Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 27, Issue 1–2, pp 55–68 | Cite as

Corporate Communication and Impression Management – New Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting

  • Reggy Hooghiemstra
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the theoretical framework on corporate social reporting. Although that corporate social reporting has been analysed from different perspectives, legitmacy theory currently is the dominating perspective. Authors employing this framework suggest that social and environmental disclosures are responses to both public pressure and increased media attention resulting from major social incidents such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the chemical leak in Bhopal (India). More specifically, those authors argue that the increase in social disclosures represent a strategy to alter the public's perception about the legitimacy of the organisation. Therefore, we suggest using corporate communication as an overarching framework to study corporate social reporting in which “corporate image” and “corporate identity” are central.

corporate communication corporate social reporting impression management theoretical framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, C. A., W. Hill and C. B. Roberts: 1998, ‘Corporate Social Reporting Practices in Western Europe: Legitimating Corporate Behaviour?’, British Accounting Review 30(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, R. W. and M. J. Milne: 1997, ‘Media Exposure, Company Size, Industry, and Social Disclosure Practice’, Paper presented at the Fifth Interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
  3. Aerts, W.: 1994, ‘On the Use of Accounting Logic as an Explanatory Category in Narrative Accounting Disclosures’, Accounting, Organisations, and Society 19(4/5), 337–353.Google Scholar
  4. Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten: 1985, ‘Organisational Identity’, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organisational Behaviour, volume 7 (JAI Press, Greenwich CT).Google Scholar
  5. Argenti, P. A.: 1994, Corporate Communication (Irwin, New York).Google Scholar
  6. Belkaoui, A and P. G. Karpik: 1989, ‘Determinants of the Corporate Decision to Disclose Social Information’, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal 2(1), 36–50.Google Scholar
  7. Blacconiere, W. G. and D. M. Patten: 1994, ‘Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory Costs and Changes in Firm Value’, Journal of Accounting and Economics 18(3), 357–377.Google Scholar
  8. Birkigt, K. and M. M. Stadler: 1986, Corporate Identity-Grundlagen, Funktionen, Fallbeispiele (Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg am Lech).Google Scholar
  9. Brown, N. and C. Deegan: 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.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, S. M. and J. M. Dukerich: 1998, ‘Corporate Responses to cChanges in Reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review 1(3), 250–270.Google Scholar
  11. Deegan, C. and B. Gordon: 1996, ‘A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations’, Accounting and Business Research 26(3), 187–199.Google Scholar
  12. Deegan, C. and M. Rankin: 1996, ‘Do Australian Companies Report Environmental News Objectively? An Analysis of Environmental Disclosures by Firms Prosecuted Successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority’, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal 9(2), 50–67.Google Scholar
  13. Deegan, C., M. Rankin and P. Voght: 1999, ‘Firms' Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence’, Paper presented at the 22nd European Accounting Association Congress, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  14. Dowling, G. R.: 1986, ‘Managing Your Corporate Image’, Industrial Marketing Management 15, 109–115.Google Scholar
  15. Dowling, J. and J. R. Pfeffer: 1975, ‘Organisational Legitimacy: Societal Values and Organisational Behaviour’, Pacific Sociological Review 18(1), 122–136.Google Scholar
  16. Duimering, P. R. and F. Safayeni: 1998, ‘The Role of Language and Formal Structure in the Construction and Maintenance of Organisational Images’, International Studies of Management and Organisation 28(3), 57–85.Google Scholar
  17. Dutton, J. E. and J. M. Dukerich: 1991, ‘Keeping and Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organisational Adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal 34(3), 517–554.Google Scholar
  18. Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail: 1994, ‘Organisational Images and Member Identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 239–263.Google Scholar
  19. Elkington, J.: 1997, Cannibals with Forks-The Triple Bottom-line (Capstone, Oxford).Google Scholar
  20. Elsbach, K. D.: 1994, ‘Managing Organisational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The cConstruction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts’, Administrative Science Quarterly 39(1), 57–88.Google Scholar
  21. Elsbach, K. D. and R. M. Kramer: 1996, ‘Members' Responses to Organisational Identity Threats: Encountering and Countering the Business Week Rankings’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(3), 442–476.Google Scholar
  22. Elsbach, K. D. and R. I. Sutton: 1992, ‘Acquiring Organisational Legitimacy Through Illegitimate Actions), A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories’, Academy of Management Journal 35(4), 699–738.Google Scholar
  23. Fombrun, C.: 1996, Reputation: Realising Value from the Corporate Image (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
  24. Giacalone, R. A.: 1988, ‘The Effect of Administrative Accounts and Gender on the Perception of Leadership’, Group and Organisation Studies 13(2), 195–207.Google Scholar
  25. Gray, E. R. and J. M. T. Balmer: 1998, ‘Managing Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation’, Long Range Planning 31(5), 695–702.Google Scholar
  26. Gray, R., K. J. Bebbington and D. Walters: 1993, Accounting for the Environment (Chapman, London).Google Scholar
  27. Gray, R., R. Kouhy and S. Lavers: 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.Google Scholar
  28. Gray, R., D. Owen and C. Adams: 1996, Accounting and Accountability-Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting (Prentice Hall, London).Google Scholar
  29. Grolin, J.: 1998, ‘Corporate Legitimacy in Risk Society: The Case of Brent Spar’, Business Strategy and the Environment 7(4), 213–222.Google Scholar
  30. Guthrie, J. and L. D. Parker: 1989, ‘Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy Theory’, Accounting and Business Research 19(76), 343–352.Google Scholar
  31. Hackston, D. and M. J. Milne: 1996, ‘Some Determinants of Social and Environmental Disclosures in New Zealand Companies’, Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal 9(1), 77–108.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, E. E.: 1990, Interpersonal Perception (Freeman, New York).Google Scholar
  33. Kaptein, M. and J. Wempe: 1998, ‘The Ethics Report: A Means of Sharing Responsibility’, Business Ethics: A European Review 7(3), 131–139.Google Scholar
  34. Lindblom, C. K.: 1994, ‘The Implications of Organisational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure’, Paper presented at the Critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, J. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Institutional Organisations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340–363.Google Scholar
  36. Meznar, M. B. and D. Nigh: 1995, ‘Buffer or Bridge? Environmental and Organisational Determinants of Public Affairs Activities in American Firms’, Academy of Management Journal 38(4), 975–996.Google Scholar
  37. Morsing, M.: 1999, ‘The Media Boomerang: The Media's Role in Changing Identity by Changing Image’, Corporate Reputation Review 2(2), 116–135.Google Scholar
  38. Neale, A.: 1997, ‘Organisational Learning in Contested Environments: Lessons from Brent Spar’, Business Strategy and the Environment 6(2), 93–103.Google Scholar
  39. Neu, D., H. Warsame and K. Pedwell: 1998, ‘Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports’, Accounting, Organisations, and Society 23(3), 265–282.Google Scholar
  40. O'Donovan, G.: 1997, ‘Legitimacy Theory and Corporate Environmental Disclosure: Some Case Study Evidence’, Paper presented at 1997 Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand Annual Conference, Hobart.Google Scholar
  41. Oegema, D., M. de Haan and B. van Leur: 1998, ‘Shell en de Publiciteit over de Brent Spar’, in V. M. G. Damoiseaux and A. A. van Ruler (eds.), Effectiviteit in Communicatiemanagement (Samson, Deventer).Google Scholar
  42. Patten, D. M.: 1991, ‘Exposure, Legitimacy, and Social Disclosure’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 10(4), 297–308.Google Scholar
  43. Patten, D. M.: 1992, ‘Intra-industry Environmental Disclosures in Response to the Alaskan Oil Spill: A Note on Legitimacy Theory’, Accounting, Organisations, and Society 17(5), 471–475.Google Scholar
  44. Patten, D. M. and J. R. Nance: 1998, ‘Regulatory Effects in a Good News Environment: The Intraindustry Reaction to the Alaskan Oil Spill’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17(4/5), 409–429.Google Scholar
  45. Pfeffer, J. R.: 1981, ‘Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organisational Paradigm’, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organisational Behaviour, volume 3 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT).Google Scholar
  46. Riel, C. B. M. van: 1995, Corporate Communication (Prentice Hall, New York).Google Scholar
  47. Riel, C. B. M. van and F. A. J. van den Bosch: 1997, ‘Increasing Effectiveness of Managing Strategic Issues Affecting a Firm's Reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review 1(1/2), 135–140.Google Scholar
  48. Rindova, V. P.: 1997, ‘The Image Cascade and the Formation of Corporate Reputations’, Corporate Reputation Review 1(1/2), 188–194.Google Scholar
  49. Rosenfeld, P., R. A. Giacalone and C. A. Riordan: 1995, Impression Management in Organisations (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
  50. Schlenker, B. R.: 1980, Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Montery).Google Scholar
  51. Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold: 1992, ‘Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Management’, Annual Review of Psychology 43, 133–168.Google Scholar
  52. Scott, M. B. and S. M. Lyman: 1968, ‘Accounts’, American Sociological Review 33(1), 46–62.Google Scholar
  53. Staw, B. M., P. I. McKechnie and S. M. Puffer: 1983, ‘The Justification of Organisational Performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28(4), 582–600.Google Scholar
  54. Tedeschi, J. T. and M. Riess: 1981, ‘Verbal Strategies in Impression Management’, in C. Antaki (ed.), The Psychology of Everyday Explanations of Social Behaviour (Academic Press, London).Google Scholar
  55. Ullmann, A. E.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationship's among Social Performance, Social Disclosure and Economic Performance of US Firms’, Academy of Management Review 10(3), 540–557.Google Scholar
  56. Vendelø , M. T.: 1998, ‘Narrating Corporate Reputation: Becoming Legitimate Through Storytelling’, International Studies of Management and Organisation 28(3), 120–137.Google Scholar
  57. Walden, W. D. and B. N. Schwartz: 1997, ‘Environmental Disclosures and Public Policy Pressure’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 16(2), 125–154.Google Scholar
  58. Zadek, S., P. Pruzan and P. Evans: 1997, Building Corporate Accountability-Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting (Earthscan, London).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reggy Hooghiemstra
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Business Administration, Financial Management DepartmentErasmus University RotterdamROTTERDAMThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations