Media pressure and social and environmental reporting of British Telecom:
A spectacular perspective
Petros Vourvachis, Sumohon Matilal and Lynne Oats
Dr Petros Vourvachis*
Prof Lynne Oats
University of Exeter
University of Exeter
Business School
Business School
Streatham Court
Streatham Court
Rennes Drive, Exeter
Rennes Drive, Exeter
EX4 4PU
EX4 4PU
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 724 480
Tel: +44 (0) 1392 726 267
E-mail: P.Vourvachis@exeter.ac.uk
E-mail: L.M.Oats@exeter.ac.uk
Dr Sumohon Matilal
University of Exeter
Business School
Streatham Court
Rennes Drive, Exeter
EX4 4PU
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 725930
E-mail: S.Matilal@exeter.ac.uk
* corresponding author
1
Abstract
This paper investigates the Social and Environmental Reporting (SER) practices of British
Telecom (BT) and particularly adds to the literature examining the relationship of media
pressure and SER. It extends Media Agenda Setting Theory and content analysis based research
by using Guy Debord’s (1983) work on the Society of the Spectacle (Oakland CA: AK Press)
and focusing on the manifest as well as the latent communication content of the examined
sources. BT’s considered communications include annual reports, SER publications and press
releases, whilst considered related media sources are newspaper articles, televised
communications and archived internet sources, over a 17 year period.
Despite their purportedly objective nature, both media and BT’s communications are found to
be carefully crafted narratives, which through multiple revisions and edits are shaped into
apparently ‘linear’ events. Although the public would only read the provided information as a
description of the events, Debord’s frame assists in revealing how symbols can be manipulated
and information flow can be controlled (by structuring and scheduling the emission, volume
and rate of communication flow) through an iterative interaction process between organisations
and media, in an attempt to negotiate meaning. In this case, control of information involves
inter alia concealment or downplay of news, as well as justifications and indirect references to
issues raised by the media, in order to manage discontent particularly associated with job losses
and poor customer service. Concepts such as ‘stakeholder interests’ and ‘sustainability’ seem
to be particularly susceptible to manipulation.
2
Introduction
This paper investigates the Social and Environmental Reporting (SER) practices of British
Telecom (BT). BT is a UK-based telecommunications services company and one of the largest
in the world, with operations in over 170 countries. The paper particularly adds to the literature
examining the relationship of media pressure and SER. It uses Guy Debord’s (1983) work on
the Society of the Spectacle and focuses on the manifest as well as the latent communication
content of the examined sources.
Most previous examinations of the relationship of media pressure and SER employ a
Media Agenda Setting Theory (MAST) perspective and are confined in using content analysis
(see e.g. Brown and Deegan, 1998; Patten, 2002; Islam and Deegan, 2010; Islam and Islam,
2011). According to MAST, increased media attention would lead to increased community
concern for a particular issue, and the media are thus “not seen as mirroring public priorities;
rather, they are seen as shaping them” (Brown and Deegan, 1998, p. 25). Studies employing
MAST arguments however tend to ignore the importance of other stakeholders influencing
corporate SER decisions and particularly the potential of organisations manipulating or shaping
community perceptions. Organisations could either do so directly, through their respective
communication channels, or indirectly, by controlling the information exchanged and topics
discussed and essentially setting the terms in their ongoing dialogue with media and effectively
silencing them. Likewise, the very diverse nature of, and underlying intentions behind, media
coverage of organisational social and environmental activities seem to have also been
downplayed by MAST studies.
This study aims to provide a critical understanding of the relationship between media
coverage of corporate social and environmental impacts and SER by considering a wide array
of sources. BT’s considered communications include annual reports, SER publications and
press releases, whilst considered related media sources are newspaper articles, televised
communications and archived internet sources, over a 17 year period. For BT, similarly to a
number of other major global telecommunication organisations, this was a very intense period,
characterised by domestic privatisation and downsizing, with hundreds of thousands of
employees losing their job in the UK and with thousands of jobs being shifted overseas. The
paper therefore particularly focuses on BT’s interactions with media over its social practices,
and offers some insights into how the company managed its deregulation process, which could
be potentially transferable to other settings, given the wider telecommunication deregulation
observed around the world over the last at least half a century (Huurdeman, 2003).
3
This is a work in progress report as more data is scheduled to be collected and only a
fraction of the collected data have been considered so far, but we are confident that by the time
of the conference the project will be at a much more advanced stage, close to completion, and
will present a worthy contribution to the programme. The next sections outline the literature
review and conceptual framework arguments utilised. The methods’ section follows whilst the
subsequent findings and discussion section reviews the preliminary findings.
Literature review
Most extant research papers exploring the organisational social and environmental reporting
interactions with media seem to employ MAST as theoretical perspective. MAST has received
considerable attention in the social and environmental accounting literature (see e.g. Brown
and Deegan, 1998; Esrock and Leichty, 1998; Deegan et al., 2000; Deegan et al., 2002; Patten,
2002; Tilling, 2004), where it is argued that a relationship exists between the relative emphasis
given by the media to various topics and the degree of importance these topics have for the
general public (Zéghal and Ahmed, 1990; Ader, 1995):
Increased media attention is believed to lead to increased community concern for a
particular issue … the media are not seen as mirroring public priorities; rather, they are
seen as shaping them (Brown and Deegan, 1998, p. 25).
MAST, therefore, considers media to be the single most important stakeholder to set the agenda
in the organisation-society interplay. It can be considered to be a ‘hand in glove’ compatriot
with legitimacy theory (Woodward et al., 2001). Organisations, whenever they feel that their
legitimacy is threatened from the increased media attention, are expected to respond with
increased social and environmental disclosures; MAST, hence, advances a reactive, externally
driven and certainly not altruistic corporate stance towards SER.
Despite the significant empirical evidence supporting this view (see e.g. Ader, 1993;
Deegan et al., 2000; Deegan et al., 2002; Patten, 2002) though, its main disadvantage is that it
disregards the importance of other key-players in shaping public concern and, consequently,
their effect on SER. As Brown and Deegan (1998) admit, “the media is not as effective in some
industries as others in shaping community expectations…also, there is a possibility that
dominant players in some industries had strategically planned the timing and format of their
environmental disclosures in a bid to manipulate or shape community perceptions and
concerns…rather than simply reacting to changes in community concerns” (p. 33). This
suggests that a more critical perspective may apply, considering both reactive and proactive
4
organisational stances. Furthermore, Patten (2002) also acknowledges a number of caveats in
his analysis, most notably that, “it is always possible that the relations noted in this study are
due not to the variable of interest, but rather to an omitted, related factor” (p.169) – a problem
that arguably most quantitative types of analyses face.
A number of papers have further examined media as part of an attempt to explain SER
but without considering this to be the prime objective. These papers have predominantly
employed legitimacy theory and have employed more sophisticated quantitative analyses in
greater proportions than the aforementioned MAST literature. The research objectives of these
papers are quite diverse as the below table illustrates.
Research paper
Research theme
Explicit theory used
Aerts and Cormier (2009)
environmental disclosure and Legitimacy theory
press releases
Branco
and
Rodriguess determinants of disclosure
(2008)
Legitimacy
theory
and
public pressure theory
Campbell and Beck (2004)
websites and allegations
Chen et al. (2013)
environmental
Legitimacy theory
liability -
disclosure
Coetzee and van Staden mining accidents
Legitimacy theory, MAST
(2011)
and stakeholder theory
Cormier et al. (2004)
management’s perceptions
Legitimacy
theory
stakeholder theory
Dawkins & Fraas (2011)
climate change disclosure
Harris (2001)
ethical decision making
Neu et al. (1998)
impression management
Rupley et al. (2012)
governance,
media
Legitimacy theory
Legitimacy theory
and
-
disclosure quality
Savage et al. (2000)
environmental reporting in Legitimacy theory
Canada
Thomas (2012)
governance at state-owned
-
enterprises
Tilling and Tilt (2010)
SER in Rothmans’ 1956- Legitimacy theory
1999 reports
5
and
Table 1 SER studies examining media as secondary objective
There are therefore theoretical and methodological limitations associated with the extant
literature exploring the relationship of media with SER, whether this being the prime or a
secondary objective. At the theoretical level, most investigations employ social and political
frameworks without considering critical interpretations. Importantly, the possibility that
organisations proactively attempt to control the information exchanged and topics discussed
and essentially setting the terms in their ongoing dialogue with media and effectively silencing
them is largely ignored. Furthermore, the diverse motivations behind media decisions for e.g.
favourable or not coverage of organisational social and environmental activities seem to have
also not be explored at length. At the methodological level, most papers seem to focus on
content analysis and most frequently of annual reports without comprehensively considering a
wider variety of media and organisational communications. This paper therefore contributes to
the literature examining the relationship of media pressure and SER by using Guy Debord’s
(1983) work on the Society of the Spectacle and by examining a wide array of sources and
focusing on the manifest as well as the latent communication content of the examined sources.
The paper further considers tabloid in addition to broadsheet media articles, in order to ensure
the widest possible coverage.
However the paper further contributes to the relevant literature by focusing on an
organisation that is ‘relatively innocent of explicit sin’. In general it would be expected that
media are not as effective in some industries as others in shaping community expectations.
Most previous studies have looked at industries such as oil, energy and mining or at companies
that have a long ‘guilty’ past such as Nike. By focusing on an organisation that is ‘relatively
innocent’ the paper therefore further explores whether similar observations can be made as
regards the relationship of media with SER.
Conceptual framework
In brief, Debord (1983) argues that ‘modern society is a society of the spectacle’. As he explains
(paraphrasing Marx’s opening to Capital):
In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as
an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved
away into a representation.
He further suggests that “we are now at the stage of the spectacle where it dominates the
mediascape, politics, and more and more domains of everyday life”. The society of the
6
spectacle is still a commodity society, ultimately rooted in the production but reorganised at a
higher and more abstract level (Best and Kellner, 1997). ‘Spectacle’ is a complex term that
“unifies and explains a great diversity of apparent phenomena” (Debord, 1983, §10). In one
sense, it refers to a media and consumer society, organized around the consumption of images,
commodities and spectacles. However, “the concept also refers to the vast institutional and
technical apparatus of contemporary capitalism, to all the means and methods power employs,
outside of direct force, which subject individuals to societal manipulation, while obscuring the
nature and effects of capitalism’s power and deprivations” Best and Kellner, 1997, p. 84).
Debord builds on earlier expressed Marxian views to highlight that the advanced
abstraction of the spectacle brings in its wake a new stage of deprivation. Marx spoke of the
degradation of being into having, in which creative praxis is reduced to the mere possession of
an object, and in which need for the other is reduced to greed of the self. Debord speaks of a
further reduction, the transformation of having into appearing, where the material object gives
way to its semiotic representation and draws “its immediate prestige and ultimate function”
(§17) as image, in which look, style and appearance function as signs of social prestige. Within
this abstract system, “it is the appearance of the commodity that is more decisive that its actual
use value, and the symbolic packaging of commodities – be they cars or presidents – generates
an image industry and new commodity aesthetics” (Best and Kellner, 1997, p. 85).
In Debord’s work, therefore, the role of media is central, as media culture continues to
arbitrate social and political issues, deciding what is real, important and vital. As he particularly
notes, “media rumors acquire instantly – or at worst after three or four repetitions – the
indisputable status of age-old historical evidence… when the spectacle stops talking about
something for three days, it is as if it did not exist”. In an SER context, and particularly when
considering the relationship of media with the organisations, how e.g. organisations act over
their social and environmental responsibilities seems to be no longer as important as how they
seem to be acting - an argument which is also largely supported by the reviewed above
legitimacy and MAST- focused studies. Debord nevertheless further argues that “In the new
millennium, media culture is more important than ever in serving as a force of socialization,
providing models of… socially approved and disapproved behavior… and appropriate role
models”.
These models may increasingly involve SER, which then becomes part of the spectacle.
As Debord notes “anyone can join the spectacle, in order publicly to adopt, or sometimes
secretly practice, an entirely different activity from whatever specialism first made their name”.
SER can then become a particularly prosperous field for media involvement and ultimate
7
control. In a landscape where “contemporary events… retreat into a remote and fabulous realm
of unverifiable stories, uncheckable statistics, unlikely explanations and untenable reasoning…
There are only the media’s professionals to give an answer, with a few respectful rectifications
or demonstrations”. More specifically, “the public needs the media to tell them how important
in issue the environment is as individuals do not gain knowledge of this from real world cues”.
Relevant media expects would be employed to influence public’s judgements over
organisation’s social and environmental impacts. “Whenever individuals lose the capacity to
see things for themselves, the expert is there to offer an absolute reassurance… the most useful
expect, of course, is the one who can lie”. Organisations would then be expected to be
particularly careful on managing their relations with media, given that “the ability to falsify (of
those who control all information) is unlimited… to be known outside spectacular relations is
already to be known as an enemy of the society”.
Best and Kellner (1997) particularly note that we are now in a new stage of spectacle,
which they term ‘the interactive spectacle’, that involves an implosion of subject and object,
and the creation of new cultural spaces and forms and new subjects. Earlier theorisations
suggested that the media and technology were powerful control mechanisms keeping
individuals passive and serialized, watching and consuming, rather than acting and doing. The
subject of this new stage of spectacle, by contrast, is more active and new technologies like the
computer, multimedia, and virtual reality devices are more interactive. Given also the lack of
standardisation of SER, a ‘spectacular interaction’ would be therefore expected to take place,
whereby both the media and the organisations would be expected to have their own agenda,
very different to what is openly shared, and attempt to influence general public’s opinions of
the organisation’s social and environmental impacts.
Methods
A longitudinal case study research design has been adopted, combining content analysis with
a qualitative approach focusing on discourse. As Denscombe (2003) points out, “the decision
to use a case study approach is a strategic decision that relates to the scale and scope of an
investigation, and it does not, at least in principle, dictate which method or methods must be
used” (p. 32). Indeed, it seems that in SER a number of studies adopting case study designs
involve the use of either qualitative analysis or quantitative (content or statistical) analysis.
Despite the fact that, under any analysis conditions, there is a general concern over the case
studies’ basis for generalisation (see, e.g. the concerns expressed by Guthrie and Parker, 1989;
Deegan et al., 2002), “case studies, like experiments, are generalisable to theoretical
8
propositions and not to populations or universes… the goal is to do a ‘generalising’ and not a
particularising” (Yin, 1994, p.10). the longitudinal design further assists the examination, as it
involves a detailed and intensive analysis of single organisation and ‘how a situation changes
over time’ (Bryman and Bell, 2007, p.64; see also., Campbell et al., 2003; Deegan et al., 2002;
Deegan and Gordon, 1996; O’Dwyer and Gray, 1998; Guthrie and Parker, 1989; Hogner, 1982,
for similar designs).
Content analysis was employed to code social and environmental information in annual
reports and newspaper articles over a 17 year period (1996 to 2012). The disclosure topic as
well as the positive vs. negative categorisation was employed similarly to a number of other
studies (e.g. Deegan and Gordon, 1996; Deegan et al., 2000; 2002; Patten and Crampton, 2004;
Aerts and Cormier, 2009; Islam and Deegan, 2010. As a recording unit of analyses sentences
were employed, as this provides “complete, reliable and meaningful data for further analysis”
(Milne and Adler, 1999, p. 243). In addition to this quantitative content analysis approach, so
as to focus on the manifest content of information, qualitative analysis was also employed, in
an attempt to investigate the latent content. This allowed to additionally consider a wider array
of data, such as social and environmental reports, press releases, relevant information in social
media, other media coverage (including broadsheets and tabloids) and other archival
information (similarly to e.g. Makela and Nasi, 2010). This largely followed Buhr and Reiter
(2006), which implicitly draws on Yin’s (2003) ‘pattern matching’ and ‘explanation building’
discourse analysis techniques. It thus involves ‘scanning’ the text for relevant information,
supportive or not, of the presented theoretical arguments, to use as input for further theoretical
refinements, in an attempt to explain all the data.
Findings and discussion
Figure 1 below summarises the findings from content analysis. A relatively high
correlation of total SER with total number of media articles (and particularly broadsheets) is
noted although the correlation (perhaps not unexpectedly) appears to be lower than previous
studies examining interactions of organisations coming from more ‘sinful’ industries. Similarly
to these studies, most annual report sentences appear to be positive, and most media articles
appear to be negative.
9
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Newspaper articles
(total)
2000
AR disclosure
1500
1000
500
0
2500
Broadsheets
2000
Tabloids
1500
1000
500
0
Figure 1 Media attention and annual report social and environmental disclosure
Despite therefore looking at a ‘relatively innocent’ organisation it seems that there is
still a strong correlation between BT’s SER and relative media coverage. It should be noted
however that unlike previous studies, there is a stronger relationship between total SER and
total media articles (as opposed to negative ones); and that the relationship seems to be stronger
in the first years as opposed to the later ones. The spectacle therefore seems to be moving as
there are evidently two periods of interest. From 1996 till around 2003 where BT seems to be
more closely following and responding to any criticism raised by the media; and from there
onward, where BT seems to be more proactive in their disclosure decisions. It should be noted
that the broadsheets included in the sample are five times more than the tabloids (approximately
10
3,000 to 15,000) and show a much higher correlation, suggesting that BT is more closely
following what is published in the broadsheet newspapers.
A closer look at BT’s and media’s disclosure, as presented in following Figure 2,
suggests that there are conflicting representations over BT’s social and environmental impacts
and provides further support to Debord’s arguments that the spectacle constantly moves over
issues such as social and environmental.
Figure 2 Disclosure theme – BT (top) and media (bottom)
Three main observations can be made. Firstly that the organisation does not have a clear
view as regards its responsibilities (given that proportions of thematic disclosure change over
time with no obvious pattern). Secondly, that the media also do not have a clear view as regards
the companies responsibilities as they also change their emphasis over time to serve their own
short-term interests. And thirdly, that although as the previous diagram illustrated the
organisation is generally responding to the media pressure, particularly in the first years, this
closer look illustrates that actually their perceived ‘responsibilities’ as reflected in the relevant
disclosure are in conflict with the media’s perceptions i.e. the organisation does not respond to
11
the specific area of criticism, with the potential exception of the environment (which shows a
higher correlation, perhaps representing a more straightforward reaction to a relevant
‘legitimacy threat). Instead it more frequently responds with customer and employee
disclosure, whatever the criticism may be, perhaps in an attempt to ensure support from most
critical stakeholders.
A closer look at media coverage of BT’s responsibilities indeed suggests that media
seem to be confused as to which the primary responsibility of BT is:
–
‘BT software failure cuts off emergency services’ (The Guardian, 26 February 2000)
–
‘Embarrassed BT runs out of credit’ (The Guardian, 17 February 2001)
–
‘Wrestling with the hand dealt by BT’ (The Times, 7 April, 2003)
–
‘Internet wrangle tarnishes BT figures’ (The Guardian, 12 November 2004)
–
‘BT to shed a further 15,000 jobs as it cuts dividend and sinks into the red’ (The Times,
15 May 2009)
–
‘Job cuts hit BT’s performance’ (The Daily Telegraph, 11 December 2010)
Media primarily seem to emphasise the customer and employee aspects potentially due to that
the environment has no voice, but also due to the company’s relatively smaller environmental
impacts. Whilst the media emphasise BT’s poor profitability, they also quote union’s
determination to oppose further cuts:
BT suffered the indignity of being told by one of the world’s leading credit rating
agencies, Standard & Poor’s, that since the group could not communicate how it is
going to reduce its £30bn mountain of debt its credit quality is probably going to have
to be downgraded again (The Guardian, 17 February 2001)
Morale has been affected by BT’s huge programme of job cuts, which has resulted in
100,000 redundancies in the past five years (The Guardian, 5 April 1996)
We are getting seriously fed up with the company. They gain no brownie points by
cutting jobs when they should be growing their market share’ (The Guardian, 5
December 2001)
… by also quoting the negative impacts of job cuts on customer service:
BT has apologised to its corporate customers after drastic job cuts (35,000 jobs over
the past three years) left the telecoms giant struggling to keep up with soaring demand
for broadband (The Daily Telegraph, 11 December 2010)
BT’s offshoring policies particularly highlighted the controversies over the organisation’s
responsibilities:
12
‘The… biggest union for BT workers in the UK, is campaigning against the offshoring
policy, arguing that thousands of call centre and information technology jobs are at risk.
BT should consult unions before making decisions about job immigration. For BT to
earn trust, its stakeholders should be given an opportunity to influence such decisions
in advance’ (Financial Times, 8 March 2004)
Although BT appear to have become more proactive over SER in the later examined years,
their earlier commitment may have been initiated due to the considerable job losses and
associated dissatisfaction at the time:
British Telecom plans to become the first mainstream UK business to undergo a social
audit... The move reflects growing pressure on business to act ethically.... (The
Guardian, 25 November 1996)
‘BT Chairman, Sir Iain Vallance, said the moves were part of the company’s attempts
to build its reputation, which is seen as a key competitive weapon in the tough telecom
markets.
Sir Ian said: “A good reputation is a very real asset for a business: it can improve a
company’s competitiveness, with all the advantages that can bring. So it is not from
altruistic motives that we have been active in these areas. It makes sound business
sense.”' (The Guardian, 25 November 1996)
A closer look at BT’s reporting further suggests that the organisation does not have a clear
view as regards its responsibilities. At the same time that BT was defending restructuring and
job losses, it was also emphasising the increase of temporary personnel as prerequisite of
maintaining positive industrial relations:
The number of BT’s employees has fallen substantially since 1991 ... At the same time,
BT has increased its use of temporary contract personnel, where this has been cost
effective.... BT expects this trend to continue where it is appropriate in the context of
its overall resourcing strategy and the maintenance of positive industrial relations (BT
Annual report, 1998, p.11).
Despite the aforementioned claims, BT was further emphasising its commitment to employees:
BT sees its relationship with its people as critical to the future and its employee relations
agenda focuses on ensuring that employees feel valued, on managing change
constructively, and on creating an environment and culture within which every
employee can maximise his or her contribution (BT Annual report, 1997, p.11)
BT did not disclose specific information on the hotly debated offshoring policy in its 2004
annual report, but instead provided general justifications, such as:
The changing nature of the markets in which we operate, our focus on cost leadership
and our investment in new services has impacted the shape of our permanent workforce
(BT Annual report, 2004, p. 16)
13
BT also stressed the benefits of ‘flexible’ workforce to their customer care:
We’ve made improvements in many areas...While we are largely on top of things now,
lessons have been learnt in making sure that we get better forecasts from our
communications provider customers and by having a greater flexibility in our
resourcing’ (BT Annual report, 2011, p. 9)
BT later attempts to promote its engagement with sustainability could further be interpreted as
attempts to control the dialogue with media over its social and environmental responsibilities
and effectively silence them:
We were one of the first companies in the world to grasp the link between being
sustainable and succeeding as a business. Now, we’re focusing on integrating
sustainability into everything we do’ (BT Better future report, 2013, p. 6)
Preliminary findings therefore suggest that Debord’s frame can be particularly useful
in explaining the SER practices of BT. The spectacular framework highlights the controversial
nature of SER, as neither the organisations nor media seem to agree on what the company’s
social and environmental responsibilities are. The more thorough consideration of the collected
evidence and the scheduled inclusion in the analysis of additional data is believed to make this
contribution clearer. Despite their purportedly objective nature, both media and BT’s
communications are found to be carefully crafted narratives, which through multiple revisions
and edits are shaped into apparently ‘linear’ events. Although the public would only read the
provided information as a description of the events, Debord’s frame assists in revealing how
symbols can be manipulated and information flow can be controlled (by structuring and
scheduling the emission, volume and rate of communication flow) through an iterative
interaction process between organisations and media, in an attempt to negotiate meaning. As
SER remains largely unregulated, it is neither practised systematically nor able to claim, “either
universal recognition or universal definition” (Gray et al., 1995, p. 47). This leaves room for
organisations, such as BT, to control information, in order to address criticism and portray
favourable descriptions of relevant events. In this case, control of information involves inter
alia concealment or downplay of news, as well as justifications and indirect references to issues
raised by the media, in order to manage discontent particularly associated with job losses and
poor customer service.
Concepts such as ‘stakeholder interests’ and ‘sustainability’ seem to also be particularly
susceptible to manipulation. Indeed, there seems to be an ongoing negotiation of their meaning
through interaction of BT with media. When the (comparable to previous studies) findings from
14
content analysis are also considered, it is revealed that manipulation and control strategies are
particularly evident at times of ‘crisis’ – which are also manifested in ‘peaks’ of negative media
attention as well as (subsequent and usually positive) corporate disclosure. The findings
therefore highlight the need for greater regulation of the field, in order to ensure that
organisations do not opportunistically carry on shaping their social and environmental
responsibilities to their own interest.
References
Ader, C R. (1995), “A Longitudinal Study of Agenda Setting for thee Issue of Environmental
Pollution”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 72, No 2, pp. 300 –
311.
Aerts, W. and Cormier, D. (2009), “Media legitimacy and corporate environmental
communication”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34, pp. 1-27.
Branco, M C. and Rodrigues, L L. (2008), “Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure
by Portuguese companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83, pp. 685-701.
Best, S. and Kellner, D. (1997), The postmodern turn, New York: The Guildford Press.
Brown, N and Deegan, C. (1998), “The Public Disclosure of Environmental Performance
Information – a Dual Test of Media Agenda Setting Theory and Legitimacy Theory”,
Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 29, No1, pp. 21 – 41.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods. 2nd edition. New York. Oxford
University Press.
Buhr, N and Reiter, S. (2006), “Ideology, the Environment and One World View: A Discourse
Analysis of Noranda’s Environmental and Sustainable Development Reports”, Advances
in Environmental Accounting & Management, Vol. 3, pp. 1-48.
Campbell, D. and Beck, A.C. (2004), “Answering allegations: the use of the corporate website
for restorative ethical and social disclosure”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol.
13, No. 2/3, pp. 100-116.
Campbell, D, Craven, B and Shrives, P. (2003), “Voluntary Social Reporting in Three FTSE
Sectors: A Comment on Perception and Legitimacy”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 16, No 4, p. 558-581.
Chen, J C, Cho, C H. and Patten, D M. (2013), “Initiating disclosure of environmental liability
information: an empirical analysis of firm choice”, Journal of Business Ethics, DOI
10.1007/s10551-013-1939-0.
15
Coetzee, C.M. and van Staden, C.J. (2011), “Disclosure responses to mining accidents: South
African Evidence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35, pp. 232-246.
Cormier, D, Gordon, I M. and Magnan, M. (2004), “Corporate environmental disclosure:
contrasting management’s perceptions with reality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49,
pp. 143-165.
Dawkins, C and Fraas, J W. (2011), “Coming clean: the impact of environmental performance
and visibility on corporate climate change disclosure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
100, pp. 303-322.
Debord, G. (1983), Society of the Spectacle, Oakland CA: AK Press
Deegan, C and Gordon, B. (1996), “A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of
Australian Corporations”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26, No 3, pp. 187-199.
Deegan, C, Rankin, M and Voght, P. (2000), “Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major Social
Incidents: Australian Evidence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24, No 1, pp. 101-130.
Deegan, C, Rankin, M and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the Corporate Social and
Environmental Disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No 3, pp. 312-343.
Denscombe, M. (2003), The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Research Projects, 2nd Ed.,
Chestnut Street, PA: Open University Press.
Esrock, S.L and Leichty, G.B. (1998), "Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages: Selfpresentation or Agenda-setting?" Public Relations Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 305-319.
Gray, R, Kouhy, R and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A
Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No 2, pp. 47-77.
Guthrie, J E and Parker, L D. (1989), “Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy
Theory”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 9, No 76, pp. 343-352.
Harris, H. (2001), “Content analysis of secondary data: a study of courage in managerial
decision making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 191-208.
Hogner, R.H. (1982), ‘Corporate Social Reporting: Eight Decades of Development at US
Steel’, Research in Corporate Performance and Policy, pp.243-250.
Huurderman, A A. (2003), The worldwide history of telecommunications, Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Islam, M A. and Deegan, C. (2010), “Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social
responsibility performance information: a study of two global clothing and sports retail
companies”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 131-148.
16
Islam, M A. and Islam, M A. (2011), “Environmental incidents in a developing country and
corporate environmental disclosures”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 6, No 3, pp.
229-248.
Makela, H and Nasi, S. (2010), “Social responsibilities of MNCs in downsizing operations: A
Finnish forest sector case analysed from the stakeholder, social contract and legitimacy
theory point of view”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23, No 2, pp.
149-174.
Milne, M J and Adler, R W. (1999), “Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental
Disclosures Content Analysis”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12,
No 2, pp. 237-256.
Neu, D., Warsame, H. and Pedwell, K. (1998), “Managing public impressions: environmental
disclosures in annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23, No. 3,
pp. 265-282.
O‟Dwyer, B and Gray, R H. (1998), ‘Corporate Social Reporting in the Republic of Ireland: A
Longitudinal Study’, Irish Accounting Review, 5(2), pp. 1-34.
Patten, D. (2002), “Media Exposure, Public Policy Pressure, and Environmental Disclosure:
An Examination of the Impact of Tri Data Availability”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 26, No
2, pp. 152-171.
Patten, D M and Crampton, W. (2004), “Legitimacy and the Internet: An Examination of
Corporate Web Page Environmental Disclosures”, Advances in Environmental
Accounting and Management, (Ed) M. Freedman and B. Jaggi, Vol. 2, Oxford: Elsevier,
pp. 31-57.
Rupley, K H, Brown, D and Marshall, R S. (2012), “Governance, media and the quality of
environmental disclosure”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 610640.
Savage, A, Cataldo, A.J. and Rowlands, J. (2000), “A multi-case investigation of
environmental legitimation in annual reports”, Advances in Environmental Accounting
and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 45-81.
Thomas, A. (2012), “Governance at South African state-owned enterprises: what do annual
reports and the print media tell us?” Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8, No 4, pp. 448470.
Tilling, M. (2004), “Some Thoughts on Legitimacy Theory in Social and Environmental
Accounting”, Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, Vol. 24, No 2, pp. 3-7.
17
Tilling, M. and Tilt, C.A. (2010), “The edge of legitimacy: voluntary social and environmental
reporting in Rothmans’ 1956-1999 annual reports”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 55-81.
Woodward, D, Edwards, P and Birkin, F. (2001), “Some Evidence on Executives’ Views of
Corporate Social Responsibility”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 33, pp. 357 – 397.
Yin, R K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Ed., Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Yin, R K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Ed., Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Zéghal, D and Ahmed, S A. (1990), “Comparison of Social Responsibility Information
Disclosure Media Used by Canadian Firms”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 38-53.
18