Our understanding of how public actors directly influence stakeholder engagement through mechanisms such as regulation and licensing has been steadily improving. However, the indirect influence of public governance measures on stakeholder engagement remains less explored. This article seeks to bridge this gap by examining how public sector actors use participatory governance to influence private stakeholder engagement beyond public governance processes. We introduce the concept of silent steering to describe how indirect effects on stakeholder engagement occur. Through an in-depth case study of Finnish mining governance from 1995 to 2020, we uncover how silent steering of private engagement occurs through role-giving, example-giving, and expectation-giving. Through these processes, public actors can exert significant influence over industry- and firm-level private stakeholder engagement processes even when they are not present.
AbbottK. W.SnidalD. (2009). Strengthening international regulation through transmittal new governance: Overcoming the orchestration deficit. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 501.
2.
AdkinL. E.HansonL. L.KahaneD.ParkinsJ. R.PattenS. (2017). Can public engagement democratize environmental policymaking in a resource-dependent state? Comparative case studies from Alberta, Canada. Environmental Politics, 26(2), 301–321.
3.
Åkerstrøm AndersenNSandI. (Eds.). (2012). Hybrid forms of governance: Self-suspension of power. Springer.
4.
ArenasD.AlbaredaL.GoodmanJ. (2020). Contestation in multi-stakeholder initiatives: Enhancing the democratic quality of transnational governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(2), 169–199.
5.
BaldwinE. (2020). Why and how does participatory governance affect policy outcomes? Theory and evidence from the electric sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 365–382.
6.
BanerjeeS.MaherR.KrämerR. (2023). Resistance is fertile: Toward a political ecology of translocal resistance. Organization, 30(2), 264–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508421995742
7.
BeunenR.Van AsscheK. (2021). Steering in governance: Evolutionary perspectives. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 365–368.
8.
BrandT.BlokV.VerweijM. (2019). Stakeholder dialogue as agonistic deliberation: Exploring the role of conflict and self-interest in business–NGO interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.21
9.
BraunC.AlbaredaA.FraussenB.MüllerM. (2020). Bandwagons and quiet corners in regulatory governance. On regulation-specific and institutional drivers of stakeholder engagement. International Review of Public Policy, 2(2), 209–232.
10.
BraunC.BusuiocM. (2020). Stakeholder engagement as a conduit for regulatory legitimacy?Journal of European Public Policy, 27(11), 1599–1611.
11.
CashoreB.KnudsenJ. S.MoonJ.van der VenH. (2021). Private authority and public policy interactions in global context: Governance spheres for problem solving. Regulation & Governance, 15, 1166–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12395
12.
CastellóI.Lopez-BerzosaD. (2023). Affects in online stakeholder engagement: A dissensus perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1), 180–215.
13.
CastellóI.EtterM.Årup NielsenF. (2016). Strategies of legitimacy through social media: The networked strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432.
14.
DawkinsC. (2015). Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1), 1–28.
15.
de BakkerF. G. A.den HondF.KingB.WeberK. (2013). Social movements, civil society and corporations: Taking stock and looking ahead. Organization Studies, 34(5–6), 573–593.
16.
de BakkerF. G. A.den HondF. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence. A review essay. Business & Society, 47(1), 8–20.
17.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
18.
EberleinB. (2019). Who fills the global governance gap? Rethinking the roles of business and government in global governance. Organization Studies, 40(8), 1125–1145.
19.
The Environmental Institute of Lapland. (2009). Official statement on Sokli EIA (Soklin kaivoshankkeen ympäristövaikutusten arviointiselostus.14.8.2009/ LAP-2008-R-1-531).
20.
EsperS. C.Barin-CruzL.GondJ. P. (2024). Engaging stakeholders during intergovernmental conflict: How political attributions shape stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 191, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05448-3
21.
FlemingP.SpicerA. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237–298.
22.
FurnaroA. (2019). Hegemony and passivity in mining regions: Containing dissent in north-central Chile. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(1), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.07.009
23.
GiamporcaroS.GondJ.-P.O’SullivanN. (2020). Orchestrating governmental corporate social responsibility interventions through financial markets: The case of French socially responsible investment. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(3), 288–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.40
24.
GondJ.-P.KangN.MoonJ. (2011). The government of self-regulation: On the comparative dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Economy and Society, 40(4), 640–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.607364
25.
GrantJ. A.PanagosD.HughesM.MitchellM. I. (2014). A historical institutionalist understanding of participatory governance and aboriginal peoples: The case of policy change in Ontario’s mining sector. Social Science Quarterly, 95(4), 978–1000.
26.
HolzerB. (2008). Turning stakeseekers into stakeholders: A political coalition perspective on the politics of stakeholder influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 50–67.
27.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2020). Chapter VIII.6: Designing public participation in the policy process: A critical review of procedural instrument theory. In RichardsK. R.van ZebenJ. (Eds.), Policy instruments in environmental law. Edward Elgar
28.
JärveläJ. (2023). The mine or the mire? Mobilising place in natural resource struggles. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(2), 237–254.
29.
Johnson-CramerM. E.PhillipsR. A.FadlallahH.BermanS. L.ElmsH. (2022). What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders. Business & Society, 61(5), 1083–1135.
30.
KickertW. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8(1), 135–157.
31.
KingB. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49.
32.
KnudsenJ. S.MoonJ. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and government: The role of discretion for engagement with public policy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 32(2), 243–271.
33.
KokkonenA. (2006). Sosiaalisten vaikutusten arviointitutkimus Talvivaaran kaivos- hankkeen vaikutusalueella [Social impact evaluation on Talvivaara]. University of Lapland.
34.
KooimanJ. (2002). Social-political governance: Overview, reflections and design. Public Management, An International Journal of Research and Theory, 4(1), 43–70.
35.
KourulaA.MoonJ.Salles-DjelicM.-L.WickertC. (2019). New roles of government in the governance of business conduct: Implications for management and organizational research. Organization Studies, 40(8), 1101–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619852142
36.
KujalaJ.SachsS.LeinonenH.HeikkinenA.LaudeD. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136–1196.
37.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
38.
LawrenceT. B.MalhotraN.MorrisT. (2012). Episodic and systemic power in the transformation of professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 102–143.
39.
LevyD.ReineckeJ.ManningS. (2016). The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 364–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12144
40.
LiikamaaT. (2015). Kaivosviranomaisen malminetsinnän ja kaivosteollisuuden ajakohtaiskatsaus vuodelta 2015. [Current overview of mineral exploration and mining industry from the Mining Authority for the year 2015]. FCSA website. https://tukes.fi/documents/10197/8647605/Kaivostilastot_2015_Tukes.pdf
41.
MaherR. (2019). Squeezing psychological freedom in corporate–community engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 1047–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3898-y
42.
MaherR.MonciardiniD.BöhmS. (2020). Torn between legal claiming and privatized remedy: Rights mobilization against gold mining in Chile. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(1), 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.49
43.
MaherR.ValenzuelaF.BöhmS. (2019). The enduring state: An analysis of governance-making in three mining conflicts. Organization Studies, 40(8), 1169–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619847724
44.
MattenD.MoonJ. (2020). Reflections on the 2018 decade award: The meaning and dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0348
45.
MayntzR. (2022). Steering. In AnsellD.TurfingJ. (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 259–266). Edward Elgar.
46.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
47.
MoriartyJ. (2014). The connection between stakeholder theory and stakeholder democracy: An excavation and defense. Business & Society, 53(6), 820–852.
48.
NarteyL. J.HeniszW. J.DorobantuS. (2022). Reciprocity in firm–stakeholder dialog: Timeliness, valence, richness, and topicality. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05063-8
49.
O’ConnellL. L.StephensC. U.BetzM.ShepardJ. M.HendryJ. R. (2005). An organizational field approach to corporate rationality—The role of stakeholder activism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 93–111.
50.
O’FaircheallaighC. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 19–27.
51.
OlsenT. D. (2016). Political stakeholder theory: The state, legitimacy, and the ethics of microfinance in emerging economies. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(01), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.59
52.
PierreJ.PetersB. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Bloomsbury Publishing.
53.
PrnoJ.SlocombeD. S. (2012). Exploring the origins of “social license to operate” in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy, 37(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002
54.
RixonD. (2010). Stakeholder engagement in public sector agencies: Ascending the rungs of the accountability ladder. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(7), 347–356.
55.
RowlinsonM.HassardJ.DeckerS. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0203
56.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
57.
SchneiderA.SchererA. (2019). State governance beyond the “shadow of hierarchy”: A social mechanisms perspective on governmental CSR policies. Organization Studies, 40(8), 1147–1168.
58.
Schrempf-StirlingJ.WettsteinF. (2023). The mutual reinforcement of hard and soft regulation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(1), 72–90.
59.
ShivjiA. K. (2024). Rightsholder-driven remedy for business-related human rights abuse: Case of the fair food program. Journal of Business Ethics, 193, 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05560-4
60.
SiggelkowN. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
61.
SteurerR. (2013). Disentangling governance: A synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society. Policy Sciences, 46(4), 387–410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42637288
ThelenK. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369–404.
64.
TurnhoutE.van BommelS.AartsN. (2010). How participation creates citizens: Participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268213
65.
UddinS.OngS.MatousP. (2023). Stakeholder engagement variability across public, private and public–private partnership projects: A data-driven network-based analysis. PLOS ONE, 18(1), Article e0279916.
66.
Van AsscheK.DuineveldM.GruezmacherM.BeunenR. (2021). Steering as path creation: Leadership and the art of managing dependencies and reality effects. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 369–380.
67.
van Popering-VerkerkJ.MolenveldA.DuijnM.van LeeuwenC.van BuurenA. (2022). A framework for governance capacity: A broad perspective on steering efforts in society. Administration & Society, 54(9), 1767–1794.
68.
VivierE.Sanchez-BetancourtD. (2023). Participatory governance and the capacity to engage: A systems lens. Public Administration and Development, 43(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2012
69.
WalkerP. E.ShannonP. T. (2011). Participatory governance: Towards a strategic model. Community Development Journal, 46(Suppl. 2), ii63–ii82.
70.
YakovlevaN.Vazquez-BrustD. (2012). Stakeholder perspectives on CSR of mining MNCs in Argentina. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 191–211.
71.
YinR. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283–290.
72.
Yle. (2009). Kevitsa mining company pressurized into a deal [Kevitsan kaivosyhtiö painostettiin sopimukseen]. https://yle.fi/a/3-5280435
