Abstract
This paper examines voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting as a form of moral discourse. It explores how alternative stakeholder perspectives lead to differing perceptions of the process and content of responsible reporting. We contrast traditional stakeholder theory, which views stakeholders as external parties having a social contract with corporations, with an emerging perspective, which views interaction among corporations and constituents as relational in nature. This moves the stakeholder from an external entity to one that is integral to corporate activity. We explore how these alternative stakeholder perspectives give rise to different normative demands for stakeholder engagement, managerial processes, and communication. We discuss models of CSR reporting and accountability: EMAS, the ISO 14000 series, SA8000, AA1000, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the Copenhagen Charter. We explore how these models relate to the stakeholder philosophies and find that they are largely consistent with the traditional atomistic view but fall far short of the demands for moral engagement prescribed by a relational stakeholder perspective. Adopting a relational view requires stakeholder engagement not only in prescribing reporting requirements, but also in discourse relating to core aspects of the corporation such as mission, values, and management systems. Habermas’ theory of communicative action provides guidelines for engaging stakeholders in this moral discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apel K. O. 1980 Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Bebbington J., Gray R. H., Owen D. L. 1999 Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Taking the Pulse of Social and Environmental Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 12(1):47–52
Beets S. D., Souther C. C. 1999 Corporate Environmental Reports: The Need for Standards and an Environmental Assurance Serve. Accounting Horizons 13(2):129–146
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
Buchholz R. A., Rosenthal S. B. 2005 Toward a Contemporary Conceptual Framework for Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58:137–148
Carroll A., Bucholtz A. K. 2006 Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. 6th ed. Southwestern Publishing, Thompson
Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency 2000, ‚Social Accountability 8000’, http://www. CEPAA.org/sa8000.htm
Deegan C. 2002 The Legitimizing Effect of Social and Environmental Disclosures: A Theoretical Foundation. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability 15(3):282–312
Donaldson T., Preston L. 1995 The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20:65–91
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme 2000, ‚Text of Council Regulation’ 1836/93, updated 2 May 2000. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/ emas_reg_en.htm
Elkington J. 1997 Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, London
FASB, Financial Accounting Standards Board: 1996, Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts (Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
Global Reporting Initiative 2000, ‚Sustainability Reporting Guidelines’, www.globalreporting.org
Gray R. H., Kouhy R., Lavers S. 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
Gray R. 2002 The Social Accounting Project and Accounting, Organizations and Society: Privileging Engagement, Imaginings, New Accountings and Pragmatism Over Critique. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(7):687–708
Habermas J. 1984 The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Vol. 1. Beacon Press, Boston, Translated by T. McCarthy
Habermas J. 1987, The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Vol. 2 Beacon Press, Boston, Translated by T. McCarthy
Habermas J. 1990 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, Translated by C. Lenhardt and S. Nicholsen
Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability 1999, ‚AA1000 Standard’, http://www.accountability.org. uk/intro5.htm
ISO 14000 Series 1996 American Society for Quality. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kelly M. 2001 The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco
Kettner M. 1993 Citizen Virtues in a Technological Order. In: Winkler E., Coombs J. (eds) Applied Ethics: A Reader. Blackwell, Cambridge
Lehman G. 1999 Disclosing New Worlds: A Role for Social and Environmental Accounting, and Auditing. Accounting Organizations and Society 24(3):217–242
Mathews M. R. 1997 Twenty-five Years of Social and Environmental Accounting, Research: Is There a Silver Jubilee to Celebrate? Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal 10(4):1–531
Mathews M. R. and M. A. Reynolds: 2001, ‚One Way Forward: Non-traditional Accounting Disclosures in the 21st Century’. Eco-Management and Auditing Conference, Nijmegen School of Management, June 2001
Neu D., Warsame H., Pedwell K. 1998 Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23(3):265–282
Shocker A. D., Sethi S. P. 1974 An Approach to Incorporating Social Preferences in Developing Corporate Action Strategies. In: Sethi S. P. (ed) The Unstable Ground: Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society. Melville, California
Sparkes R., Cowton C. J. 2004. The Maturing of Socially-Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 52(1):45–57
The Copenhagen Charter 1999, http://www.stakeholder.dk/
Tinker A. M. 1985 Paper Prophets: A Social Critique of Accounting. Holt, Reinhart and Winston
Tinker T., Gray R. 2002 Beyond a Critique of Pure Reason: From Policy To Politics To Praxis In Environmental And Social Research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5):727–761
Wood D. 2000 Theory and Integrity in Business and Society. Business and Society 39(4):359–379
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
MaryAnn Reynolds is an Associate Professor of Accounting in the College of Business and Economics at Western Washington University. Dr. Reynolds teaches intermediate financial accounting and is published in the areas of corporate social, environmental and ethical reporting.
Kristi Yuthas is the Swigert Endowed Information Systems Professor in the School of Business Administration at Portland State University. Dr. Yuthas teaches accounting and information systems and is published in the areas of social and ethical impacts of management information systems.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reynolds, M., Yuthas, K. Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. J Bus Ethics 78, 47–64 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9316-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9316-x