The Role of Discourse in Bridging the Text and Context of
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting
Helen Tregidga
Postgraduate Student
University of Otago
and
Research Officer
Auckland University of Technology
helen.tregidga@aut.ac.nz
phone: +64 9 921 9999
Markus Milne
Professor
Department of Accounting, Finance, and Information Systems
University of Canterbury
markus.milne@canterbury.ac.nz
Kate Kearins
Professor
Faculty of Business
Auckland University of Technology
kate.kearins@aut.ac.nz
Submission to the Fifth Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference,
Auckland, New Zealand, 8 July – 10 July.
Abstract
Purpose: The paper aims to highlight the value and potential of discursive approaches – in
particular for the study of corporate social and environmental reports and communication.
Design/methodology/approach: A review of published literature on social and
environmental, or ‘sustainability’ reporting is undertaken which identifies research gaps and
an emerging genre of discourse-based studies. A series of guidelines for future research based
on a discourse analytic approach to the study of corporate social and environmental reports
and communication is provided.
Findings: The paper advocates a focus on text and context beyond what has been able to be
achieved by content analysis and benchmarking studies. It promotes research on the
production of corporate social and environmental reports, the messages contained in those
reports, and on their reception (or consumption) and appropriation (or interpretation). It
centres attention on utilising these methods to understand how reporting and reports work to
produce and maintain (or not) corporate legitimacy.
Research limitations/implications: Various methodological and practical challenges
including researcher subjectivity, mastery of under-prescribed methods, access, labour
intensity and time commitments are noted.
Practical implications: Both partial and small-scale projects which extend data collection
and analysis beyond the textual archive into other documentation, interviews, observation and
even experiments with report ‘readers’ are discussed, as are studies which attempt
longitudinal tracing. Combined approaches (e.g., content analysis with discourse analysis
across a range of texts) are also seen as possible.
Originality/value: The paper defines research gaps in the application of discourse theory and
method in corporate social and environmental reporting and communication. It profiles key
studies from the accounting and communication literature and gives explicit guidance as to
future research which might be conducted to enhance understanding of attempts to produce
and maintain corporate legitimacy through reporting and other corporate communication
initiatives.
Keywords: Discourse theory and method, text, context, legitimacy
Paper type: Methodological
The Role of Discourse in Bridging the Text and Context of
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting
Introduction
Disclosures regarding an organisation’s interaction with society and the environment first
appeared as early as the 1940s (Neu, Warsame & Pedwell, 1998), but it is only relatively
more recently that social and environmental reporting has become an emerging area of
research within the fields of accounting and business communication. Indeed, while
corporate social reporting research emerged during the 1970s and 80s, environmental
reporting practice and research is very much seen as a thing of the 90s, with practice growing
from almost nothing to become “one of the most important manifestations of businessenvironment interactions” (Gray & Bebbington, 2001, p. 240).1 Yet more recently has been
the emergence of triple bottom line and corporate “sustainability” reporting. Some small and
medium sized organisations are now reporting on social and environmental performance and
impacts, but academic research and surveys of practice consistently show that such reporting
is primarily undertaken by large, and often heavy industrial organisations (e.g. Deegan &
Gordon, 1996; Gray, Kouhy & Lavers, 1995; Hackston & Milne, 1996;
ACCA/Corporateregister.com, 2004; KPMG, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005). And while the
number of organisations producing environmental and social reports continues to increase –
from fewer than 100 in 1993 to more than 2,000 in 2003 – the rate of increase appears to be in
decline (ACCA/Corporateregister.com, 2004).2 Moreover, the total number of organisations
reporting remains only a very small fraction of the number of organisations operating
worldwide (Gray, 2006).
With this growth in reporting, the academic literature has identified a number of potential
drivers such as meeting stakeholder demand for accountability and transparency (Freedman &
Stagliano, 2002; Tilt, 1994; Neu et al., 1998), corporate attempts to ‘demonstrate’ legitimacy
(e.g. Deegan, Rankin & Tobin, 2002; Patten, 2002a; Walden & Schwartz, 1997), and the
growing popularity of the concept of sustainable development, and Elkington’s (1997)
concept of the triple bottom line. The practice of business reporting on its impacts on the
environment and society has been one likely communication response to the increasing public
awareness of environmental damage (e.g., climate change, loss of species, water shortages,
industrial pollution), and the role of human (business) activity in such events (Beder, 1997;
Grayson & Hodges, 2001; Lewis, 2003; Stauber & Rampton, 1995).
With thousands of corporate annual reports in the public domain containing social and
environmental information, and more recently, hundreds of stand-alone environmental, triple
bottom line and sustainability reports, these have not surprisingly provided a ready source of
data to analyse. The literature has now fairly extensively researched ‘who’ is reporting, ‘what’
they report, ‘how much’ they report, and to a lesser extent ‘why’ they might report. The
1
The increase in research in the area can be seen by the increase in the number of academic journal now
publishing papers on social and environmental accounting, accountability and reporting. Several special editions
of journals have also been dedicated to social and environmental accounting issues including: Accounting Forum
(1995 Vol.19 Nos 2/3 and 2000 Vol.24 No.1), Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (1997 Vol.10
No.4 and 2002 Vol.15 No.3), Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting (1997. Vol.4 No.2), Business Strategy and the
Environment (2006 Vol. 15), and European Accounting Review (2000 Vol.9 No.1).
2
ACCA/Corporateregister.com (2004, p. 8) note that, “while significant growth continues in individual regions,
evidence suggests that globally the number reporting is levelling off: after significant growth in the 1990s,
momentum has been slowing since 2000”.
1
‘nature’ and ‘meaning’ of this reporting and the ‘effects’ of such reporting, however, have
appeared to be of significantly less interest to researchers. How reporting information is both
constructed and communicated and its potential consequences (both intended and
unintended), we argue, remains underdeveloped. Primarily in the form of content analysis,
extant research has gone some way in providing an understanding regarding report content
(i.e. what is and what is not in the reports), but little is still known about the messages that
these reports entail, and the manner in which they are crafted and why. Moreover, only a little
is known about the process and context of reporting and, as such, the production and
consumption/interpretation of the messages contained in these reports. We encourage a shift
away from the ‘safety’ of content analysis to the more unfamiliar territory of discourse theory
and method. In doing so, we identify that while a discursive approach to the analysis of
corporate reports and the messages that they contain can present challenges to the researcher,
it has considerable potential in developing knowledge in the areas of social and environmental
reporting and communication. Discourse theory and methods and the focus on what is and
what is not said in corporate reports, together with how such messages are constructed and
presented, and their effect on readers/audiences presents an immense array of opportunities
for future research.
Annual reports, their narratives, graphs and more recently photographic images have provided
a basis for accounting, and to a lesser extent business communication research (e.g., Adams &
Harte, 1998; Anderson & Imperia, 1992; Beattie & Jones, 1992; 2001; Bettman & Weitz,
1983; Clatworthy & Jones, 2003; 2006; Courtis, 1986; 1995; 1998; Cooper & Sherer, 1984;
Davison, 2002; Frazier et al, 1984; Graves et al, 1996; Hilderbrandt & Snyder, 1981;
McKinstry, 1996; Preston et al, 1996; Smith and Taffler, 2000; Sydserff & Weetman, 1999). 3
As we review in the following section, such report content, and particularly accounting
narratives (as opposed to graphs and pictures), has also provided the basis for an extensive
range of social and environmental accounting research. To date, however, excepting perhaps
work in the communication literature (e.g., Thomas, 1997; Hyland, 1998, Livesey, 2001,
2002ab), that associated with analysing photographic images (e.g., Davison, 2002, 2006;
Graves et al., 1996; Preston et al., 1996), that associated with critical accounting scholars
(e.g., Lehman, 1992; Niemark, 1992), and some other exceptions (e.g., Smith and Taffler,
2000), mainstream research has been dominated by rather more mechanistic and somewhat
reductionist analyses of text. Dominant among the methods used are content analysis,
word/sentence counts, concern with syntactical and other form-oriented linguistic structures
(e.g., active/passive verbs, personal pronouns), readability measures, and concern with
relative proportions of good/bad news. Typically, such research uses quantitative volume and
proportion measures of textual characteristics to draw statistical inferences about the types
and intent of narrative annual report disclosures. In some instances there has been a focus on
the relative quality of annual report disclosures (e.g., Wiseman, 1982; Toms 2002, Hasseldine
et al., 2005), but even here such issues are often tackled using quantitative surrogates.
Despite narrative disclosures dominating the content of formal reports and other
organisational communications,4 papers promoting and exemplifying a qualitative and
interpretative analysis of text and context, and in particular both the theory and method of
discourse analysis, are relatively uncommon in the accounting literature, and only a recent
feature in the social and environmental accounting literature (e.g., Buhr & Rieter, 2006;
3
For extensive reviews of this literature, see Stanton & Stanton (2002); Jones & Shoemaker (1994); Sydserff &
Weetman (2002).
4
Hackston & Milne (1996, p. 89), for example, document in their sample of reporters that 62% of the total social
and environmental disclosure was declarative/narrative statements.
2
Laine, 2005; Milne et al, 2004; Tregidga & Milne, 2006; Further examples from the
communication literature include Livesey (2002a) and Livesey & Kearins (2002)).5
Taking a broader discursive and communications perspective, we suggest, not only opens up
social and environmental reporting research to a variety of alternative research methods, but it
also opens up the research to a more explicitly theorised concern over the politics of corporate
environmental and social communication. As Friedman & Miles (2004, p. 95) note, we need
to view stakeholder communication practice ‘decentered’ from the organisation, and we need
to focus on message reception, as well as counter messages, as much as organisational
messages. The role of intermediaries (e.g., PR consultants) and the media, too, are identified
as crucial to this communication contest. Put another way, and consistent with approaches
taken to accounting (reports) by Cooper & Sherer (1984), Neimark (1992), Lehman (1992)
and Collison (2003), Moloney (2000, 2004) views public relations as ‘weak’ propaganda and
sees it as part of a pluralistic society in which value-laden, self-interested (but not necessarily
knowingly deceptive) messages clash for attention and advantage. Messages are presented,
(more or less) scrutinised, (more or less) countered and, on the basis of such contests, policy
or opinion advantages emerge. And within the management literature, Phillips et al. (2004)
have recently called for institutional theory to focus on the processes that bring about
institutions and legitimacy, to take a discursive approach to refocus attention on power and
politics, and to recognise that actors act with political purposes to gain particular ends. They
suggest (Phillips et al., 2004, p. 646) a need to examine not only the content of texts, but also
their trajectories – where texts emanate from, how they are used by organisational actors, and
what connections are established among texts. While impression management, public
relations, and notions of corporate legitimation are often attached as explanations for and of
social and environmental reporting, we would argue (see below) such notions are typically
only superficially researched using relatively crude indicators (e.g., volumes of disclosures, %
of good news/bad news, etc.). There is a need, we argue, for research that takes as seriously
the public relations, rhetorical, propaganda and political aspects of corporate messages on the
environment and society as presented through annual reports and other stand-alone corporate
reports, as well as the processes of their making and reception.
To highlight and acknowledge the value and appeal of discursive approaches to the study of
social and environmental reports and communication, we structure the discussion in this paper
as follows. First, we overview published literature on social and environmental reporting
with a particular focus on evident gaps in the literature and the underdeveloped notion of
legitimacy contained within this literature. Second, we overview discourse theory and
method, and note some of the challenges in adopting this general approach. Third, we
acknowledge and discuss the potential of discourse theory and method in providing a
framework for future research into the area of social and environmental reporting and
communication. Concluding comments are then made advocating such research in order to
begin addressing the identified research gaps.
Social and Environmental ‘Sustainability’ Reporting Literature
Literature concerned with social and environmental reporting is vast and while our aim here is
not to provide a complete review of the literature and its outcomes, the intention is to indicate
5
We acknowledge that elsewhere in the accounting literature there has been interpretative analyses of text and
context, some of which has drawn explicitly on theories and methods of discourse analysis. See, for example,
Burchell, Clubb & Hopwood (1985), Cooper (1995) Cowton & Dopson (2002), Craig & Armeric (2004), Hoskin
& Macve (1986; 1994), Knights & Collison (1987), Loft (1986), Miller & O’Leary (1987).
3
the focus, scope and approach taken in this previous literature.6 The purpose of this review is
to identify gaps within the field of study upon which we then recognise the value of discourse
theory and methods in addressing.
Previous social and environmental reporting literature and research can be divided into three
main areas: corporate characteristics; general contextual factors; and internal context (Adams,
2002). Corporate characteristics and their relationship with environmental and social
reporting disclosures, and/or types of disclosures, is perhaps the most extensively investigated
area in published reporting research.7 The general context within which social and
environmental reporting and disclosures takes place is also a relatively well-researched area
with a range of studies being undertaken.8 However, one area which has received less
attention in the literature is the internal context within which social and environmental
reporting occurs. Adams (2002) provides the most comprehensive research into internal
organisational factors and their influence on corporate social and ethical reporting identifying
a range of internal contextual variables which are likely to impact the extensiveness, quality,
quantity and completeness of reporting.9
Published research in social and environmental reporting has utilised a range of theories, the
most common of which are decision usefulness,10 economic theory,11 and social and political
6
See Gray (2002), Gray et al. (1995), Mathews (1997) and Parker (2005) for further reviews of the literature.
Studies investigating the relationship between disclosure and performance are reasonably prominent with
examinations of the relationship between social and/or environmental disclosure and economic performance
(Abbot & Monsen, 1979; Bowman & Haire, 1976; Cowen, Ferreri & Parker, 1987; Freedman & Jaggi, 1988;
Roberts, 1992), environmental performance (Al-Tuwaijri, Christensen & Hughes, 2004; Patten, 2002b;
Wiseman, 1982), and social performance (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989). Margolis and Walsh (2003) provide an
extensive overview of published research on the relationship between social performance (measured largely
through disclosure) and financial performance. They conclude that a simple compilation of the findings suggests
that there is a positive association, and very little evidence of a negative association, between a company’s social
performance and its financial performance. Other studies looking at corporate characteristics include research on
the effect of ownership structure on disclosure (Andrew, Gul, Guthrie & Teoh, 1989; Lynn, 1992; Teoh &
Thong, 1984) and the influence of company size (Belkaoui & Karpik, 1989; Trotman & Bradely, 1981; Teoh &
Thong, 1984), industry sector (Hackston & Milne, 1996; Patten, 2002b; Wiseman, 1982) or both on disclosure
(Cowen et al., 1987; Freedman & Jaggi, 1988; Yamagami & Kokubu, 1991; Zeghal & Ahmed, 1990).
8
Previous research examining the general context includes studies analysing investor demand for social and/or
environmental disclosures (Buzby & Falk, 1979; Epstein & Freedman, 1994; Milne & Chan, 1999; Milne &
Patten, 2002; Patten, 2002b), along with market and investor reactions and use of such disclosures (Belkaoui,
1980; Freedman & Stagliano, 1991; Murray, Sinclair, Power & Gray, 2006; Rockness & Williams, 1988;
Solomon & Solomon, 2006) are popular as too are studies looking at the effect of the media and media pressure
on disclosure and disclosure type (Brown & Deegan, 1998; Deegan et al., 2002, Patten, 2002a). Other studies
which examine contextual factors are studies of the auditing function and verification statements within reports
(Ball, Owen & Gray, 2000; O’Dwyer & Owen, 2005) and others such as the effect of pressure group influence
(Tilt, 1994), public pressure (Freedman & Stagliano, 2002; Neu et al., 1998), stakeholder demand (O’Dwyer,
Unerman & Bradely, 2005) and stakeholder power (Roberts, 1992) on organisational disclosure.
9
Other studies include Buhr (2002) who examines the internal context in her study of two Canadian pulp and
paper companies investigating the motivations and processes behind the initiation of environmental reports,
Campbell’s (2000) study of the relationship between levels of social disclosure and changes in company
chairmen, and Cowen et al’s (1987) study exploring the effects of organisational characteristics on social
responsibility disclosure.
10
Decision usefulness looks at the disclosure of a company’s social and environmental activities and impacts
and its subsequent use in organisational decision-making processes, often by ‘traditional’ user groups such as
shareholders and investors. Despite some obvious advantages of decision usefulness theory Gray et al (1995)
identify that the range of studies using this theory provide inconsistent and inconclusive results and claim that
decision usefulness as a theory for studying organisational social and environmental disclosures is both “misspecified and under theorised” (p. 51).
7
4
theory. The most widely employed theories in previous research on social and environmental
reporting are those that are based on social and political theories. Commonly used social and
political theories include stakeholder theory (Deegan & Blomquist, 2006; Roberts, 1992) and
political economy theory (Buhr, 1998; Tinker & Neimark, 1987). The most extensively
investigated of the theories is, however, legitimacy theory. Nevertheless, while being the
most investigated theory the concept of legitimacy, we argue, remains undertheorised and
underutilised within social and environmental accounting research.
Legitimacy theory is based on the notion of the social contract. Legitimacy theory stands on
the idea that, “in order to continue operating successfully corporations must act within the
bounds of what society identifies as socially acceptable behaviour” (O’Donovan, 2002, p.
344). According to Dowling and Pfeffer (1975, p. 122), organisations are legitimate when
there is “congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their activities
and the norms of acceptable behaviour in the larger social system of which they are a part”.
Despite being an underdeveloped theory (Deegan, 2002; Tilling, 2004), legitimacy theory has
been embraced by many environmental and social accounting and reporting researchers, many
of whom claim to ‘test’ legitimacy and find support, or limited support, for the concepts it
entails (Brown & Deegan, 1998; Deegan & Gordon, 1996; Deegan & Rankin, 1996; Deegan
et al., 2002; Deegan, Rankin & Voght, 2000; Magness, 2006; Patten, 1992; 1995; Walden &
Schwartz, 1997).12 A number of these studies, we observe, favourably cite Lindblom’s (1993)
development of Dowling & Pfeffer (1975) and Sethi (1975; 1978; 1979), and emphasise the
role of corporate social responsibility communication/disclosures in (1) correcting public
misunderstandings of organisational performance, (2) altering the publics’ expectations of
organisational performance, (3) communicating improved (social responsibility) performance,
and (4) distracting the publics’ attention away from poor organisational performance. Yet, we
also observe that these potential outcomes of organisational communication are rarely, if ever,
explicitly investigated empirically. Instead, and in the absence of investigating “publics” and
their perceptions of disclosures, the presence of increased volumes or variety of
organisational disclosures are assumed to fulfil some or all of these roles.
We see organisational legitimacy as a discursive product, achieved and maintained through
social dialogue (Phillips et al, 2004; Boje et al., 2004; Suchman, 1995), and reliant on
organisational communication (Allen and Caillouet, 1994; Arndt and Bigelow, 2000 Ashforth
& Gibbs, 1990; Elsbach & Sutton, 1992; Lindblom, 1993; Pfeffer, 1981; Sethi, 1977; 1978;
Westphal & Zajac, 1998). As Phillips et al. (2004, p. 642, our emphasis) argue, “…actions
that lead actors to try to gain, maintain or repair legitimacy are likely to result in the
production of texts that leave traces. In such cases, texts are produced in order to establish,
verify or change the meaning associated with the action.” They go on to argue that individual
texts are more likely to become embedded in and influence discourse, and ultimately become
legitimate and institutionalised (taken for granted), if they are produced by those with
authority, are produced such that they conform to recognisable and interpretable genres, and
draw on other existing (and familiar) texts. There is a never fixed but ongoing process by
which the perceived legitimacy of an organisation is continuously evolving and
11
The basic premise behind economic theory is that organisations will disclose social and environmental
information in order to avoid potential pressure from government regulation agencies that enforce this type of
disclosure. Research in this area has generally emerged out of the work of Watts and Zimmerman (1978) and is
termed positive accounting theory and agency theory. Research drawing on economic theory includes Belkaoui
and Karpik (1989) and Ness and Mirza (1991). For a critical review of this literature, see Milne (2002).
12
See Deegan (2002) for a more comprehensive overview of published social and environmental accounting
research which utilises legitimacy theory.
5
(re)constituted through social enactment. The processes by which organisations seek to
create, increase or maintain perceived legitimacy are essential elements in exploring corporate
behaviour and corporate communication in relation to the environment (Bansal & Clelland,
2004; Philippe, 2006).
Except for a notable few studies (e.g. Buhr, 2002; Milne & Patten, 2002; Mobus, 2005;
O’Donovan, 2002; O’Dwyer, 2002), legitimacy theory within accounting literature has been
concerned largely with the reactive nature of organisational disclosure. In addition, a
significant proportion of this research has focused on industries that have been affected by a
‘disaster’ or ‘event’, and often one that is covered by the media (Deegan et al., 2000; Patten
1992; 2002b; see also Allen and Caillouet, 1994; Elsbach & Sutton, 1992; Elsbach, 1994).
These studies, therefore, tend to focus on the corporate attempt to (re)build or repair
legitimacy, and investigate legitimation as a reactive and short-term phenomenon. Moreover,
as Philippe (2006) notes in respect to studies in management, but which seem equally as
applicable to accounting-based work (Milne & Patten, 2002), most studies of organisational
legitimacy focus on the antecedents of organisational communication, and fail to examine the
outcomes or impact of that communication (on organisational legitimacy).
We also argue that the previous empirical research has taken a somewhat limited and narrow
view of legitimacy. Here, we seek to highlight the earlier debate which occurred within the
social and environmental accounting literature which questioned the ability of accounting to
provide social and environmental accountability (see, Gray, Owen & Maunders, 1988; 1991;
Parker, 1986; 1991; Puxty, 1986;1991; Tinker, Lehman & Niemark, 1991). We suggest that
research is needed which explores the concern that social and environmental accounting
within corporations, in particular the corporate report, legitimises the corporation, and thus
promotes continuing environmental damage and social injustice, rather than reducing it by
putting the environment and society at the core.
A range of methods have been employed when it comes to studying corporate social and
environmental reporting (e.g. case studies, interviews, experimental studies, surveys and
questionnaires), but the most striking point when reviewing the literature is the number of
studies which use content analysis (Holsti, 1969; Krippendorff, 1980; Hackston & Milne,
1996). Content analysis is often utilised in research associated with legitimacy theory
examining amounts of disclosure in relation to size, industry membership and media pressure.
While this approach yields some valuable information regarding the reporting of social and
environmental information, in particular identifying ‘how much of what’ is being reported by
whom, it fails to add insight into ‘how’ this information is being communicated and with what
effects. Apart from a few exceptions (e.g., Adams, 2002; Buhr, 2001; 2002; Harte & Owen,
1991; Owen, Swift & Hunt, 2001), research in the area prominently takes the form of
quantitative analysis.
While qualitative techniques, and specifically those focused on language, are established
within the accounting field (e.g. Cowton & Dopson, 2002; Hoskin & Macve, 1986; 1994;
Loft, 1986), they are only just beginning to emerge as means to study organisations and their
relationship with the environment and society, and particularly with respect to reporting and
communication. Many of these studies do not look specifically at corporate social and
environmental reports (for example, Ice, 1991; Livesey, 1999; 2001; 2002b; Milne, Kearins &
Walton, 2006; Tsoukas, 1999), but some do. Studies that analyse language use in reports, and
upon which we identify the need to build, are Bhur & Reiter (2006), Laine (2005), Livesey
(2002a), Livesey and Kearins (2002), Milne et al. (2004), and Tregidga & Milne (2006).
6
Acknowledging that sustainable development means different things to different people in
different contexts, Laine (2005) critically assesses how the concept of sustainable
development is constructed in the report disclosures of Finnish listed companies. Using the
analytical method of interpretive textual analysis, he examines meanings attached to the term
‘sustainable development’ in report disclosures. From this analysis, Laine (2005, p. 409)
concludes that “Finnish listed companies employ the rhetoric of weak sustainability in their
disclosures related to sustainable development, subsequently reinforcing the societal discourse
of ‘business can deliver sustainable development’”.
The studies conducted by Livesey (2002a) and Livesey and Kearins (2002) engage in
discourse analysis of corporate sustainable development reports by leading international
reporters Shell and the Body Shop. In her 2002 study, Livesey analyses Royal Dutch/Shell
Group’s 1998 report and the discursive struggle that occurred as the organisation ‘embraced’
the concept of sustainable development; she reveals the knowledge/power dynamics within
reporting. Overall, Livesey (2002a, p. 314) concludes that “Shell’s ‘embrace’ of the concept
of sustainable development has transforming effects on the company and on the notion of
sustainability itself”. Livesey and Kearins (2002) focus on metaphor use and its implications
in The Body Shop’s 1997 and Shell’s 1998 reports. Livesey and Kearins (2002) use
Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis to show how these texts both reflect and influence the
socio-political struggle over the meanings and practices of sustainable development. They
find that the metaphors of transparency and care are prominent when describing the rationale
for such reporting and identify that these metaphors both influence, and have the potential to
reconstruct the relationship between business and society.
Two other studies investigate language use in New Zealand corporate reports. Milne et al.
(2004) investigate the language used in eight New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable
Development (NZBCSD) member reports and in pronouncements made by the NZBCSD
itself. They identify themes utilised in the construction of sustainable development and begin
to show how organisations and the reports which they produce, while engaging in the
discourse around sustainable development, may serve to reinforce the business as usual
position. This study also finds examples of language and theme ‘sharing’ between the
corporate reports and the NZBCSD pronouncements. Tregidga & Milne (2006), in a
longitudinal analysis of one NZBCSD member organisation’s reports (Watercare Services)
investigate further the link between text and context. From their analysis, they conclude that
through the rhetoric of management expertise, leadership and the triple bottom line,
Watercare presents itself as ‘doing’ sustainable development. They raise concerns about the
corporate report and its role in constructing the corporate response to sustainable development
and the legitimate organisation.
This examination of published studies on social and environmental, or ‘sustainability’
reporting indicates relatively scant attention is paid to the process and context of reporting, in
contrast to the content of the reports themselves. Further research is needed, we argue, that
examines the production of corporate social and environmental messages. Building on
Adams (2002), O’Donovan (2002), and O’Dwyer (2002), further investigation of the
production of corporate social and environmental reports would help in understanding not
only the factors and motives evident in the production of reports, but also provide greater
clarity and insights into the intended and/or avowedly-intended messages and accounts
contained within them. This understanding, we believe, might be achieved by more explicitly
theorising the production of such information as organisational communication, corporate
7
rhetoric and public relations, impression management and identity construction (e.g., Beniot,
1995; Cheney, 1983; 1991; 1992; Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Cheney & Dionisopoulos,
1989; Cheney & Frenette, 1993; Cheney & Vibbert, 1987; Elwood, 1995; Heath, 1992; 1993;
1994; 2000; 2001; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Stanton, Stanton & Pires, 2004; Toth, 2000). And
closely coupled to these ideas are those of organisational reputation and reputation
management (e.g., Bromley, 1993; 2000; Caruana & Chircop, 2000; Deephouse, 2002;
Fombrun & Shanely, 1990; Fombrun & Van Reil, 1997; 2003). Skerlap (2001), however,
argues that a great deal of public relations research is not grounded in a theory of discourse
and, following Cheney & Christensen (2001), that much organisation communication
literature ends at the organisational boundary and is overly organisation-centric – a view we
would argue, based on the review above, applies equally to most analyses of corporate
communication found in the accounting literature. Some care is needed, then, to follow those
(e.g., Cheney, Heath) that emphasise the discursive and rhetorical aspects of organisational
communication and public relations and work at the “intersection of public relations,
organisational communication, speech communication and rhetoric” (Skerlap, 2001, p. 177).
Understanding the consumption/reception and interpretation of corporate social and
environmental messages by internal and external publics is also critically important. Despite
Mathews’ (1984, p. 204, our emphasis) original definition of Social Responsibility
Accounting as the “voluntary disclosure or information, both qualitative and quantitative,
made by organisations to inform or influence a range of audiences”, we know relatively little
about how potential or intended audiences are informed or influenced. Work that adds to and
extends Chan & Milne (1999), Danastas & Gadenne (2006), Deegan & Rankin, 1997; Milne
and Chan (1999), Milne and Patten (2002), O’Dwyer, Unerman & Bradley (2005), O’Dwyer,
Unerman & Hession (2005), and Tilt (1994), therefore, is also needed. Milne’s (with others)
work focuses on decision reactions to environmental disclosures, but is limited to the
investment decision reactions of traditional financial stakeholders and provides few insights
into how such messages are interpreted, and what they mean to recipients. Similarly, the
surveys of O’Dwyer et al, Danastas & Gadenne, Deegan & Rankin, and Tilt are informative
of the information perceptions of a wider range of non-traditional stakeholders, but are
limited to general perceptions of report attributes (e.g., usefulness, credibility, relevance,
sufficiency) and (potential) reporting regulations (e.g., mandatory audits). As such, they too
fail to shed much light on corporate communication, message reception and interpretation. In
fact, it is notable that these survey respondents are not provided with examples of corporate
messages on which to respond. Instead, the researchers rely on respondents recalling prior
experiences with reported information.13
As we noted above, a range of studies have also investigated a series of general and internal
contextual factors associated with social and environmental reporting (e.g., investor demand,
share market reactions, media and media pressure, external pressure groups, auditing and
verification, and changing company chairmen (sic)). Again, however, we would argue such
factors have not been explicitly examined from the perspective of their role in and effect on
the production and consumption of organisational communications. So, for example, while
Ball et al, (2000) and O’Dwyer & Owen (2005) provide a great deal of insight about the
process and content of verification statements, we know little about the role and impact of
such processes and statements on the production and consumption of environmental
disclosures. Does the presence (or absence) of a verification statement, for example, change
13
The problem here, of course, is that the researchers have little idea and no control over the information
experiences of the respondents which may range from extensive (e.g., those judging reports for awards or
benchmarking them for surveys) to cursory (e.g., those once having flipped through a report).
8
the interpretation of organisational messages by internal and external audiences? If so, how?
And why? Does such a verification process impact upon (constrain) managements’ decisions
to make some disclosures public and not others? Why do some texts say the things they do?
And are these actually representative of managers’ thoughts? From where do the report
messages come? And why might some reports be willing to disclose things others will not?
To date, and from a communications perspective, we know very little about the role of
contextual factors.
We recognise the potential of discourse theory and methods in providing a framework for
future research which addresses these research gaps. We, therefore, provide an introduction
to discourse theory and methods in the following section followed by an identification of the
potential of discursive research in the analysis of corporate social and environmental reporting
research.
Discourse Theory and Methods
Discourse is both a methodology with an underlying epistemology that explains how we
know the world, as well as a method for studying that world (Phillips & Hardy, 2002; Wood
& Kroger, 2000). As noted by Jorgensen and Phillips (2002, p. 3), “although discourse
analysis can be applied to all areas of research, it cannot be used with all kinds of theoretical
framework”. In this section, we therefore briefly outline some of the key notions and
relationships of a discursive theoretical framework followed by a discussion of the field of
discourse analysis and some of the challenges therein.
Multiple perspectives on discourse exist ranging from the consideration of discourse as a
single utterance or a conversation between two people (e.g., Potter, 1996; Potter & Wetherell,
1987) to a totalising view wherein discourse is seen to constitute the entire social and political
system (e.g., Foucault, 1966/2002; 1969/2002; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; 1987). The various
perspectives generally share similar philosophical foundations and underpinning
relationships. Several of these - in particular those we believe important in the investigation of
organisational discourse on the environment, society and sustainable development - are
discussed here.
The first philosophical premise important in a discursive framework is the consideration of
the role of language in the social construction of the world. Wetherell, Taylor and Yates
(2001, p. 6) claim that discourse “is constitutive of social life. Discourse builds objects,
worlds, minds and social relations. It doesn’t just reflect them”. Foucault (1969/2002, p. 54),
a key discourse theorist, also makes this point, stating that discourse should not be treated as a
group of signs, “but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak”.
Discourses, furthermore, can be understood as productive “in that they have power outcomes
or effects. They define and establish what is ‘truth’ at particular moments” (Carabine, 2001, p.
268, our emphasis). In this sense, discourses are also performative (Austin, 1962). The
ability to investigate the productive and performative nature of discourse, we argue, makes
discursive research valuable in the study of corporate environmental and social
communication and reporting.
The second aspect of discourse theory noted is the relationship between text and context.
While the consideration of the relationship, or distance, between text and context varies
between different discursive perspectives (see Alvesson & Karreman, 2000a), we take the
position advocated by Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 277) that, “[d]iscourse is not produced
9
without context and cannot be understood without taking context into consideration”.
Recognising the reflexive and somewhat inseparable relationship between text and context
(Chalaby, 1996), we advocate considering not only how context is important in the
construction of text (Fairclough, 1989; 1992) but also how it is affected by, and in turn
affects, the context and broader discourses within which it occurs (Hardy & Phillips, 1999;
Phillips et al. 2004; van Dijk, 1997). We argue below that the ability to investigate the link
between discourse and context, and the link between micro and macro contexts, is a further
advantage of utilising a discursive perspective in the analysis of corporate reporting on the
environment and society.
A third relationship, and the final aspect of discourse theory discussed here, is the relationship
between power, knowledge and truth. Discourses can be considered as historically variable
ways of specifying knowledges and truths, whereby knowledges are socially constructed and
produced by effects of power and spoken in terms of ‘truths’ (Carabine, 2001). Discourses,
therefore specify what is and what is not, and power is important in both the construction of
knowledge and in ‘deciding’ on what counts as knowledge and truth. We suggest that the
formation of the relationship between power, knowledge and truth (and in particular
Foucault’s power/knowledge formation) is a useful conception when analysing corporate
social and environmental messages particularly as attempts at achieving/enhancing corporate
legitimacy. We explore these benefits below.
Taking this theoretical perspective of the constitutive role of language, the link between
discourse and context, and the role of discourse in the production of knowledge and truths,
and the power effects which result, discourse analysis is subsequently the investigation of the
constructive effects of discourse through the systematic and structured study of texts (Phillips
& Hardy, 2002). Discourse analysis is best considered a field of research rather than a single
practice.
With multiple beginnings in different traditions (e.g. structuralism and
poststructuralism, critical theory, linguistics, and social psychology), various types of
discourse analytical practices include: conversation analysis and ethnomethodology;
interactional social linguistics and the ethnography of communication; discursive psychology;
critical discourse analysis and critical linguistics; Bahktinian research; and Foucauldian
research.14 Alvesson and Karreman (2000a) usefully map the diversity of discourse analytical
approaches using a two dimensional matrix. The two dimensions they draw on are the
relationship or connection between discourse and meaning and the attentiveness to detail and
specific context versus an interest in more standardised forms of language use.
Discourse analysis has received a growing amount of interest in recent years. One of the
main reasons for this growing interest in discourse analysis is the ‘linguistic turn’ which
encapsulates the idea that language does not simply reflect reality but constructs it (Alvesson
& Karreman, 2000b; Deetz, 2003; Rorty, 1968; Wittgenstein, 1953/1958). The burgeoning
interest in discourse analysis can be seen across a number of disciplines including: cultural
studies (Hall, 1997; Lidchi, 1997); communication and media studies (Fairclough, 2001);
political and social policy studies (Carabine, 2001; Fairclough, 1989; 1992); development and
globalisation studies (Escobar, 1995); and organisation studies - including accounting
(Cowton & Dopson, 2002; Gallhofer, Haslam & Roper, 2001; Hoskin & Macve, 1994;
Llewellyn & Northcott, 2005; Loft, 1994), organisational management (Harley & Hardy,
2004; Knights & Morgan, 1991), organisational communication (Cheney, 1991; Livesey,
14
These types of discourse analysis were drawn from Wetherell et al. (2001). Boje et al. (2004) and Phillips and
Hardy (2002) provide similar lists.
10
2001), and environmental communication (Hajer, 1995; Ice, 1999; Livesey, 1999; 2002a;
2002b; Livesey & Kearins, 2002).
As Grant, Keenoy and Oswick (2001) identify, discourse analysis offers an alternative
approach and perspective to the analysis of a range of organisational and management issues,
an approach which Phillips and Hardy (2002) suggest is particularly suited to a range of new
and reconceptualised topics of study such as globalisation, cultural studies and, of particular
relevance here, the natural environment. While, as Phillips and Hardy (2002, p. 74) note,
‘recipes’ for successful data analysis in discourse analytic research are difficult to provide and
“researchers need to develop an approach that makes sense in light of their particular study”,
there are several resources available to researchers interested in discursive studies. Several
general guides covering a range of approaches are available (e.g., Carabine, 2001; Fairclough,
1989, 1992; Kearins & Hooper, 2002; Kendall & Wickham, 1999; Wetherell et al., 2001;
Wood & Kroger, 2000), and while many research papers which utilise discourse analysis
often fail to clearly articulate the analytical process for the reader, several contain clear and
useful method sections (e.g., Livesey, 2002a; Livesey & Kearins, 2002; Llewellyn &
Northcott, 2005; Hardy & Phillips, 1999). We suggest to the interested reader, that they first
familiarise themselves with the terrain of discourse analysis and the mirage of approaches
before ‘selecting’ an approach (or approaches) that suits both them (in terms of their
ontological and epistemological leanings) and their research aims (e.g., those interested in
power relations may choose to work within the traditions of such theorists as Fairclough or
Foucault). Therefore, like Phillips and Hardy (2002) above, and despite the difficulties that
may arise in doing so, we advocate that researchers develop approaches to analysis in light of
their particular foci.
Discourse analysis within organisational studies has made several contributions (Grant et al.,
2001; Hardy, 2001; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Phillips and Hardy claim that the most
important contribution of discourse analysis is that it examines how language constructs a
phenomenon – not how it reflects or reveals it.
Whereas other qualitative methodologies work to understand and interpret social reality as it
exists, discourse analysis endeavours to uncover the way in which it is produced (Phillips &
Hardy, 2002, p. 6).
Phillips and Hardy (2002, p. 84) note further that “discourse analysis subverts and challenges
taken-for-granted understandings and undermines the tendency to reify and solidify
knowledge”. It is for these reasons, we argue below, that a discursive approach is appealing
when analysing corporate communication on the environment and society.
Moreover, Thompson (1990) and his tripartite approach to the analysis of symbolic
constructions also highlights the value of a discursive approach to the analysis of social and
environmental reports. Thompson’s (1990) three part approach “was proposed as a method
for studying symbolic constructions represented in media where there is a division between
the production and reception of messages” (Arnold, 1998, p. 674). Thompson’s (1990)
tripartite approach consists of: 1) socio-historical analysis and the production and
transmission of the message; 2) an analysis of the construction of the message; and 3) a sociohistorical analysis of the reception and appropriation of the message. Noting a division
between the production and consumption of corporate social and environmental messages,
similar to that identified by Thompson in relation to media messages, we extend Thompson’s
(1990) approach to identify areas for future research. However before we do so, we note
some of the challenges inherent in adopting a discourse approach.
11
As Grant et al. (2001), Hardy (2001) and Phillips and Hardy (2002) identify, the method is
not without challenges. The challenges of discourse analysis range in focus from practical
issues to concerns with methodological rigour and subjectivity. Some challenges, such as the
substantial time and energy required to master the methods, the non-institutionalised nature of
the approach (the result of discourse analysis still being a relatively new theory (Phillips &
Hardy, 2002)), and the labour-intensive and time-consuming nature of these methods, while
being a concern and need to be considered in the formulation of any research project, are not,
we believe, detrimental to research aims. However, other challenges regarding the
methodological rigor and subjectivity create more unease. Grant et al. (2001) identify several
challenges to the study of organisational discourse. One such challenge noted by Grant et al.
(2001, p. 10) is that discourse analysis “lacks methodological rigor in that it is overly
subjective, is fraught with sampling problems, and only draws on qualitative methodologies”.
Such challenges regarding subjectivity could be levelled at other forms of qualitative analysis
that favour and highlight an interpretivist approach. While recognising these challenges, and
noting that care needs to be taken to outline the perspective and research parameters in any
study utilising a discursive framework, we agree with Phillips and Hardy (2002, p. 11) that
the benefits of discourse analysis outweigh the disadvantages. Further, the need to specify
actual methods of analysis is again common throughout research, and is arguably less wellprescribed in qualitative research. Next, we seek to draw attention to the potential of
discursive studies in the analysis of corporate social and environmental reporting.
The Potential of Discourse Theory and Methods in the Analysis of Corporate Social and
Environmental Reporting
Our call for research taking a discourse analytical approach to the study of corporate social
and environmental communication, in particular to corporate reports, can be seen as both a
reflection of, and an addition to, the growing interest and appeal in discourse analytic studies
noted above. While other methods have been used in the study of such reports (e.g. content
analysis which, as noted, is used in a large number of studies), we consider discourse analysis
to be beneficial to this field of study in addressing the various gaps outlined above. In
outlining the potential of discourse in the analysis of corporate social and environmental
reporting, we draw on the work of Thompson (1990) introduced above. Thompson’s (1990)
tripartite approach, through the acknowledgement of the distance between the production and
consumption of messages, allows for the recognition of the complexity of the communication
process while indicating domains where consideration is needed in analysis of symbolic
constructions. We suggest that it is difficult to do justice to the analysis of texts and their
effects without the consideration of the complex processes of report production and
consumption and the acknowledgement of the context within which the producers, texts and
audiences are situated interact. Discourse, we identify, provides a means and focus for
analysis of such links, recognising the complexity involved. We now identify areas where
such discourse analytical research is needed and approaches that might be used. We do not
advocate a total retreat from the textual archive and the relative comfort and ease of ‘desk’
analysis of reporting documents it affords. But we do explicitly recognise below the potential
to enhance our understanding of social and environmental reporting and communication
through other methods of data collection including interviews, observation and experiment,
and an expanded communications ‘database’ beyond actual reports.
The first domain identified by Thompson’s (1990) tripartite approach, and isolated by Arnold
(1998) is the socio-historical analysis of the production and transmission of the message. We
12
identified above that one gap in the literature on corporate social and environmental reporting
is in relation to the production of corporate social and environmental messages. It was noted
that research is needed in order to better understand the factors and motives evident in the
production of corporate social and environmental reports and, therefore, we suggest that
socio-historical analyses explicitly theorising the production of corporate messages using
discourse perspectives and methods are needed.
Several opportunities exist for researchers taking a discursive perspective and approach to the
analysis of the socio-historical production of corporate environmental and social messages.
Studies analysing report production could consider the institutions promoting or supporting
reporting in various locales, investigate the advice or other messages they have given over
time and track leader-follower behaviours through a focus on intertextuality and/or interviews
with those promoters or supporters. A further interview focus could be on why the
message/report was written, what was ‘meant’ or intended by the message, and an analysis of
report producers’ reactions to the content of their messages and reports. Published research in
this area has sought to investigate managers or report writers motives and factors associated
with the production of the report (for example see Adams, 2002; Campbell, 2000) rather than
an investigation of why managers/report writers say what they say, or why they say some
things and not others. Studies analysing the construction of the message or messages, such as
the choices made when deciding on ‘what is to be said’ and ‘how it is to be said’ could be
undertaken focusing on the use of particular language choices, language tools (i.e.
metaphors), and style (i.e. layout and use of images). In a bid to get beyond corporate
platitudes and generalities, we advocate seeking out actual report-writers and focusing
attention on specific features and examples of text. Opportunities for ethnographic research
could also be sought wherein a participant-observer may be able to sit alongside report
producers and attend meetings where elements of reporting are discussed and decisions made
on orientation and content. Such studies need to recognise the inseparable relationship
between text and context discussed above and therefore must consider how context (i.e. the
reporting context in the form of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines etc; and the
organisational context such as organisational culture and place/location) affects the
production of such corporate messages. We suggest such an understanding of the production
of corporate social and environmental messages is an important element in addressing the gap
in the literature identified and also in achieving a more holistic insight into corporate social
and environmental communication and reporting. To begin to address this gap we identify
some possibilities for recognising the potential of discourse theory and methods in the
analysis of the production of corporate social and environmental messages in the following
section.
The second domain identified by Thompson (1990) and isolated by Arnold (1998) is the
discursive analysis of the construction of the message. We identified above in our review of
the extant literature in the field of social and environmental reporting that research into ‘what
is said and what is not said’ and in particular ‘how it is said’ is required. Through recognising
the productive nature of discourse various objects, concepts and subjects become open to
investigation. Previous research undertaken by Laine (2005), Livesey and Kearins (2002),
Milne et al, (2004), Springett (2003), and Tregidga and Milne (2006) has begun to investigate
the corporate construction of sustainable development. However, how other concepts such as
corporate social responsibility and nature, and individuals or groups such as stakeholders and
organisations themselves, are represented within the texts are also worthy of investigation.
Furthermore, analysis of the discursive construction of relationships between organisations
and stakeholders (e.g. organisations and indigenous peoples, organisations and the
13
environment) need be explored to examine how such relationships are portrayed and enacted
within the discourse. Such research may begin with the reporting archive itself, tracing
changes over time. It may gain permission to interrogate corporate documentation such as
stakeholder surveys seeking out the connections between that information and what ultimately
appeared in the reports. Again, it could usefully connect with report producers through
interviews. It could involve attendance at organisation-stakeholder meetings as a participant
observer comparing the discussion there to the ensuing report content. Further comparisons
could be undertaken beyond the reporting archive with other corporate communications, such
as material appearing on corporate websites, publicity and advertising material. These are
areas where future research could assist in providing insight into the construction of the
corporate message and provide clarity surrounding the intended and/or avowedly-unintended
messages and accounts contained within the reports.
The third domain proposed in the study of symbolic constructions by Thompson (1990) is a
socio-historical analysis of the reception (or consumption) and appropriation (interpretation)
of the message. This is another gap in the social and environmental reporting literature
identified above. As noted, how readers interpret, or respond to, corporate social and
environmental messages is an area which requires further investigation as relatively little is
known about how potential and intended audiences react to corporate messages on the
environment, society and sustainability. Previous studies (for example see, Milne & Chan,
1999; Milne & Patten, 2002; O’Dwyer et al., 2005; Tilt, 1994) have tended to focus on the
perceived value of reports to stakeholder decision needs or other such aspects, and therefore,
issues such as credibility and usefulness have been of interest. Exploring the impact of
language on users is as yet not investigated; consequently, we know very little about the
consumption or interpretation of such messages. Furthermore, the legitimation potential of
such language is also something which has still not been substantively investigated. Who the
audiences (both intended and unintended) are, how they read the reports, what they focus on
in the reports and why they read such reports are open for analysis. Access to report
distribution lists and report readers’ feedback where the latter is collected by the reporters
could be sought. Interviews with, and surveys of report audiences – eliciting responses from
readers and non-readers – are central to understanding the usefulness of both individual
reports and the reporting genre as a whole. It would be interesting to know whether reporting
information met or even exceeded readers’ expectations. Participant observation in reporting
award decision meetings, if possible, could add another dimension lacking in the literature.
Experiments with groups of report readers, such as for convenience even business and
environmental science students, could also enhance understanding of report reception.
A key contribution of discourse theory and methods is the ability to investigate how language
and corporate communication does and does not bring about corporate legitimation. How
corporate legitimacy is (or might be) produced through the reporting process and its context is
an issue for critical analysis. It focuses us on the politics of discursive struggle aspects of
which may remain hidden in the textual archive. While literature (e.g. Gray et al., 1995; Owen
et al., 1997; Larringa-Gonzalez & Bebbington, 2001; O’Dwyer, 2003) refers to issues of
‘capture’, ‘appropriation’, and ‘agendas’, it is the more subtle aspects of these notions where
we suggest discursive studies can add insight. Owen et al (1997) assert that capture is a
complex idea involving the subtle processes that are far from obvious, and in which language
plays a crucial role. We note that how report content, in particular language use within
reports, produces legitimacy, either intentionally or otherwise is open to investigation through
a discursive perspective. Previously, research has sought to argue that more disclosure occurs
due to external (and, in fewer cases, internal) pressures, and more disclosure is an attempt to
14
produce legitimacy. However, little is said about the nature of these disclosures in terms of
the language they use (including what is included and excluded and the adaptation and
translation of social issues), and the effect of this language on audiences. We foresee
discourse analytical studies providing a framework for the development and extension of
legitimacy theory within social and environmental accounting research. A discursive
approach facilitates the investigation and production of truths and power and legitimation
effects they produce. We once again, suggest in the following section, how discourse analytic
studies can begin to fill this gap in the literature.
As discussed, discourse theory and methods allows the micro and macro contexts to be linked.
We identify the text-context relationship to be fundamental in the analysis of corporate
reports on the environment, society and sustainable development, and advocate a
consideration of the text-context relationship in future analyses. In recognising the effect of
context on text, and also the reverse effect of text on context, researchers can gain greater
insight into corporate social and environmental messages. We suggest that there is a need to
understand the role of micro-contextual factors such as auditing, verification, the use of
guidelines such as the GRI, and reporting awards at the organisational level, and macrocontextual factors, regulations, media and political discourse, in the analysis of the
production, construction and consumption of corporate social and environmental messages.
As already identified by Milne et al. (2004) and Tregidga and Milne (2006), there are clear
and evident links between text and context in the construction of corporate messages on or
constructions of sustainable development. These studies begin to explore the links between
texts and their contexts through an analysis of language and discourse. However, we suggest
that the potential of discourse analysis to aid understanding in this area is presently underrealised.
Recognising the Potential of Discourse Theory and Methods
To further fulfil the potential of discourse theory and methods, we advocate research in the
three areas identified above; 1) socio-historical analysis of the production of corporate social
and environmental messages, 2) analysis of the construction of messages, and 3) sociohistorical analysis of the consumption or interpretation of messages. In addressing these
research gaps, we recognise the potential of discourse theory in providing a framework and
advocate, initially at least, some small scale, focused studies which address any of the above
areas. The trade-off may well be increased depth over breadth – a trade-off generally well
recognised by qualitative researchers focused on the importance of context. More
comprehensive studies across all these areas are also possible.
Future research into the analysis of report production could take the form of, although is not
limited to, research with report promoters as well as particular managers and report writers.
Asking and observing those who promoted and produced such messages about their meaning
and intent (i.e. what such messages mean and why they were included) and analysing their
explanations, reactions to and justifications/rationalisation of such messages are all noted as
areas where contribution could be made to knowledge regarding corporate social and
environmental reporting and communication.
In addition, analysis of the messages themselves is needed to add insight into what these
messages ‘mean’, what is said and what is not said, along with how it is said and how the
messages may have changed over time. Although there is no substitute for long hours
trawling over report content, research could usefully extend the textual archive beyond the
15
reports into supporting documentation such as stakeholder surveys, meeting notes and
external communications, the latter, particularly, for comparative purposes.
To investigate the consumption and interpretation of corporate social and environmental
messages, we advise studies which analyse the reactions of readers. Such studies might
expose a range of readers from various backgrounds to extracts of texts and analyse their
reaction to and interpretations of them. Surfacing audience and stakeholder expectations and
exploring whether any of their needs are met through the reporting process are also areas
which could be investigated.
In carrying out this suggested research we advocate contextualisation, not only in terms of
particular corporate history, but also in relation to the dynamics of particular modes of
reporting or communication popular at any one time. We also acknowledge the value of
engaging in a combination of approaches with the possibility of publishing methodologicallycombined papers (see Erusalimsky, Gray & Spence (2006) for an exploratory attempt, or
Milne, Tregidga & Walton (2003) and their broad-brush benchmarking paper followed by a
deeper interpretive analysis in Milne et al (2004)). Such combined approaches may initially
prove more appealing to those who find discourse methodology and methods underprescribed. However, in producing this paper, we hope to encourage a wider array of studies
into corporate social and environmental reporting inspired by discourse theory and method.
We seek to better unravel the role of corporate reporting in the production of corporate
identity and legitimacy, and, therefore, promote a shift away from the relative safety and
convenience of the reporting archive to the discomforting, yet beguiling territory of discourse
theory and method.
16
References
Abbot, W. & Monsen, J. (1979). On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: SelfReported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of
Management Journal, 22(3): 501-515.
ACCA/Corporateregister.com. (2004). Towards Transparency: Progress on Global Sustainability
Reporting 2004. Certified Accountants Educational Trust: London.
Adams, C. (2002). Internal Organisational Factors Influencing Corporate Social and Ethical
Reporting: Beyond Current Theorising. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
15(2): 223-250.
Adams, C., & Harte, G., (1998), The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British
banks’ and reatail companies’ corporate annual reports, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 23(8): 781-812.
Al-Tuwaijri, S.A., Christensen, T.E. & Hughes, K.E. (2004). The Relations Among Environmental
Disclosure, and Economic Performance: A Simultaneous Equations Approach. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 29: 447-471.
Allen, M.W. and Caillouet, R.H., (1994), Legitimation Endeavors: Impression Management Strategies
Used by an Organization in Crisis, Communication Monographs, 61(1): 44-62.
Alvesson, M. & Kärrreman, D. (2000a). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through
discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9): 1125-1149.
Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2000b). Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research:
Challenges, Responses, Consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36(2):
136-158.
Anderson, C., & Imperia, G., (1992), The corporate annual report: a photo analysis of males and
female portrayals, Journal of Business Communication, 22(2): 113-128.
Andrew, B., Gul, F., Guthrie, J. & Teoh, H. (1989). A Note on Corporate Social Disclosure Practices
in Developing Countries: The Case of Malaysia and Singapore. British Accounting Review,
21: 371-376.
Arndt, M. and Bigelow, B., (2000), Presenting Structural Innovation in an Institutional Environment:
Hospitals’ Use of Impression Management, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 494-522.
Arnold, P. J. (1998). The Limits of Postmodernism in Accounting History: The Decatur Experience.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(7): 665-684.
Ashforth, B.E. and Gibbs, B.W., (1990), “The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation”,
Organization Science, 1(2): 177-194.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Ball, A., Owen, D. L. & Gray, R. (2000). External Transparency of Internal Capture? The Role of
Third-Party Statements in Adding Value to Corporate Environmental Reports. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 9: 1-23.
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I., (2004), Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and
unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment, Academy of Management Journal,
47(1): 93-103.
Beattie, V.A., & Jones, M. J., (1992), The use and abuse of graphs in annual reports: a theoretical
framework and an empirical study, Accounting & Business Research, 22(88): 291-303.
Beattie, V.A., & Jones, M.J., (2001), A six-country comparison of the use of graphs in annual reports,
International Journal of Accounting, 36: 195-222.
Beder, S., (1997), Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Green Books: Totnes
Belkaoui, A. (1980). The Impact of Socio-Economic Accounting Statements on the Investment
Decision: An Empirical Study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(3): 263-283.
Belkaoui, A. & Karpik, P.G. (1989). Determinants of Corporate Social Decision to Disclose Social
Information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2(1): 36-511.
Beniot, W., (1995), Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies, SUNY
Press: Albany, New York.
Bettman, J.R., & Weitz, B.A., (1983), Attributions in the board room: causal reasoning in corporate
annual reports, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 165-183.
Boje, D.M., Oswick, C., & Ford, J.D., (2004): Language and organization: The doing of discourse,
Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 571-577.
17
Bowman, E.H. & Haire, M. (1976). Social Impact Disclosure and Corporate Annual Reports.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(1): 11-21.
Bromley, D.B., (1993), Reputation, image, and impression management, John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester, UK.
Bromley, D.B., (2000), Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputation, Corporate
Reputation Review, 3: 240-252.
Brown, N. & Deegan, C. (1998). The Public Disclosure of Environmental Performance Information –
a Dual Test of Media Agency Setting Theory and Legitimacy Theory. Accounting and
Business Research, 29(1): 21-41.
Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental Performance, Legislation and Annual Report Disclosure: The Case of
Acid Rain and Falconbridge. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 11(2): 163190.
Buhr, N. (2001). Corporate Silence: Environmental Disclosure and the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12: 405-421.
Buhr, N. (2002). A Structuration View on the Initiation of Environmental Reports. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 13: 17-38.
Buhr, N., & Rieter, S., (2006). Ideology, the environment and one worldview: A discourse analysis of
Noranda’s environmental and sustainable development reports, Proceedings of the 8th
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA) Conference, Cardiff.
Burchell, S. Clubb, C. & Hopwood, A.G. (1985). Accounting in its Social Context: Towards a History
of Value Added in the United Kingdom. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10: 381-413.
Buzby, S. & Falk. H. (1979). Demand for Social Responsibility Information by University Investors.
The Accounting Review, LIV(1): 23-37.
Campbell, D. (2000). Legitimacy Theory or Managerial Reality Construction? Corporate Social
Disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969-1997. Accounting Forum,
24(1): 80-100.
Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A Genealogical Analysis. In Wetherell, M.,
Taylor, S. & Yates, S. (Eds.). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. (pp. 267-309). Sage:
London.
Caruana, A., & Chircop, S., (2000), Measuring corporate reputation: A case example, Corporate
Reputation Review, 3: 43-57.
Chalaby, J.K. (1996). Beyond the Prison-House of Language: Discourse as a Sociological Concept.
The British Journal of Sociology, 47(4): 684-698.
Cheney, G. (1983). The Rhetoric of Identification and the Study of Organizational Communication.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69: 143-158.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities. University
of South Carolina: Columbia, SC.
Cheney, G. (1992). The Corporate Person (Re)Presents Itself. In Toth, E. & Heath, R. (Eds.).
Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Cheney, G. & Christensen, L. (2001). Organizational Identity: Linkages Between Internal and
External Communication. In Jablin, F. & Putnam, L. (Eds.). The New Handbook of
Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Methods. Sage:
Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Cheney, G. & Dionisopoulos, G., (1989), Public Relations? No, relations with publics: A rhetoricalorganisational approach to contemporary corporate communications. In Botan, C.H. &
Hazelton, V., (Eds.), Public Relations Theory (pp.135-158), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
Hillside, NJ.
Cheney, G. & Frenette, G. (1993). Persuasion and Organization: Values, Logics, and Accounts in
Contemporary Corporate Public Discourse. In Conrad, C. (Ed.). Ethical Nexus, (pp. 49-73).
Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood, NJ.
Cheney, G. & Vibbert, S., (1987), Corporate Discourse: Public relations and issue management. In
Jablin, F., Putnam, L., Roberts, K.H. & Porter, L.W. (Eds.). Handbook of Organizational
Communication (pp.165-194). Sage: Thousand Oaks, Calif.
18
Clatworthy, M.A., & Jones, M.J., (2003), Financial reporting of good and bad news: evidence from
accounting narratives, Accounting & Business Research, 33(3): 171-185.
Clatworthy, M.A., & Jones, M.J., (2006), Differential patterns of textual characteristics and company
performance in the chairman’s statement, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
19(4): 493-511.
Collison, D. J., (2003), Corporate propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(5): 853-886.
Cooper, C. (1995). Ideology, Hegemony and Accounting Discourse: A Case Study of the National
Union of Journalists. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6: 175-209.
Cooper, D.J., Sherer, M.J. (1984), The value of corporate accounting reports: arguments for a political
economy of accounting, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 9 No.3/4, pp.207-32.
Courtis, J.K., (1986), An investigation into annual report readability and corporate risk-return
relationships, Accounting & Business Research, Autumn: 285-294.
Courtis, J.K., (1995), Readability of annual reports: Western versus Asian evidence, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2): 4-17.
Courtis, J.K., (1998), Annual report readability: tests of the obfuscation hypothesis, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(4): 459-471.
Cowen, S., Ferreri, L. & Parker, L. (1987). The Impact of Corporate Characteristics on Social
Responsibility Disclosure: A Typology and Frequency-Based Analysis. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 12(2): 111-122.
Cowton, C. & Dopson, S. (2002). Foucault’s Prison? Management Control in an Automotive
Distributor. Management Accounting Research, 13: 191-213.
Craig, R.J. & Americ, J.H. (2004). Enron Discourse: The Rhetoric of a Resilient Capitalism. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 15(6-7): 813-852.
Danastas, L., & Gadenne, D., (2006), Social and Environmental NGOs as Users of Corporate Social
Disclosure, Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(1): 85-102.
Davison, J., (2002), Communication and antithesis in corporate annual reports: a research note,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4): 594-608.
Davison, J., (2006), Cracking the codes: photographic crossroads of NGO accountability, Proceedings
of the 8th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting (IPA) Conference, Cardiff.
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The Legitimising Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures –
a Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3): 282-311.
Deegan, C. & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder Influence on Corporate Reporting: An Exploration
of the Interaction Between WWF-Australia and the Australian Minerals Industry. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 31: 343-372.
Deegan, C. & Gordon, B. (1996). A Study of Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian
Corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3): 187-199.
Deegan, C. & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian Companies Report Environmental New Objectively?
An Analysis of Environmental Disclosures by Firms Prosecuted Successfully by the
Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2):
50-67.
Deegan, C. & Rankin, M., (1997), The Materiality of Environmental Information to Users of Annual
Reports, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4): 562-583.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents:
Australian Evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1): 101-130.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. & Tobin, J. (2002). An Examination of the Corporate Social and
Environmental Disclosures of BHP form 1983-1997: A Test of Legitimacy Theory.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3): 312-343.
Deephouse, D., (2002), The term reputation management: Users, uses and the trademark tradeoff,
Corporate Reputation Review, 5: 9-18.
Deetz, S. (2003). Reclaiming the Legacy of the Linguistic Turn. Organization, 10(3): 421-429.
Dowling, J. & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organization
Behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1): 122-136.
Eden, S. (1994). Using sustainable development: The business case. Global Environmental Change,
4(2): 160-167.
19
Eder, K. (1996a). The Institutionalisation of Environmentalism: Ecological Discourse and the Second
Transformation of the Public Sphere. In Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. & Wynne, B. (Eds.). Risk,
Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (pp. 203-223). Sage: London.
Elsbach, K.D., (1994), Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The
Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1):
57-88.
Elsbach, K.D. and Sutton, R.L., (1992), Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy Through Illegitimate
Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories, Academy of
Management Journal, 35(4): 699-738.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Capstone Publishing: Oxford.
Elwood, W.N. (ed.), (1995), Public relation inquiry as rhetorical criticism: case studies of corporate
disclosure and social influence, Praeger: Westwood.
Epstein, M. & Freedman, M. (1994). Social Disclosure and the Individual Investor. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 7(4): 94-109.
Erusalimsky, A., Gray, R. & Spence, C. (2006). Towards a More Systematic Study of Standalone
Corporate Social and Environmental: An Exploratory Pilot Study of UK Reporting. Social
and Environmental Accounting Journal, 26(1): 12-19.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. Longman: Essex.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Fairclough, N. (2001). The Discourse of New Labour: Critical Discourse Analysis. In Wetherell, M.,
Taylor, S. & Yates, S (Eds.). Discourse as Data: Guide for Analysis (pp. 229- 245). Sage:
London.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. (Ed.) Discourse as
Social Interaction, Vol 2. (pp. 258-284). Sage: London.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M., (1990), What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy,
Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-258.
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C.B.M., (1997), The reputational landscape, Corporate Reputation Review,
1: 5-13.
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C.B.M., (2003), Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning
reputations, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Foucault, M. (1969/2002). The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.).
Routledge: London.
Foucault, M. (1966/2002). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Routledge:
London.
Frazier, K.B., Ingram, R.W., & Tennyson, B.M., (1984), A methodology for the analysis of narrative
accounting disclosures, Journal of Accounting Research, 22: 318-331.
Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. (1988). An Analysis of the Association between Pollution Disclosure and
Economic Performance. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1(2): 43-58.
Freedman, M. & Stagliano, A.J. (1991). Differences in Social-Cost Disclosures: A Market Test of
Investor Reactions. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(1): 68-83.
Freedman, M. & Stagliano, A.J. (2002). Environmental Disclosures by Companies Involved in Initial
Public Offerings. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(1): 94-105.
Friedman, A.L., & Miles, S., (2004), Stakeholder theory and communication practice, Journal of
Communication Management, 9(1): 95-97.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J. & Roper, J. (2001). Applying Critical Discourse Analysis: Struggles Over
Takeovers Legislation in New Zealand. Advances in Public Interest Accounting. 8: 121-155.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. & Oswick, C. (2001). Organizational Discourse: Key Contributions and
Challenges. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3): 5-24.
Graves, O.F., Flesher, D.L., & Jordan, R.E., (1996), Pictures and the bottom line: the television
epistemology of US annual reports, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21: 57-88.
20
Gray, R. (2002). The social accounting project and Accounting, Organizations and Society”
Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27: 687-708.
Gray, R., (2006, forthcoming), Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Accounting
and Business Research
Gray, R. & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting for the Environment (2nd Ed). Sage: London.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & 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, 8(2): 47-77.
Gray, R., Owen, D. & Maunders, K. (1988). Corporate Social Reporting: Emerging Trends in
Accountability and the Social Contract. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 1(1): 6-20.
Gray, R., Owen, D. & Maunders, K. (1991). Accountability, Corporate Social Reporting, and the
External Social Audits. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 4: 1-21.
Grayson, D., & Hodges, A., (2001), Everybody’s Business, Dorling Kindersley: London.
Hackston, D. & Milne, M.J. (1996). Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in
New Zealand Companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(1): 77-108.
Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy
Process. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Hajer, M. & Fischer, F. (1999). Introduction. Beyond Global Discourse: The Rediscovery of Culture
in Environmental Politics. In Fisher, F. & Hajer, M. (Eds.). Living with Nature:
Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Hall, S. (1997). The Spectacle of the ‘Other’. In Hall, S. (Ed.). Representation: Cultural
representations and signifying practices (pp. 223-290). Sage: London.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching Organizational Discourse. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 31(3): 25-47.
Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (1999). No Joking Matter: Discursive Struggle in the Canadian Refugee
System. Organization Studies, 20(1): 1-24.
Harley, B. & Hardy, C. (2004). Firing Blanks? An Analysis of Discursive Struggle in HRM. Journal
of Management Studies, 41(3): 377-400.
Harte, G. & Owen, D. (1991). Environmental Disclosure in the Annual Reports of British Companies:
A Research Note. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(3): 51-61.
Hasseldine, J., Salama, A. I., & Toms, J.S., (2005), Quantity versus quality: the impact of
environmental disclosures on the reputations of UK Plcs, British Accounting Review, 37(2):
231-248.
Heath, R.L., (1992), The wrangle in the marketplace: A rhetorical perspective on public relations. In
Toth, E. & Heath, R. (Eds.), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, (pp.3764), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
Heath, R.L., (1993), A rhetorical approach: Zones of meaning and organisational prerogatives, Public
Relations Review, 19(2): 141-155.
Heath, R.L., (1994), Management of Corporate Communication: From interpersonal contacts to
external affairs, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
Heath, R.L., (2000), A rhetorical perspective on the values of public relations: Crossroads and
pathways toward concurrence, Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1): 69-91.
Heath, R.L., (2001), A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organisation
communicating well, In Heath, R.L. (ed.) Handbook of public relations, (pp. 31-50), Sage:
London.
Hilderbrandt, H.H., & Snyder, R., (1981), The Pollyanna hypothesis in business writing: initial results,
suggestions for research, Journal of Business Communication, 18: 5-15.
Holsti, O. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley:
London.
Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate Communication and Impression Management – New
Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reports. Journal of Business
Ethics, 27: 55-68.
Hoskin, K. & Macve, R. (1986). Accounting and the Examination: A Genealogy of Disciplinary
Power. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(2): 105-136.
21
Hoskin, K. & Macve, R. (1994). Reappraising the Genesis of Managerialism: A Re-examination of
Accounting at the Springfield Armory, 1815-1845. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 7(2): 4-29.
Hyland, K., (1998), Exploring corporate rhetoric metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter, Journal of
Business Communication, 35(2): 224-245.
Ice, R. (1991). Corporate Publics and Rhetorical Strategies: The Case of Union Carbide’s Bhopal
Crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3): 341-362.
Jones, M.J., & Shoemaker, P.A., (1994), Accounting narratives: a review of empirical studies of
content and readability, Journal of Accounting Literature, 13: 142-184.
Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage.
Kearins, K. & Hooper, K. (2002). Genealogical Method and Analysis. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 15(5): 733-757.
Kendall, G. & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s Methods. London: Sage.
Knights, D. & Collinson, D. (1987). Disciplining the Shopfloor: A Comparison of the Disciplinary
Effects of Managerial Psychology and Financial Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 12 (5): 457-477.
Knights, D. & Morgan, G. (1991). Corporate Strategy, Organizations, and Subjectivity: A Critique.
Organization Studies, 12(2): 251-273.
KPMG (1996) KPMG International Survey of Environmental Reporting 1996, KPMG Environmental
Consulting.
KPMG (1999) KPMG International Survey of Environmental Reporting 1999, KPMG Environmental
Consulting.
KPMG (2002) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002, KPMG
Global Sustainability Services.
KPMG (2005) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, June,
www.wimm.nl
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage: London.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic
Politics. (W Moore and P Cammack, Trans.) Verso: London.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1987). Post-marxism without apologies. New Left Review, 166: 79-106.
Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the Term ‘Sustainable Development’ in Finnish Corporate
Disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29(4): 395-413.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting Change or Institutional Appropriation? –
A Case Study of the Implementation of Environmental Accounting. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 12: 269-292.
Lehman, C. (1992), Accounting’s Changing Roles in Social Conflict, Paul Chapman, London.
Lewis, S., (2003), Reputation and corporate responsibility, Journal of Management Communication,
7(4), 356-364.
Lidchi, H. (1997). The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures, In Hall, S. (Ed.).
Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, (pp. 151-222). Sage:
London.
Lindblom, C.K., (1993), The Implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social
Performance and Disclosure, paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, New York.
Livesey, S. (1999). McDonald’s and the Environmental Defence Fund: A Case Study of a Green
Alliance. The Journal of Business Communication, 36(1): 5- 39.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-Identity as Discursive Struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria.
The Journal of Business Communication, 38(1): 58-91.
Livesey, S. (2002a). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable
development. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3): 313-349.
Livesey, S. (2002b). Global Warming Wars: Rhetorical and Discourse Analytic Approaches to
ExxonMobil’s Corporate Public Discourse. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(1):
117-148.
22
Livesey, S. & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability
reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15(3): 233258.
Llewellyn, S. & Northcott, D. (2005). The Average Hospital. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
30: 555-583.
Loft, A. (1986). Towards a Critical Understanding of Accounting: The Case of Cost Accounting in
the UK, 1914-1925. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(2): 137-169.
Lynn, M. (1992). A Note of Corporate Social Disclosure in Hong Kong. British Accounting Review,
24: 105-110.
Magness, V. (2006). Strategic Posture, Financial Performance, and Environmental Disclosure: An
Empirical Test of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
19(4): 540-563.
Margolis, J. & Walsh, (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305.
Mathews, M.R. (1984). A Suggested Classification for Social Accounting Research. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy. 3: 199-221.
Mathews, R. (1997). Twenty-five Years of Social and Environmental Accounting Research: Is there a
Silver Jubilee to Celebrate? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(4): 481-531.
McKinstry, S., (1996), Designing the annual reports of Burton plc from 1930 to 1994, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 21(1): 89-111.
Miller, P & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the Construction of the Governable Person.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3): 235-265.
Milne, M.J., (2002) Positive Accounting Theory, Political Costs and Social Disclosure Analyses: A
Critical Look, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(3): 369-395.
Milne, M.J. & Chan, C.C. (1999). Narrative Corporate Social Disclosures: How Much of a Difference
Do They Make to Investment Decision-Making? British Accounting Review, 31: 439-457.
Milne, M J., Kearins, K. & Walton, S. (2006). Creating Adventures in Wonderland: The Journey
Metaphor and Environmental Sustainability. Organization,
Milne, M.J. & Patten, D.M. (2002). Securing Organizational Legitimacy: An Experimental Decision
Case Examining the Impact of Environmental Disclosures. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 15(3): 372-405.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. & Walton, S, (2003). The Triple Bottom Line: Benchmarking New
Zealand’s Early Reporters. University of Auckland Business Review, 5(2): 36-50.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. & Walton, S. (2004). Playing with Magic Lanterns: The New Zealand
Business Council for Sustainable Development and Corporate Triple Bottom Line Reporting.
Proceedings of 4th APIRA Conference, Singapore, 2004.
Mobus, J.L. (2005). Mandatory Environmental Disclosures in a Legitimacy Theory Context.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(4): 492-517.
Moloney, K., (2000), Rethinking PR: The spin and the substance, Routledge: London.
Moloney, K., (2004), Democracy and public relations, Journal of Communication Management, 9(1):
89-92.
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. & Gray, R. (2006). Do Financial Markets Care About Social and
Environmental Disclosure? Further Evidence and Exploration from the UK. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(2): 228-255.
Neimark, M.K., (1992), The Hidden Dimensions of Annual Reports: Sixty years of social conflict at
General Motors, Markus Weiner Publishing: New York.
Ness, K. & Mirza, A. (1991). Corporate Social Disclosure: A Note on A Test of Agency Theory.
British Accounting Review, 23: 211-217.
Neu, D., Warsame, H. & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing Public Impressions: Environmental
Disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3): 265-282.
O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental Disclosures in the Annual Report: Extending the Applicability
and Predictive Power of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
15(3): 344-371.
O’Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial Perceptions of Corporate Social Disclosure: An Irish Story.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3): 406-436.
23
O’Dwyer, B. & Owen, D. (2005). Assurance Statement Practice in Environmental, Social and
Sustainability Reporting: A Critical Evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37: 205-229.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Bradley, J. (2005). Perceptions on the Emergence and Future of
Corporate Social Disclosure in Ireland: Engaging the Voices of Non-Governmental
Organisations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(1): 14-43.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. & Hession (2005), User needs in sustainability reporting: perspective of
stakeholders in Ireland, European Accounting Review, 14(4): 759-787.
Owen, D., Swift, T. & Hunt, K. (2001). Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Social
and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Accounting Forum, 25(3): 264-282.
Parker, L.D. (1986). Polemical Themes in Social Accounting: A Scenario for Standard Setting.
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1: 67-93.
Parker, L.D. (1991). External Social Accountability: Adventures in a Maleficent World. Advances in
Public Interest Accounting, 4: 23-34.
Parker, L.D. (2005). Social and Environmental Accountability Research: A View from the
Commentary Box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6): 842-860.
Patten, D. (1992). Intra-Industry Environmental Disclosures in Response to the Alaskan Oil Spill: A
Note on Legitimacy Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5): 471-475.
Patten, D. (1995).Variability in Social Disclosure: A Legitimacy-Based Analysis. Advances in Public
Interest Accounting, 6: 273-285.
Patten, D. (2002a). Media Exposure, Public Policy Pressure, and Environmental Disclosure: An
Examination of the Impact of Tri Data Availability. Accounting Forum, 152-171.
Patten, D. (2002b). The Relation between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure:
A Research Note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27: 763-773.
Pfeffer, J., (1981), Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational
Paradigms, In Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M., (eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour,
3: 1-52.
Philippe, D., (2006), Talking Green: Organizational Environmental Communication as a LegitimacyEnhancement Strategy, Academy of Management, Organisations and the Natural Environment
(ONE) Meetings, Atlanta, US.
Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T.B., & Hardy, C., (2004) Discourse and institutions, Academy of Management
Review, 29(4): 635-652.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric, and social construction. London: Sage.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
London: Sage.
Preston, A.M., Wright, C., & Young, J.J., (1996), Imagining annual reports, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 21(1): 113-137.
Puxty, A.G. (1986). Social Accounting as Immanent Legitimation: A Critique of Technicist Ideology.
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1: 95-111.
Puxty, A.G. (1991). Social Accountability and Universal Pragmatics. Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, 4: 35-45.
Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Application of
Stakeholder Theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6): 595-612.
Rockness, J. & Williams, P. (1988). A Descriptive Study of Social Responsibility Funds. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 13(4): 397-411.
Rorty, R. (1968). (Ed.). The Linguistic Turn; Recent Essays in Philosophical Method, University of
Chicago Press: Chicago.
Sachs, W. (1999). Sustainable Development and the Crisis of Nature: On the Political Anatomy of an
Oxymoron. In Fischer, F., & Hajer, M. (Eds.). Living with Nature: Environmental Politics as
Cultural Discourse. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Sethi, S.P., (1975), “Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework for
Measurement and Evaluation”, California Management Review, Spring, pp. 58-64.
Sethi. S.P., (1977), Advocacy Advertising and Large Corporations, D.C. Heath, Lexington,
Massachusetts.
24
Sethi, S.P., (1978), “Advocacy Advertising―The American Experience”, California Management
Review, Fall, pp. 58-64.
Sethi, S.P., (1979), “A Conceptual Framework for Environmental Analysis of Social Issues and
Evaluation of Business Response Patterns”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 1,
pp. 63-74.
Skerlep, A., (2001), Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of
corporate disclosure, Journal of Communication Management, 6(2): 176-187.
Smith, M., & Taffler, R.J., (2000), The chairman’s statement – a content analysis of discretionary
narrative disclosures, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5): 624-646.
Solomon, J.F. & Solomon, A. (2006). Private Social, Ethical and Environmental Disclosure.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4): 564-591.
Springett, D. (2003). Business Conceptions of Sustainable Development: A Perspective From Critical
Theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12: 71-86.
Stanton, P., & Stanton, J., (2002), Corporate annual reports: research perspectives used, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4): 478-500.
Stanton, P., Stanton, J. & Pires, G. (2004). Impressions of an annual report: An experimental study.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(1): 57-69.
Stauber, J., & Rampton, S., (1995) Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Common Courage Press: Monroe,
ME.
Suchman, M.C., (1995), “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches”, Academy of
Management Review, 20 (3): 571-610.
Sydserff, R, & Weetman, P., (2002), Developments in content analysis: a transitivity index and diction
scores, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4): 523-545.
Teoh, H.Y. & Thong, G. (1984). Another Look at Corporate Social Responsibility and Reporting: An
Empirical Study in a Developing Country. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(2): 189206.
Thomas, J., (1997), Discourse in the marketplace: the making of meaning in annual reports, Journal of
Business Communication, 34(1): 47-66.
Thompson, J.B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA
Tilling, M. (2004). Some Thoughts on Legitimacy Theory in Social and Environmental Accounting.
Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, 24(2): 3-7.
Tilt, C.A. (1994). The Influence of External Pressure Groups on Corporate Social Disclosure: Some
Empirical Evidence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 7(4): 47-72.
Tinker, T., Lehman, C. & Neimark, M. (1991). Falling down the Hole in the Middle of the Road:
Political Quietism in Corporate Social Reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 4(2): 28-54.
Tinker, T. & Neimark, M. (1987). The Role of Annual Reports in Gender and Class Contradictions at
General Motors: 1917-1776. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(1): 71-88.
Toms, J.S., (2002), Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate environmental
reputation: some UK evidence, British Accounting Review, 34(3): 257-282.
Toth, E., (2000), Public relations and rhetoric: History, concepts, future, In Moss, D., Verčič, D. and
Warnaby, G. (eds.) Perspectives on public relations research, (pp. 121-144), Routledge:
London.
Tregidga, H. & Milne, M. (2006). From Sustainable Management to Sustainable Development: A
Longitudinal Analysis of a Leading New Zealand Environmental Reporter. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 15: 219-241.
Tsoukas, H. (1999). David and Goliath in the Risk Society: Making Sense of the Conflict Between
Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea. Organization, 6(3): 499-528.
van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction, Vol. 2. Sage: London.
Walden, W.D. & Schwartz, B.N. (1997). Environmental Disclosures and Public Policy Pressure.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16: 125-154.
Watts, R.L. & Zimmerman, J.L. (1978). Positive Accounting Theory: A Ten Year Perspective. The
Accounting Review, 65(1): 131-156.
Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking Environmentalism: Corporate Responses to Sustainable Development.
Earthscan: UK.
25
Westphal, J.D., & Zajac, E.J., (1998), The symbolic management of stockholders: corporate
governance reforms and shareholder reactions, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 127-153.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. (2001a). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. Sage:
London.
Wiseman, J. (1982). An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made in Corporate Annual Reports.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1): 53-63.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1958). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.
Wood, L.A. & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk
and Text. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Yamagami, T. & Kokubu, K. (1991). A Note on Corporate Social Disclosure in Japan. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(4): 32-39.
Zeghal, D. & Ahmed, S.A. (1990). Comparison of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure
Media Used by Canadian Firms. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 3(1): 3853.
26