Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to better understand how sustainability rating agencies, through discourse, promote an “ideology of numbers” that ultimately aims to establish a regime of normalization governing social and environmental performance. Drawing on Thompson’s (Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication, 1990) modes of operation of ideology, we examine the extent to which, and how, the ideology of numbers is reflected on websites and public documents published by a range of sustainability rating agencies. Our analysis indicates that the ideology of numbers promotes a relatively narrow vision of corporate social and environmental responsibility. That is, it establishes some areas of visibility while leaving in the shadow certain aspects of the ways in which companies fulfill, or fail to meet, their social and environmental responsibilities. The ideology of numbers also exerts power by identifying those companies that are deemed to be worthy of inclusion, or not, in a supposedly socially responsible corporate elite.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A particularly vague definition of corporate sustainability is provided in Wikipedia (January 23, 2012): “Corporate sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term consumer and employee value by not only creating a ‘green’ strategy aimed towards the natural environment, but taking into consideration every dimension of how a business operates in the social, cultural, and economic environment.”
Examples of scandals in the last decades include Union Carbide (Bhopal) and more recently BP.
Both sociologists have an interest in the concept of power. Foucault (1979) focused on the way in which disciplinary power tends to be exerted. In doing so, he emphasized the role of standards and techniques of normalization, particularly in the identification of “deviants.” Yet Foucault refused to consider power in terms of ideology, and shifted the focus to discursive practices, among other practices, and the actions by which the government of subjects is (or is not) operationalized. Thompson (1990) has a particular interest in the role of the meaning contained in discourse in favoring relations of power and domination. He focuses specifically on the linguistic strategies through which a particular ideology is promoted in discourse and serves as a support for the exercise of power. Thompson emphasizes the way in which discourse is expressed in society without dwelling on specific actors. This appears to be compatible with the Foucauldian conception, which posits that power is dispersed and disseminated throughout society and cannot be solidly connected to any specific actor. Whereas Foucault emphasized the role of the micro-processes through which power is exerted on the subjectivity of human beings, Thompson focuses on the discursive and ideological strategies that support the exercise of power. In this paper, the combination of the arguments provided by Foucault and Thompson seems particularly useful for understanding how the ideology of numbers is promoted in the discourse of sustainability rating agencies and its role in the exercise of disciplinary power.
The guide was established by a working group of French professionals and academics (ORSE 2007). Its production was funded by two French organizations: the Observatoire sur la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (ORSE, Study Center for Corporate Social Responsibility) and the Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME, French Environment and Energy Management Agency).
AccountAbility was originally involved in ratings in partnership with CSR Network (now Two Tomorrows). Since then, AccountAbility refocused its activities toward the development of sustainability standards.
Declarative ratings include publicly available indexes such as Ethibel Sustainability and ASPI Eurozone. The DEEPP model, developed by BMJ Ratings, belongs to the solicited rating category. Also, sustainability ratings should not be confused with sustainability standards (e.g., GRI—Global Reporting Initiative—and ISO 26000) used to prepare and audit corporate disclosures. It should be recognized, however, that a number of rating agencies take such sustainability standards into account when developing their rating methodologies.
These include AccountAbility, BMJ Ratings, Covalence, DJSI, Ethibel, Ethifinance, KLD, M&E, SAM Research, SustainAbility, Sustainalytics, Two Tomorrows and Vigeo.
Our primary aim is to underline the normalizing implications of the ideology of numbers. From a different perspective, it can be pointed out that “low-performing” companies may provide jobs to thousands of individuals, offer pension plans, and invest in the community, whereas others may operate in “acceptable” sectors, make exemplary disclosures, but operate fragile oil wells.
References
AccountAbility. (1999). AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) framework standards, guidelines and professional qualification. Accessed December 12, 2009, from http://www.accountability.org/images/content/2/1/213/AA1000%20Framework%201999.pdf.
AccountAbility. (2004). The Accountability rating: Encoding accountability. Accessed December 12, 2009, from http://www.csrnetwork.com/downloads/news/ARRating04.pdf.
AccountAbility. (2008a). AA1000 AccountAbility principles standard 2008. Accessed December 12, 2009, from http://www.accountability.org/images/content/0/7/074/AA1000APS%202008.pdf.
AccountAbility. (2008b). AA1000 assurance standard 2008. Accessed December 12, 2009, from http://www.accountability.org/images/content/0/5/056/AA1000AS%202008.pdf.
AccountAbility. (2008c). Accountability rating methodology. Accessed December 12, 2009, from http://www.eni.com/en_IT/attachments/sostenibilita/impegno-sostenibilita/premi-e-riconoscimenti/AR_2008_methodology.pdf.
Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting—Performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819–841.
Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The institutionalization of unaccountability: Loading the dice of corporate social responsibility discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327–343.
Ball, A., Owen, D. L., & Gray, R. H. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(1), 1–23.
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bessire, D., & Onnée, S. (2010). Assessing corporate social performance: Strategies of legitimation and conflicting ideologies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(6), 445–467.
BMJ Ratings. (2011a). Founding values of BMJ Ratings. Accessed September 27, 2011, from http://www.bmjratings.com/en_about-bmj_history-and-value_33_39.html
BMJ Ratings. (2011b). A strategic tool. Accessed September 27, 2011, from http://www.bmjratings.com/en_about-bmj_our-activity_33_57.html.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brasier, K. J. (2002). Ideology and discourse: Characterizations of the 1996 farm bill by agricultural interest groups. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(2), 239–253.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., & Nahapiet, J. (1980). The roles of accounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1), 5–27.
Burrell, B., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Burlington, VA: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Caron, P. L., & Gely, R. (2004). What law schools can learn from Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics. Texas Law Review, 82(6), 1483–1554.
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chwastiak, M., & Young, J. (2003). Silences in annual reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(5), 533–552.
Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Samuel, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 293–327.
Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2004). Enron discourse: The rhetoric of a resilient capitalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(6/7), 813–851.
Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dillenburg, S., Green, T., & Erekson, H. (2003). Approaching socially responsible investment with a comprehensive ratings scheme: Total social impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 167–177.
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). (2009, September). Guide book version 11.1. Accessed June 6, 2010, from http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/djsi_pdf/publications/DJSI_Brochure_TheFirstDecade.pdf.
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). (2010). Monitoring of index members and exclusion process. Accessed June 6, 2010, from http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/assessment/monitoring.html.
Drut, B. (2010). Sovereign bonds and socially responsible investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(Supplement), 131–145.
Du Roy, I. (2009, September 1). Suicides à France Télécom: Hypocrisie sur toute la ligne. Accessed January 26, 2012, from http://www.bastamag.net/article627.html.
EIRIS. (2008, October). The state of responsible business in 2008: Implications for PRI signatories. Accessed June 10, 2010, from http://www.eiris.org/files/research%20publications/stateofrespbusinesssep08.pdf.
Ethibel, (2005). Annual report 2005. Brussels: Forum Ethibel.
Ethibel. (2010). Investment register. Accessed November 21, 2010, from http://www.ethibel.org/subs_e/2_label/sub2_1.html.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferguson, J., Collison, D., Power, D., & Syevenson, L. (2009). Constructing meaning in the service of power: An analysis of the typical modes of ideology in accounting textbooks. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(8), 896–909.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality—vol. 1: The will to knowledge. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Gauthier, C. (2005). Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: The extended life-cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1/2), 199–206.
Gladwin, T. N., Newburry, W. E., & Reiskin, E. D. (1997). Why is the Northern elite mind biased against community, the environment and a sustainable future? In M. H. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics and behaviour: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation (pp. 234–274). San Francisco: New Lexington.
Gottesman, D., & Shapiro, A. (2009). Want higher sustainability ratings? Increase your transparency. Accessed February 2, 2012, from http://blogs.hbr.org/leadinggreen/2009/01/want-higher-sustainability-rat.html.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (1998). Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization (pp. 1–13). London: Sage Publications.
Gray, R. (2000). Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting and attestation: A review and comment. International Journal of Auditing, 4(3), 247–268.
Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organizational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hacking, I. (2006). Making up people. London Review of Books, 28(16), 23–26.
Hall, S. (1997a). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 1–12). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hall, S. (1997b). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 13–74). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Philips, N. (1998). Talking action: Conservations, narrative, and action in interorganizational collaboration. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization (pp. 65–83). London: Sage.
Hockerts, K., & Moir, L. (2004). Communicating corporate responsibility to investors: The changing role of the investor relations function. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 85–98.
Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 149–158.
Kornberger, M., & Carter, C. (2010). Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(3), 325–349.
KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Accessed January 23, 2012, from http://www.kpmg.com/PT/pt/IssuesAndInsights/Documents/corporate-responsibility2011.pdf.
Kropp, R. (2008, November 24). 2008 accountability rating finds more companies willing to address social and environmental challenges. Accessed February 3, 2012, from http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2584.html.
Kropp, R. (2010, September 9). Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes updated. Accessed January 28, 2012, from http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi?sfArticleId=3033.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Libération. (2009, August 12). Un nouveau suicide chez France Télécom. Accessed February 8, 2012, from http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101584940-un-nouveau-suicide-chez-france-telecom.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Macintosh, N. B. (2002). Accounting, accountants and accountability: Poststructuralist positions. London: Routledge.
Management & Excellence (M&E). (2010a). M&E leader in Latin American and oil ethics ratings. Accessed June 9, 2010, from http://www.management-rating.com/index.php?lng=en&cmd=120.
Management & Excellence (M&E). (2010b). Leader in sustainability. Accessed June 9, 2010, from http://www.management-rating.com/index.php?lng=en&cmd=500.
Manetti, G., & Becatti, L. (2009). Assurance services for sustainability reports: Standards and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 289–298.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 235–265.
Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1211–1257.
Neu, D., & Graham, C. (2006). The birth of a nation: Accounting and Canada’s first nations, 1860–1900. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), 47–76.
O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. (2005). Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.
Oekom. (2004). The link between sustainability performance and credit standing of governmental bonds: Based on the example of Oekom research’s country rating. Accessed February 5, 2011, from http://www.oekom-research.com/homepage/Performance_Countries.pdf.
ORSE. (2007). Guide to social and environmental analysis organisations. Accessed November 3, 2009, from http://www.orse.org/site2/index.php?page=101.
Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98.
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter “greenwashing”: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quattrone, P. (2004). Commenting on a commentary? Making methodological choices in accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(2), 232–247.
Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.
SAM. (2012). The sustainability yearbook 2012. Accessed January 26, 2012, from http://www.sam-group.com/images/sam-yearbook-2012-final_tcm794-328902.pdf.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.
Scalet, S., & Kelly, T. F. (2010). CSR rating agencies: What is their global impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 69–88.
Scholtens, B. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in the international banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 159–175.
Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. W. (2012). The social construction of global corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 123–133.
Simpson, G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97–109.
Spence, C., Husillos, J., & Correa-Ruiz, C. (2010). Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(1), 76–89.
Spitzer, D. R. (2007). Transformation performance measurement: Rethinking the way we measure and drive organizational success. New York: Amacon.
SustainAbility. (2004). The global reporters. London: SustainAbility.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Townley, B. (1994). Reframing human resource management. Power ethics and the subject at work. London: Sage.
Townley, B. (1995). Managing by numbers: Accounting, personnel management and the creation of a mathesis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6(6), 555–575.
Townley, B. (1996). Accounting in detail: Accounting for individual performance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting., 7(5), 565–584.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2012). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Accessed January 25, 2012, from http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf.
Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities and boundaries in international management education. Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar Publishing.
Acknowledgments
The authors benefited from the comments on earlier versions made by Sylvain Durocher, Henri Guénin-Paracini, and four reviewers. They also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chelli, M., Gendron, Y. Sustainability Ratings and the Disciplinary Power of the Ideology of Numbers. J Bus Ethics 112, 187–203 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1252-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1252-3