This study demonstrates how three Finnish companies constructed their stakeholder relationships with environmental NGOs (ENGOs) in terms of social proximity in their sustainability reports between 2003 and 2012. The study identifies five types of stakeholder relationship between ENGOs and corporations constructed in the reports: monetary, management system, collaborative, dialogue and conflicting. Within these relationships the level of constructed social proximity and level of trust vary. The results indicate that, within the 10 years we examined, a change has occurred in the ENGO relationships constructed in corporate sustainability reports: they have shifted from being nonstakeholder relationships to more socially proximate, collaborative ones. However, social proximity is primarily constructed through projects that have little or nothing to do with core business operations. Thus the construction of more socially proximate ENGO relationships is just one way a corporation can seek legitimacy for its environmental management.

Corporate environmental reports are increasingly viewed as products of the managerial framing of responsibility and stakeholders. This notion encouraged us to conduct a multiple-case study on how stakeholders are framed in environmental reports. We show how interaction between companies and stakeholders is described in the environmental reports of three firms operating in different business sectors -financial, aviation, and energy -over a period of five years. We use an inductively oriented content analysis to identify five categories of relationships being constructed in the data: demanding, promoting, committing, donating, and preventing. We then show how commitment and promotion dominate. We conclude by discussing the implications of this type of managerial framing to maintaining business-as-usual approaches to corporate environmentalism and show how the critique of environmental reports derives from stakeholder accountability and critical approaches. We argue that managerial framing of stakeholders in environmental reports partly explains the increased criticism among stakeholder representatives and academics.

No abstract