Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies

Hahn, Rüdiger; Lülfs, Regina

doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4

Cited by 397 publications

(415 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

337

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, these limitations also apply to the many empirical studies on sustainability reporting and have been widely recognized in the literature (e.g., Cho et al 2010Cho et al , 2012Unerman et al 2007;Owen et al 2000;Hahn and Lülfs 2014). Moreover, this paper does not focus on sustainability performance or negative aspects that could be hidden by organizations but rather on measures generally perceived to be a desirable and ethical behavior, namely collaboration with stakeholders to protect biodiversity.…”

Section: Limitations and Avenues For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing pressures to conserve biodiversity-particularly for industries based on the exploitation of natural resources-have reinforced the need to implement specific measures in this area. Corporate commitment to preserving biodiversity is increasingly scrutinized by stakeholders and now represents an important aspect of business ethics. Although stakeholder involvement is often essential to the management of biodiversity, very few studies in the literature have focused on the details of this involvement. The objective of this paper is to analyze how mining and forestry companies can manage biodiversity issues through stakeholder involvement based on a content analysis of 430 sustainability reports using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. The paper elucidates the reasons for such involvement, the nature of stakeholders involved, and the types of measures employed to manage biodiversity. Stakeholders' motives for becoming involved revolve around four main issues: complexity and knowledge management; self-regulation and relationships with public authorities; legitimacy and social responsiveness; and commercial and strategic objectives. The stakeholders involved in biodiversity initiatives are essentially non-governmental organizations, experts and universities, public authorities, and coalitions of companies. In the end, the initiatives identified can be grouped into three categories: management practices, socio-political actions, and research and conservation measures. The paper provides various examples of these initiatives and shows how they can be implemented in collaboration with different stakeholders depending on the company's objectives. The contributions the study makes to the literature on biodiversity management and the managerial implications of the study are analyzed in the discussion section.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Avenues For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the absence of any regulatory requirements (Manetti & Becatti, 2009), the GRI provided the first set of guidelines that not only allowed the comparison of reporting practices by companies around the globe but also challenged companies to report on a range of negative practices by setting clear guidelines. The GRI guidelines are now regarded as 'the de facto global standard' for sustainability reporting by the leading global companies (Hahn & Lülfs, 2014;KPMG, 2011KPMG, , 2013 and are commonly used by researchers in the field of sustainability reporting.…”

Section: Sustainable Hrm and Corporate Sustainability Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting on sustainability and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies

Ehnert

Parsa

Roper

et al. 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

368

279

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a response to the growing public awareness on the importance of organisational contributions to sustainable development, there is an increased incentive for corporations to report on their sustainability activities. In parallel with this has been the development of 'Sustainable HRM' which embraces a growing body of practitioner and academic literature connecting the notions of corporate sustainability to HRM. The aim of this article is to analyse corporate sustainability reporting amongst the world's largest companies and to assess the HRM aspects of sustainability within these reports in comparison to environmental aspects of sustainable management and whether organisational attributes -principally country-of-origin -influences the reporting of such practices. A focus in this article is the extent to which the reporting of various aspects of sustainability may reflect dominant models of corporate governance in the country in which a company is headquartered. The findings suggest, first and against expectations, that the overall disclosure on HRM-related performance is not lower than that on environmental performance. Second, companies report more on their internal workforce compared to their external workforce. Finally, international differences, in particular those between companies headquartered in liberal market economies and coordinated market economies, are not as apparent as expected.

show abstract

“…The reporting process rarely involves the stakeholders, and tends to be conditioned by a rationale of public relations rather than transparency (Unerman et al 2007;Tregidga et al 2014;Boiral 2013). For example, the study of Hahn and Lülfs (2014) identifies various legitimization strategies used in sustainability reporting (e.g., marginalization, abstraction, and indicating facts). Likewise, Milne et al (2009) describe the rhetoric of sustainability reports as based on various strategies of symbolic construction which are often disconnected from actions and mostly aim to increase organizational legitimacy among stakeholders (e.g., rationalization, universalization, and displacement).…”

Section: The Techniques Of Neutralization Underlying Biodiversity Repmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the strategies organizations use to demonstrate their accountability for biodiversity and legitimize their impact in this area through the use of techniques of neutralization. Neutralization aims to manage stakeholder impressions on very socially sensitive issues. Based on the content analysis of 148 sustainability reports from mining organizations, the study sheds light on the successful use of rhetoric in reports on nonmeasurable and potentially unaccountable issues. Specifically, the study shows that mining organizations use four main techniques of neutralization when they explain their impact on biodiversity. When they address stakeholders, they defend their social legitimacy and environmental responsiveness using one of the four techniques: they claim of a net positive or neutral impact on biodiversity, they deny that they have a significant impact, they distance themselves from the impact of their actions, and they play down their responsibilities. The study contributes to the literature on corporate sustainability and accounting for stakeholders. It focuses on under-researched issues such as the management of biodiversity and the tactics used to rationalize negative impacts. The study also bridges the gap between theories about organizational legitimacy, impression management, and techniques of neutralization.

show abstract

Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies

Cited by 397 publications

References 91 publications

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Reporting on sustainability and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies

Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About