Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 401–420 | Cite as

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

  • Rüdiger Hahn
  • Regina Lülfs


Corporate sustainability reports are supposed to provide a complete and balanced picture of corporate sustainability performance. They are, however, usually voluntary and thus prone to interpretation and even greenwashing tendencies. To overcome this problem, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides standardized reporting guidelines challenging companies to report positive and negative aspects of an organization’s sustainability performance. However, the reporting of “negative aspects” in particular can endanger corporate legitimacy if perceived by the stakeholders as not being in line with societal norms and values. Starting from the theoretical lenses of economics-based disclosure theories and socio-political theories of disclosure, the focus of this study therefore was to analyze the communicative legitimation strategies companies use to report “negative aspects,” i.e., negative ecological and social impact caused by corporate activity. Using qualitative content analysis of GRI-oriented sustainability reports from companies listed on the US Dow Jones Industrial Average Index and on the German DAX Index, we identified six legitimation strategies. We discuss these strategies regarding to symbolic and substantial management of legitimacy. We show that symbolic legitimation strategies aiming at modifying the perception of legitimizing stakeholders dominate in the reports at hand. Such persuasion, however, does not meet the requirement of impartiality as postulated by the GRI guidelines. Building upon this conclusion we propose a concise characterization of “negative aspects” and develop a GRI-compliant schema of reporting about them. In doing so, we offer a way to improve the overall “balance” of sustainability reporting contributing to a true and fair view in sustainability disclosure.


Sustainability reporting Legitimacy Disclosure Global Reporting Initiative Impression management Reporting strategy 



We thank Christine Wagner and Michael Kühnen for their input when conducting this study. We also thank the four anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Business Ethics for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61(1), 44–62. doi: 10.1080/03637759409376322.Google Scholar
  2. Archambeault, D. S., DeZoort, F. T., & Holt, T. P. (2008). The need for an internal auditor report to external stakeholders to improve governance transparency. Accounting Horizons, 22(4), 375–388. doi: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.4.375.Google Scholar
  3. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1.2.177.Google Scholar
  4. Avenier, M.-J. (2010). Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1229–1255. doi: 10.1177/0170840610374395.Google Scholar
  5. 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. doi: 10.2307/20159562.Google Scholar
  6. Bebbington, J., & Larrinage-González, C. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361. doi: 10.1108/09513570810863932.Google Scholar
  7. Belal, A. R., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate social reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 311–324. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0511-4.Google Scholar
  8. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186.Google Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 48–74.Google Scholar
  10. Blacconiere, W. G., & Patten, D. M. (1994). Environmental disclosures, regulatory costs, and changes in firm value. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18(3), 357–377. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(94)90026-4.Google Scholar
  11. Bliege Bird, R., & Smith, E. A. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221–248. doi: 10.1086/427115.Google Scholar
  12. Bloomfield, R. J. (2002). The “incomplete revelation hypothesis” and financial reporting. Accounting Horizons, 16(3), 233–243. doi: 10.2308/acch.2002.16.3.233.Google Scholar
  13. Boele, R., Fabig, H., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: I. The story of Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni people—Environment, economy, relationships: Conflict and prospects for resolution. Sustainable Development, 9(2), 74–86. doi: 10.1002/sd.161.Google Scholar
  14. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2012.684462.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1998.9729564.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, D., Shrives, P., & Bohmbach-Saager, H. (2001). Voluntary disclosure of mission statements in corporate annual reports: Signaling what and to whom? Business and Society Review, 106(1), 65–87. doi: 10.1111/0045-3609.00102.Google Scholar
  17. Carlisle, Y. M., & Faulkner, D. O. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: A stages framework. European Business Journal, 16(4), 143–151.Google Scholar
  18. Castelló, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8.Google Scholar
  19. Chambers, R. J., & Wolnizer, P. W. (1991). A true and fair view of position and results: the historical background. Accounting, Business & Financial History, 1(2), 197–214. doi: 10.1080/09585209100000029.Google Scholar
  20. Chan, C. C. C., & Milne, M. J. (1999). Investor reactions to corporate environmental saints and sinners: an experimental analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 29(4), 265–279. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1999.9729588.Google Scholar
  21. Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of Total SA’s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62. doi: 10.1080/09638180802579616.Google Scholar
  22. Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009.Google Scholar
  23. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.002.Google Scholar
  24. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 303–327. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003.Google Scholar
  25. Clatworthy, M., & Jones, M. J. (2003). Financial reporting of good news and bad news: Evidence from accounting narratives. Accounting and Business Research, 33(3), 171–185. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2003.9729645.Google Scholar
  26. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2010). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. doi: 10.1177/0149206310388419.Google Scholar
  27. Coram, P. J., Monroe, G. S., & Woodliff, D. R. (2009). The value of assurance on voluntary nonfinancial disclosure: An experimental evaluation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(1), 137–151. doi: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.1.137.Google Scholar
  28. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435852.Google Scholar
  30. Deegan, C. (2004). Environmental disclosures and share prices—A discussion about efforts to study this relationship. Accounting Forum, 28(1), 87–97. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.04.007.Google Scholar
  31. Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?: An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67. doi: 10.1108/09513579610116358.Google Scholar
  32. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435861.Google Scholar
  33. Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759. doi: 10.2308/accr-10218.Google Scholar
  34. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.Google Scholar
  35. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. doi: 10.2307/1388226.Google Scholar
  36. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34. doi: 10.1177/1094428106289252.Google Scholar
  37. Dye, R. A. (1985). Disclosure of nonproprietary information. Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 123–145.Google Scholar
  38. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141. doi: 10.1002/bse.323.Google Scholar
  39. Erickson, S. L., Weber, M., & Segovia, J. (2011). Using communication theory to analyze corporate reporting strategies. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2), 207–223. doi: 10.1177/0021943611399728.Google Scholar
  40. European Commission. (2011). A Renewed EU Strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  41. Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and global CSR standards. Management International Review, 51(5), 665–696. doi: 10.1007/s11575-011-0089-9.Google Scholar
  42. Gallo, P. J., & Jones Christensen, L. (2011). Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Business & Society, 50(2), 315–349. doi: 10.1177/0007650311398784.Google Scholar
  43. Georgiou, O., & Jack, L. (2011). In pursuit of legitimacy: A history behind fair value accounting. The British Accounting Review, 43(4), 311–323. doi: 10.1016/ Scholar
  44. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. (2012). 2012 Global Sustainable Investment Review (n.p.). Washington, DC: Global Sustainable Investment Alliance.Google Scholar
  45. 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 & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77. doi: 10.1108/09513579510146996.Google Scholar
  46. GRI. (2011). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Version 3.1. Amsterdam: GRI.Google Scholar
  47. Grunig, J. E. (2003). Constructing public relations theory and practice. In R. F. Carter, B. Dervin, S. H. Chaffee, & L. Foreman-Wernet (Eds.), Communication, a different kind of horserace: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 85–115). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  48. Guidry, R. P., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Voluntary disclosure theory and financial control variables: An assessment of recent environmental disclosure research. Accounting Forum, 36(2), 81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2012.03.002.Google Scholar
  49. Hahn, R. (2011). Integrating corporate responsibility and sustainable development: A normative-conceptual approach to holistic management thinking. Journal of Global Responsibility, 2(1), 8–22. doi: 10.1108/20412561111128492.Google Scholar
  50. Hahn, R. (2012). Standardizing social responsibility? New perspectives on guidance documents and management system standards for sustainable development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 717–727. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2012.2183639.Google Scholar
  51. Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:  10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
  52. Haniffa, R., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001.Google Scholar
  53. Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194–208. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003.Google Scholar
  54. Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9721-4.Google Scholar
  55. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55–68. doi: 10.1023/A:1006400707757.Google Scholar
  56. Hrasky, S. (2012). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174–198. doi: 10.1108/09513571211191798.Google Scholar
  57. Hughes, S. B., Anderson, A., & Golden, S. (2001). Corporate environmental disclosures: Are they useful in determining environmental performance? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 20(3), 217–240. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(01)00031-X.Google Scholar
  58. International Organization for Standardization. (2010). ISO 26000—Guidance on Social Responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  59. Johansen, T. R. (2010). Employees, non-financial reports and institutional arrangements: A study of accounts in the workplace. European Accounting Review, 19(1), 97–130. doi: 10.1080/09638180902989392.Google Scholar
  60. Joseph, G. (2012). Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(2), 93–106. doi: 10.1016/ Scholar
  61. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. W. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement (pp. 49–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Kim, J.-N., Bach, S. B., & Clelland, I. J. (2007). Symbolic or behavioral management? Corporate reputation in high-emission industries. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 77–98. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550042.Google Scholar
  63. KPMG. (2011). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2011 (n.p.). New York: KPMG.Google Scholar
  64. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  65. Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.Google Scholar
  66. Lindblom, C. K. (2010). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In R. Gray, J. Bebbington, & S. Gray (Eds.), Social and environmental accounting: Developing the field (pp. 51–63). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Lougee, B., & Wallace, J. (2008). The corporate social responsibility (CSR) trend. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 20(1), 96–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2008.00172.x.Google Scholar
  68. Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(2), 110–122. doi: 10.1002/csr.255.Google Scholar
  69. Manetti, G., & Becatti, L. (2009). Assurance services for sustainability reports: Standards and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 289–298. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9809-x.Google Scholar
  70. Marshall, R. S., & Brown, D. (2003). Corporate environmental reporting: What’s in a metric? Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(2), 87–106. doi: 10.1002/bse.354.Google Scholar
  71. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458.Google Scholar
  72. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social research, 1(2), Article 20.Google Scholar
  73. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (11th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  74. Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2007). Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives: Incremental information or impression management? Journal of Accounting Literature, 26, 116–196.Google Scholar
  75. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
  76. Milne, M. J., & Patten, D. M. (2002). Securing organizational legitimacy: An experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 372–405. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435889.Google Scholar
  77. Mruck, K., & Breuer, F. (2003). Subjectivity and reflexivity in qualitative research—The FQS issues. Forum: Qualitative Social research, 4(2), Article 23.Google Scholar
  78. Muralidharan, S., Dillistone, K., & Shin, J.-H. (2011). The Gulf Coast oil spill: Extending the theory of image restoration discourse to the realm of social media and beyond petroleum. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 226–232. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.04.006.Google Scholar
  79. Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00008-1.Google Scholar
  80. 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. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435870.Google Scholar
  81. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024003910.Google Scholar
  82. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9044-2.Google Scholar
  83. Patten, D. M. (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. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q.Google Scholar
  84. Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00028-4.Google Scholar
  85. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  86. Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993. doi: 10.1002/smj.919.Google Scholar
  87. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284. doi: 10.1080/00909889909365539.Google Scholar
  88. Reimsbach, D., & Hahn, R. (2013). The effects of negative incidents in sustainability reporting on investors’ judgments - An experimental study of third-party versus self-disclosure in the realm of sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, Early View. doi: 10.1002/bse.1816.
  89. Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1(1), 11–24. doi: 10.1002/bse.3280010104.Google Scholar
  90. Skinner, D. J. (1994). Why firms voluntarily disclose bad news. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(1), 38–60.Google Scholar
  91. Smith, J. A., Morreale, M., & Mariani, M. E. (2008). Climate change disclosure: Moving towards a brave new world. Capital Markets Law Journal, 3(4), 469–485. doi: 10.1093/cmlj/kmn021.Google Scholar
  92. Smith, M., & Taffler, R. J. (2000). The chairman’s statement—A content analysis of discretionary narrative disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 624–647. doi: 10.1108/09513570010353738.Google Scholar
  93. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. doi: 10.2307/1882010.Google Scholar
  94. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  95. Sydserff, R., & Weetman, P. (2002). Developments in content analysis: A transitivity index and scores. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4), 523–545. doi: 10.1108/09513570210440586.Google Scholar
  96. Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686–710. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0227.Google Scholar
  97. Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(2), 143–155. doi: 10.1023/A:1006183805499.Google Scholar
  98. Vaara, E. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27(6), 789–810. doi: 10.1177/0170840606061071.Google Scholar
  99. Våland, T., & Heide, M. (2005). Corporate social responsiveness: Exploring the dynamics of “bad episodes”. European Management Journal, 23(5), 495–506. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2005.09.005.Google Scholar
  100. van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112. doi: 10.1177/1750481307071986.Google Scholar
  101. Verrecchia, R. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(83)90011-3.Google Scholar
  102. Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(4), 325–342. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(66)90026-6.Google Scholar
  103. Williams, D. E., & Olaniran, B. A. (1994). Exxon’s decision-making flaws: The hypervigilant response to the Valdez grounding. Public Relations Review, 20(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1016/0363-8111(94)90110-4.Google Scholar
  104. Yang, K. (2007). Examining perceived honest performance reporting by public organizations: Bureaucratic politics and organizational practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 81–105. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum042.Google Scholar
  105. Yuthas, K., Rogers, R., & Dillard, J. F. (2002). Communicative action and corporate annual reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1/2), 141–157. doi: 10.1023/A:1021314626311.Google Scholar
  106. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 125–132.Google Scholar
  107. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443–464. doi: 10.1146/ Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversität KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and EconomicsHeinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations