menschen/unsere-produzenten.php. Accessed on 19August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024n. VAUDE.
https://nachha1tigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/kundenzufriedenheit.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024o. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/umwelt/VAUDE-Naturschutzprojekte.php.
Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024p. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/news/Initiative-gegen-Mikroplastik.php.
Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024q. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/rechtskonformitaet.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024r. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/engagement-in-verbaenden.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024s. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/unsere-politische-haltung.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024t. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/csr-standards/buendnis-fuer-nachhaltige- textilien.php. Accessed on19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024u. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/csr-standards/higg-index.php. Accessed on 19 August 2024.
VAUDE Sustainability Report. 2024v. VAUDE.
https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/produkte/umweltfreundlicher-naturgenuss.php. Accessed onl9 August 2024.
Wunder, T. 2024. Toolbox Strategie und Nachhaltigkeit: Wirksame Methoden für neue GeschäftsmodelleunddieTransformation. Istedition. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
World Benchmarking Alliance. 2022. World Benchmarking Alliance. https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/publication/nature/companies/bam-2/. Accessed onl9 August 2024.
World Benchmarking Alliance. 2024. World Benchmarking Alliance. https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/publication/food- agriculture/companies/unilever-3/. Accessed on 19 August2024.
Yin, Robert K. 2018. "Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods." Sixth edition. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: SAGE.
[...]
1 Dentoni and Veldhuizen (2012) examine how Unilever has developed and implemented its global sustainability strategy through multi-stakeholder interactions, emphasising the importance of stakeholder engagement and embedding innovation processes in the corporate culture.
2 https://www.unilever.com/files/alce4086-fc3c-4c49-98b6-d3ce235abe61/unilever-submission-on- sustainability-competition-law.pdf
3 https://www.unilever.com/files/24af84a6-ac65-4097-ae19-64100ff61aa7/unilever-response-to-hgl- sustainability-chapter-consultation.pdf
4 https://content.influencemap.org//site/data/000/797/Unilever_letter-to-trade-associations_5-june-2019.pdf
5 https://www.unilever.com/files/origin/219acda8b2b5c6a274fec41dc8e9ce7593b26e81.pdf/board-workforce- engagement-policy-en.pdf
6 https://www.unilever.com/suppliers/becoming-a-unilever-supplier/
7 Whether it succeeds in reconciling the two is also discussed in the article ‘Unilever's Purpose And Sustainability Test Oflts Shareholders’ by Eccles (Forbes, 2022).
8 https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/csr-standards/GWOe-Index.php
9 https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/csr-standards/10-eckpunkte-gwoe.php
10 https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/csr-standards/Detox-Commitment.php
11 Progress Report 2020: https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri-wAssets/pdf/VAUDE-Detox-
Milestones_Progress-Report-2020.pdf
12 https://nachhaltigkeitsbericht.vaude.com/gri/vaude/unsere-ziele.php
- Quote paper
- Maximilian Maschong (Author), 2024, Case study analysis on efficient stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1522458
