This study examines the effect of stakeholder engagement (SE) on the quality of intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) in Indian firms and explores how this relationship varies across firm life cycle (FLC) stages. Using panel data from 100 non-financial firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange for 2018–2023, ICD quality is measured through content analysis based on a four-point scale covering six intellectual capital components. Firms are classified into growth, maturity and revival stages following Dickinson’s (2011, Accounting Review, 86, 6, 1969–1994) cash-flow-based approach. A two-step system generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator is employed to address endogeneity concerns. The results show that SE significantly enhances overall ICD quality, particularly disclosures related to human, structural, relational and process capital, while its influence on IT and R&D disclosures is limited. The strength of the SE–ICD relationship varies across FLC stages and is most pronounced in revival-stage firms. Grounded in agency, stakeholder, legitimacy and resource-based theories, the study highlights SE as a strategic mechanism shaping ICD practices across stages of firm development in an emerging-market context.
Abdel-MaksoudA., JabbourM., & Abdel-KaderM. (2021). Stakeholder pressure, eco-control systems, and firms’ performance: Empirical evidence from UK manufacturers. Accounting Forum, 45(1), 30–57.
2.
AdomakoS., & TranM. D. (2022). Environmental collaboration, responsible innovation, and firm performance: The moderating role of stakeholder pressure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1695–1704.
3.
AgarwalaN., PareekR., & SahuT. N. (2024). Do firm attributes impact CSR participation? Evidence from a developing economy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(12), 4526–4542.
4.
Al-DhamariR., Al-GamrhB., FarooqueO. A., & MosesE. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and firm market performance: The role of product market competition and firm life cycle. Asian Review of Accounting, 30(5), 713–745.
5.
ArellanoM., & BondS. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.
6.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
7.
BlundellR., & BondS. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 15–143.
8.
BondS. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141–162.
9.
BontisN. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.
10.
BontisN. (2003). Intellectual capital disclosure in Canadian corporations. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 7(1), 9–20.
11.
Brío GonzálezJ., & Barba-SánchezV. (2020). The mediating effect of environmental proactivity on the influence of stakeholder pressure and environmental strategy of wineries in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research, 14(6), 771–783.
12.
BukhP. N., NielsenC., GormsenP., & MouritsenJ. (2005). Disclosure of information on intellectual capital in Danish IPO prospectuses. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(6), 713–732.
13.
ChoY. (2022). ESG and firm performance: Focusing on the environmental strategy. Sustainability, 14(13), 1–19.
14.
Costa-CampiM. T., Garcia-QuevedoJ., & Martinez-RosE. (2017). What are the determinants of investment in environmental R&D?Energy Policy, 104(5), 455–465.
15.
DaiD., & XueY. (2022). The impact of green innovation on a firm’s value from the perspective of enterprise life cycles. Sustainability, 14(3), 1–19.
16.
DarnallN., HenriquesI., & SadorskyP. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094.
17.
DeeganC., RankinM., & TobinJ. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.
18.
DewiA. A., SaraswatiE., RahmanA. F., & AtminiS. (2023). Materiality, stakeholder engagement disclosure, and corporate governance: Critical elements for the quality of sustainability reporting. Cogent Business & Management, 10, 1–22.
19.
DhaliwalD., RadhakrishnanS., TsangA., & YangY. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.
20.
DharniK., & JameelS. (2022). Trends and relationship among intellectual capital disclosures, patent statistics and firm performance in Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(4), 936–956.
21.
DickinsonV. (2011). Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. Accounting Review, 86(6), 1969–1994.
22.
DoniF., CorvinoA., & MartiniS. B. (2022). Corporate governance model, stakeholder engagement and social issues evidence from European oil and gas industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(3), 636–662.
23.
EdvinssonL., & MaloneM. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realising your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. Harper Collins.
24.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
25.
GaleottiR. M., CamilleriM. A., RobertoF., & SepeF. (2023). Stakeholder engagement disclosures in sustainability reports: Evidence from Italian food companies. Business Ethics, The Environment and Responsibility, 34(1), 260–279.
26.
García-SanchezI. M., & Noguera-GamezL. (2017). Integrated reporting and stakeholder engagement: The effect on information asymmetry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(5), 395–413.
27.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). GRI 102: General disclosures 2016. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1037/gri-102-general-disclosures-2016.pdf
28.
GuthrieJ., & ParkerL. D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–175.
29.
GuthrieJ., & PettyR. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241–251.
30.
GuthrieJ., PettyR., YongvanichK., & RicceriF. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293.
31.
HealyP. M., & PalepuK. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(3), 405–440.
32.
HendratamaT. D., & HuangY. C. (2021). Corporate social responsibility, firm value and life cycle: Evidence from Southeast Asian countries. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(4), 557–597.
33.
HsuF. J. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility extend firm life-cycles?Management Decision, 56(110), 2408–2436.
34.
HwabamunguB., & ShepherdP. (2024). The influence of stakeholder involvement in the adoption of digital technologies in the UK construction industry. Informatics, 11(4), 1–20.
35.
HwangT. L., & LiuY. H. (2025). How ESG engagement shapes firm life cycle progression: Evidence from US data. Finance Research Letters, 83(13), 1–9.
36.
JanN., KarnA. L., LiZ., & LiuX. (2021). The relationship between corporate social responsibility reporting and firm performance and the moderating role of firm life cycle stages: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 13(18), 1–12.
37.
JayaramanK., JayashreeS., & DorasamyM. (2023). The effects of green innovations in organizations: Influence of stakeholders. Sustainability, 15(2), 1–13.
38.
JensenM. C., & MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
39.
LeeW. J., & ChoiS. U. (2018). Effects of corporate life cycle on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Korea. Sustainability, 10(10), 1–17.
40.
LevB. (2001). Intangibles: Management, and reporting. Brookings Institution Press.
41.
Loulou-BakloutiS. (2024). Does board gender diversity affect intellectual capital voluntary disclosure? Evidence from Tunisia. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 21(2), 193–210.
42.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
43.
MaY., & ChenB. (2023). Impact of stakeholder pressure on green innovation: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 68(5), 1165–1186.
44.
MajiS. G. (2022). Disclosure pattern of labour practices and decent work and its impact on corporate financial performance: Evidence from Asia. Global Business Review, 23(4), 1054–1070.
45.
MajiS. G., & GoswamiM. (2018). IC disclosure practices in India using a comprehensive disclosure framework: A study of knowledge-based companies. Journal of Indian Business Research, 10(4), 345–363.
46.
MajiS. G., & LohiaP. (2026). Stakeholder engagement, climate sensitivity and ESG disclosures in Indian firms: Insights from a novel ESG framework. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 27(1), 197–216.
47.
MajiS. G., & SahaR. (2021). Gender diversity and financial performance in an emerging economy: Empirical evidence from India. Management Research Review, 44(12), 1660–1683.
48.
MajiS. G., & SahaR. (2024). Female directors and firms’ financial performance: An empirical application of Kanter’s theory in the Indian context. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 24(4), 882–899.
49.
MichelonG., PilonatoS., & RicceriF. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33(8), 59–78.
50.
MillerD., & FriesenP. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30(10), 1161–1183.
51.
MitchellR. K., AgleB. R., & WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
52.
MonteiroA. P., CepedaC., BorgesA. P., & VieiraE. (2025). Does CSR committee presence, stakeholder engagement, gender equality (SDG 5) and firm value influence ESG performance reporting? An EU pre and during COVID-19 analysis. Measuring Business Excellence, 29(2), 171–192.
53.
MooneeapenO., AbhayawansaS., RamdhonyD., & AtchiaZ. (2022). New insights into the nexus between board characteristics and intellectual capital disclosure: The case of the emerging economy of Mauritius. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 12(1), 29–51.
54.
NadeemM. (2019). Does board gender diversity influence voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital in initial public offering prospectuses? Evidence from China. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28(2), 100–118.
55.
NashierT., & GuptaA. (2023). Ownership concentration and firm performance in India. Global Business Review, 24(2), 353–370.
56.
NguyenN. P., & AdomakoS. (2022). Stakeholder pressure for eco-friendly practices, international orientation, and eco-innovation: A study of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 79–88.
57.
ParkB. (2021). Corporate social and financial performance: The role of firm life cycle in business groups. Sustainability, 13(13), 1–16.
58.
PetruzzelliS., & BadiaF. (2024). The quality assessment of stakeholder engagement disclosure in the EU mandatory non-financial reporting framework. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(1), 126–148.
59.
Pucheta-MartınezM. C., Bel-OmsI., & RodriguesL. L. (2020). Does stakeholder engagement encourage environmental reporting? The mediating role of firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3025–3037.
60.
RajabalizadehJ., & OradiJ. (2022). Managerial ability and intellectual capital disclosure. Asian Review of Accounting, 30(1), 59–76.
61.
SalviA., VitollaF., GiakoumelouA., RaimoN., & RubinoM. (2020). Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reports: The effect on firm value. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160(11), 1–8.
62.
Seroka-StolkaO., & FijorekK. (2020). Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Proactive environmental strategy, stakeholder pressure and the moderating effect of firm size. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2338–2354.
63.
SetiariniA., GaniL., DiyantyV., & AdharianiD. (2023). Strategic orientation, risk-taking, corporate life cycle and environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices: Evidence from ASEAN countries. Business Strategy and Development, 6(3), 491–502.
64.
SmritiN., & DasN. (2022). Do female directors drive intellectual capital performance? Evidence from Indian listed firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(5), 1052–1080.
65.
Solana-IbáñezJ., & Caravaca-GarratonM. (2021). Stakeholder engagement and corporate social reputation: The influence of exogenous factors on efficiency performance (stakeholder engagement and exogenous factors). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), 1891–1905.
66.
TangZ., & TangJ. (2018). Stakeholder corporate social responsibility orientation congruence, entrepreneurial orientation and environmental performance of Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 634–651.
67.
Tejedo-RomeroF., RodriguesL. L., & CraigR. (2017). Women directors and disclosure of intellectual capital information. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(3), 123–131.
68.
ThuL. B., & KhuongN. V. (2023). How does the corporate life cycle influence Vietnamese firms’ corporate social responsibility?Cogent Economics and Finance, 11(1), 1–18.
69.
TonelliA., RizzatoF., BussoD., & DevalleA. (2024). Integrating intellectual capital disclosure in an integrated thinking perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(3), 588–612.
70.
TrihermantoF., & NainggolanY. A. (2018). Corporate life cycle, CSR, and dividend policy: Empirical evidence of Indonesian listed firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(2), 159–178.
71.
UllahS., AhmadT., LyuB., SamiA., KukretiM., & YvazA. (2023). Integrating external stakeholders for improvement in green innovation performance: Role of green knowledge integration capability and regulatory pressure. International Journal of Innovation Science, 16(4), 640–657.
72.
VeltriS. (2014). Do stakeholder expectations shape organizational intellectual capital reports?Knowledge and Process Management, 21(3), 177–186.
73.
VitollaF., RaimoN., RubinoM., & GarzoniA. (2019). How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1591–1606.
74.
XuJ., HarisM., & LiuF. (2023). Intellectual capital efficiency and firms’ financial performance based on business life cycle. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(3), 653–682.
75.
YuJ., LoC. W. H., & LiP. H. Y. (2017). Organizational visibility, stakeholder environmental pressure and corporate environmental responsiveness in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 371–384.
76.
YuW., & RamanathanR. (2015). An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green operations practices and environmental performance. International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6390–6407.
77.
ZhangH., YeH., DongL., & WangJ. (2025). CSR performance of dual-class firms in different life cycle stages. Applied Economics, 57(22), 2839–2852.
78.
ZhangF., & ZhuL. (2019). Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Stakeholder pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1012–1026.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
