Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 152, Issue 3, pp 725–739 | Cite as

Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk? An Examination of Sustainability Accounting Implementation

  • W. Eric Lee
  • Amy M. HagemanEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study examines how ambiguity in corporate objectives affects managers’ choice between opposing sustainability and short-term profit goals. We test this question with an experiment in which we vary whether environmental sustainability is included explicitly (vs implicitly) as a strategic objective that is used for managers’ performance evaluations. Findings show that managers increase (decrease) biodegradable production and correspondingly decrease (increase) short-term profit when environmental sustainability performance is explicitly (implicitly) incorporated within the company’s strategic objectives. Also, managers in the implicit incorporation group are more likely to decrease (increase) their biodegradable production when they learn that their counterparts within the firm have chosen to decrease (increase) biodegradable production in other product lines. Further, managers in the explicit incorporation group have greater trust in senior management, and that trust mediates the negative relationship between incorporation ambiguity and the level of biodegradable production. The theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed.

Keywords

Environmental sustainability Ambiguity avoidance Social norms influence Trust 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

W. Eric Lee declares that he has no conflict of interest. Amy M. Hageman declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Accounting for Sustainability. (2012). Future proofed decision making: Integrating environmental and social factors into strategy, finance and operations, London. http://www.accountingforsustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/A4S-Report-Future-proofed-decision-making.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  2. Ballou, B., Casey, R., Grenier, J., & Heitger, D. (2012). Exploring the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 26(2), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley, M., & Showalter, D. (2015). ERM and sustainability: Together on the road ahead. Strategic Finance, 97, 33–39.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, S., & Brownson, F. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 72, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bieker, T., & Gminder, C.-U. (2001). Towards a sustainability balanced scorecard. Oikos PhD summer academy 2001: Environmental management & policy and related aspects of sustainability. University of St Gallen. http://backup.oikos-international.org/fileadmin/oikos-international/international/Summer_Academies__old_ones_/edition_2001/Papers/Paper_Bieker_Gminder.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  7. Binkley, C. (2010). How green is my sneaker? The Wall Street Journal, 22, D1–D6.Google Scholar
  8. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Brandon, D., Long, J., Loraas, T., Mueller-Phillips, J., & Vansant, B. (2014). Online instrument delivery and participant recruitment services: Emerging opportunities for behavioral accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, M. (2010). Mr. Green Jeans. Forbes, 24, F38.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J., Henderson, S., & Raiborn, C. (2011). Sustainability and the balanced scorecard: Integrating green measures into business reporting. Management Accounting Quarterly, 12(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, A., & Shabana, K. (2011). Director notes: The business case for corporate social responsibility. New York: Commissioned by the Conference Board. https://www.conference-board.org/retrievefile.cfm?filename=1156_1307550372.pdf&type=subsite. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  14. Cho, C., Laine, M., Roberts, R., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  16. Cialdini, R., Kallgren, C., & Reno, R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creed, D., & Miles, R. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Curley, S., & Yates, F. (1985). The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curley, S., Yates, F., & Abrams, R. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dermer, J. (1973). Cognitive characteristics and the perceived importance of information. The Accounting Review, 48(3), 511–519.Google Scholar
  22. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Einhorn, H., & Hogarth, R. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92(4), 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  26. Epstein, M. J., & Rejc, A. (2005). Identifying, measuring, and managing organizational risks for improved performance. New York: Management Accounting Guideline, AICPA.Google Scholar
  27. Ernst & Young (EY). (2013). 2013 six growing trends in corporate sustainability: An EY survey in cooperation with GreenBiz Group. London: Ernst & Young Global Limited (EYGM). http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Six_growing_trends_in_corporate_sustainability_2013/$FILE/Six_growing_trends_in_corporate_sustainability_2013.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  28. Goldsmith, R., & Sahlin, N. (1982). The role of second-order probabilities in decision making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartmann, F. (2005). The effects of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty on the appropriateness of accounting performance measures. ABACUS, 41(3), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). (2009). Outside insights: Beyond accounting. http://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/archive/files/technical/sustainability/assessing%20the%20impact%20of%20sustainability%20reporting.ashx. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  34. International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC). (2011). Towards integrated reporting: Communicating value in the 21st century. http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IR-Discussion-Paper-2011_spreads.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  35. Ittner, C., Larcker, D., & Meyer, M. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan, R., & Atkinson, A. (1998). Advanced management accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
  39. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85.Google Scholar
  40. Kaplan, S., & Wisner, P. (2009). The judgmental effects of management communications and a fifth balanced scorecard category on performance evaluation. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 21(2), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karnani, A. (2010). The case against corporate social responsibility. The Wall Street Journal, 23, R1–R4.Google Scholar
  42. KPMG International. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amstelveen: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.Google Scholar
  43. KPMG International. (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-v2.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  44. Liedtka, S., Church, B., & Ray, M. (2008). Performance variability, ambiguity intolerance, and balanced scorecard-based performance assessments. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(2), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacCrimmon, K. (1968). Descriptive and normative implications of the decision-theory postulates. In K. Borch & J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and uncertainty. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. McKnight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moser, D., & Martin, P. (2012). A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2010). Mplus 6.11 version user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  52. Newton, L. (2005). Business ethics and the natural environment. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2012). Trends in American values: 19872012. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-04-12%20Values%20Release.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  54. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). (2002). 2002 sustainability survey report. http://www.pwc.fr/assets/files/pdf/2006/redesign/7/pwc_sustainability.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  55. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Settoon, R., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 280–287.Google Scholar
  59. Soman, D., & Gourville, J. (2001). Transaction decoupling: How price bundling affects the decision to consume. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. United Nations Global Compact and Accenture. (2013). The UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO study on sustainability 2013Architects of a better world. https://acnprod.accenture.com/~/media/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Strategy_5/Accenture-UN-Global-Compact-Acn-CEO-Study-Sustainability-2013.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  62. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Clean power plan: Taking action on climate change. http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  63. Van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). The discounting of ambiguous information in economic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (2005). Developing management skills (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  66. Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M., & Werner, J. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wisner, P., Epstein, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2006). Organizational antecedents and consequences of environmental performance. In M. Freedman & B. Jaggi (Eds.), Advances in environmental accounting and management (Vol. 3, pp. 146–167). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  68. Wooten, D., & Reed, A. (1998). Informational influence and the ambiguity of product experience: Order effects on the weighting of evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yates, J., & Zukowski, L. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision-making. Behavioral Science, 21, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yeldar, R. (2012). The value of extra-financial disclosure: What investors and analysts said. London: Commissioned by the Global Reporting Initiative and The Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/the-value-of-extra-financial-disclosure.pdf. Retrieved 2 Oct 2015.
  71. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zitek, E., & Hebl, M. (2007). The role of social norm clarity in the influenced expression of prejudice over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Accounting, College of Business AdministrationKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations