Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sense-Making and Sense-Giving: Reaching Through the Smokescreen of Sustainability Disclosure in the Stock Market

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Challenges in Managing Sustainable Business

Abstract

Financial analysts’ role as information intermediaries between management teams and investors is vital for the efficient allocation of resources on the stock market. The increased focus on sustainability information in corporate reports has affected financial analysts in their important work of interpreting, assessing and communicating value-added information to their clients, i.e. the investors. The challenges they face relate to the ambiguous nature of sustainability information and its difference from traditional financial information. How do analysts reach through this smokescreen? How do analysts make sense of sustainability information, and how do they give sense to this information when they provide investment advices to their investors? In this chapter, these challenges are addressed from a cognitive-frame perspective. We argue that the first part of 2000s was characterized by cognitive dissonance due to both a low social legitimacy and a low cognitive legitimacy, i.e. sustainability was not yet requested by the investors to be attended to and it was regarded too ambiguous to be relevant for being considered in a valuation context. In the latter part of 2010s, we argue that there is only a partial cognitive dissonance. At this time, sustainability information is beginning to be socially legitimate and requested by investors. However, the complexity of the situation remains. This type of information is still not considered as cognitive legitimate due to the ambiguous nature, which renders difficulties for the sense-making and sense-giving processes. The findings have implications not the least in the ongoing quest of developing frameworks, standards and legislation (e.g. the EU directive (2014/EU/95)), that opt for improving the relevance, credibility and comparability of sustainability information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abhayawansa, S., Bowden, M., & Pillay, S. (2017). Students’ conceptions of learning in the context of an accounting degree. Accounting Education, 26(3), 213–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abhayawansa, S., Elijido‐Ten, E., & Dumay, J. (2018). A practice theoretical analysis of the irrelevance of integrated reporting to mainstream sell‐side analysts. Accounting and Finance, 57(4), 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2008). Corporate environmental disclosure, financial markets and the media: An international perspective. Ecological Economics,64(3), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2003). Demand and supply of information on intangibles: The case of knowledge-intense companies. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics,96, 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2011). Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital,12(2), 277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2012). The corporate communication process between listed companies and financial analysts: A focus on trends and challenges. Corporate Communication: An International Journal,17(2), 98–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock market actors: A comprehensive study. Social Responsibility Journal,10(2), 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (November 2018, forthcoming). The 1st SUBREA conference report. Media Tryck, Lund, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly,10(3), 345–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, C. J., & Hamilton, F. E. (2006). Leader framing and follower sensemaking: Response to downsizing in the brave new workplace. Human Relations,59(3), 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). London: Penguin UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, A., Cohen, D. A., Lys, T. Z., & Walther, B. R. (2010). The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2), 296–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior,26(7), 733–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D., Call, A. C., Clement, M. B., & Sharp, N. Y. (2016). The activities of buy-side analysts and the determinants of their stock recommendations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 62(1), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahan, S. F., de Villiers, C., Jeter, D. C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C. J. (2016). Are CSR disclosure value relevant? Cross-country evidence. European Accounting Review,25(3), 579–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. H., & Chen, Y. S. (2012). The determinants of green intellectual capital. Management Decision, 50(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvey, J. N., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 789–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2015). CSR disclosure: The more things change…? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clatworthy, M., & Lee, E. (2018). Financial analysts’ role in valuation and stewardship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornett, M. M., Erhemjamts, O., & Tehranian, H. (2016). Greed or good deeds: An examination of the relation between corporate social responsibility and the financial performance of US commercial AMCs around the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance,70, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G., & Brown, A. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations,56, 563–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dameri, R. P., & Ricciardi, F. (2015). Smart city intellectual capital: An emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), 860–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCelles, K. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). A field investigation of multilevel cynicism toward change. Organization Science,24(1), 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Accounting Review,86(1), 59–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The roles of stakeholder orientation and financial transparency. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,33(4), 328–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Radhakrishnan, S., Tsang, A. H., & Yang, Y. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review,87(3), 723–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, D., Sassen, R., & Fischer, J. (2016). What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,7(2), 154–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. The Pacific Sociological Review,18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutot, V., Lacalle Galvez, E., & Versailles, D. W. (2016). CSR communications strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation: An exploratory study. Management Decision, 54(2), 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science,60(11), 2835–2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review,45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emeseh, E., & Songi, O. (2014). CSR, human rights abuse and sustainability report accountability. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(2), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Essland, C., & Olausson, A. (2018). Barriers for responsible investments: Facilitating a greener economy—A multiple case study of asset management companies. Master Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies (2014/95/EU). Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1962).A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foote, J., Gaffney, N., & Evans, J. R. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Implications for performance excellence. Total Quality Management, 21(8), 799–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility—A PR invention? Corporate Communications: An International Journal,6(1), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P., Topal, C., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. In Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing (pp. 275–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal,12(6), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groysberg, B., Healy, P. M., & Maber, D. A. (2011). What drives sell‐side analyst compensation at high‐status investment banks? Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 969–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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,59, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallvarsson, M. (2009). Rimliga Ambitioner Med CSR? [Reasonable Ambitions with CSR?]. In T. Borglund, H. De Geer, & M. Hallvarsson (Eds.), Värdeskapande CSR – Hur företag tar socialt ansvar (pp. 145–156). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Aka- demiska Förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics,27(1–2), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifvarsson, C. (2000). Sensemaking and management: A theoretical discussion with research implications. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå tekniska universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imam, S., Barker, R., & Clubb, C. (2008). The use of valuation models by UK investment analysts. European Accounting Review, 17(3), 503–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivković, Z., & Jegadeesh, N. (2004). The timing and value of forecast and recommendation revisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(3), 433–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. (1998). Direct contacts between financial analysts and traded companies. Licentiate dissertation, Luleå. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-18509.

  • Johansson, J. (2004). Recommendation changes in walls of glass: Perceived roles and relative importance of direct contacts. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå tekniska universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. (2007). Sell-side analysts’ creation of value—Key roles and relational capital. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting,11(1), 30–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J., & Malmström, M. (2013). The business model transparency paradox in innovative growth ventures: Trade-offs between competitive advantages and agency costs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Research, 3(2), 238–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga, C., Carrasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F., & Moneva, J. (2002). Accountability and accounting regulation: The case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2015). Cognitive constructions of low-profit and high-profit business models: A repertory grid study of serial entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,39(5), 1083–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: How governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship,41(5), 833–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability: From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital (just-accepted), 19(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review,15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2011). Revisiting organizational change: Exploring the paradox of managing continuity and change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (2009). The politics of the carbon economy. The Politics of Climate Cchange: A Survey, 80–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J., Jansson, J., Isberg, S., & Nordvall, A. C. (2014). Customer satisfaction with socially responsible investing initiatives: The influence of perceived financial and nonfinancial quality. Journal of Financial Services Marketing,19(4), 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review,16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,18(6), 842–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2013). Lessons from the third wave: A reflection on the rediscovery of corporate social responsibility by the mainstream accounting research community. Financial Reporting,2(2), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrini, M. (2007). Human capital convergences in intellectual capital and sustainability reports. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 346–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, F., & Sanchez, L. E. (2009). Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in the mining sector. Environmental Management, 43(6), 949–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramiah, V., Gregoriou, G., von Müller, C., & Brieger, S. (2016). Handbook of environmental and sustainable finance (pp. 131–145). Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal,54(3), 577–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, H., & Kuehlwein, K. T. (1996). Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzedo, C., Young, S., & El-Haj, M. (2018). Does equity analyst research lack rigour and objectivity? Evidence from conference call questions and research notes. Accounting and Business Research, 48(1), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schipper, K. (1991). Analysts’ forecasts. Accounting Horizons, 5(4), 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: Toward a theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy disputes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share Action. (2017, February). ShareAction, the UK-based campaign group, and Boston Common Asset Management, the US SRI specialist, are working together on a shareholder engagement programme with banks in Europe and the US on climate change. https://shareaction.org/.

  • Sievänen, R., Rita, H., & Scholtens, B. (2013). The drivers of responsible investment: The case of European pension funds. Journal of Business Ethics,117(1), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review,36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal,53(3), 477–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Pension Agency. (2016, September 23). Statistik över hållbara fonder inom premiepensionssystemet.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Sustainable-development-goals. (2018). https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.

  • UNWCED (United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on environment and development ‘our common future’ (the Brundtland report). (Item 83, 42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science,6(3), 280–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasiluk, K. L. (2013). Beyond eco-efficiency: Understanding CS through the IC practice lens. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 102–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 628–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science,16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review,27(3), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, S., Simnett, R., & Green, W. (2017). Does integrated reporting matter to the capital market? Abacus,53(1), 94–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Susanne Arvidsson

  2. Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden

    Jeaneth Johansson

  3. Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden

    Jeaneth Johansson

Authors
  1. Susanne Arvidsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeaneth Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Arvidsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Susanne Arvidsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arvidsson, S., Johansson, J. (2019). Sense-Making and Sense-Giving: Reaching Through the Smokescreen of Sustainability Disclosure in the Stock Market. In: Arvidsson, S. (eds) Challenges in Managing Sustainable Business. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93266-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation