Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Strategies for Climate Change and Impression Management: A Case Study Among Canada’s Large Industrial Emitters

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the justifications and impression management strategies that industrial companies use to rationalize their impacts on climate change. These strategies influence the perceptions of stakeholders through the use of techniques of neutralization intended to legitimize the impacts of corporate operations in the area of climate change. Based on a qualitative and inductive approach, 10 case studies were conducted of large Canadian industrial emitters. Interviews were conducted with managers and environmental specialists (n = 32). Public documentation was also collected when available. This study identifies six main neutralization techniques that industrial emitters use to rationalize their impacts: self-proclaimed excellence, promotion of a systemic view, denial and minimization, denouncing unfair treatment and deceptive appearances, economic and technological blackmail, and blaming others. The paper develops a better understanding of corporate arguments and strategies aimed at influencing the perceptions of stakeholders, including policymakers. The study also contributes to the literature on impression management by shedding light on new strategies and techniques of neutralization used by managers to shape the perceptions of stakeholders on socially sensitive issues.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, M., & Caillouet, R. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communications Monographs, 61(1), 44–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aluminium Association Transportation Group. (2013). VENZA Aluminum BIW Concept Study.

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2002). Corporate environmentalism: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Kistruck, G. (2006). Seeing is (not) believing: Managing the impressions of the firm’s commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2013). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bewley, K., & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W. (1992). Power and managerial dismissal: Scapegoating at the top. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 400–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A + GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., Henri, J.-F., & Talbot, D. (2012). Modeling the impacts of corporate commitment on climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(8), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonazzi, G. (1983). Scapegoating in complex organizations: The results of a comparative study of symbolic blame-giving in Italian and French public administration. Organization Studies, 4(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., Mittusis, D., & Smith, A. (2004). Virtue in consumption? Journal of Marketing Management, 20(5–6), 526–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. P. (2007). Why people don’t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., Martens, M., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Enhancement and obfuscation through the use of graphs in sustainability reports: An international comparison. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 3(1), 74–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7), 639–647.

  • Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copes, H. (2003). Societal attachments, offending frequency, and techniques of neutralization. Deviant Behavior, 24(2), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, S., & Deegan, C. (2011). Corporate disclosure reactions to Australia’s first national emission reporting scheme. Accounting & Finance, 51(2), 409–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criado-Jiménez, I., Fernández-Chulián, M., Larrinage-González, C., & Husillos-Carqués, F. J. (2007). Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: The case of Spain (2001–2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, P., & Thurman, Q. (2003). The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behavior, 24(6), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, C., & Fraas, J. W. (2010). Coming clean: The impact of environmental performance and visibility on corporate climate change disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domenec, F. (2012). The “greening” of the annual letters published by Exxon, Chevron and BP between 2003 and 2009. Journal of Communication Management, 16(3), 296–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2008). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagle, J., & Newton, P. M. (1981). Scapegoating in small groups: An organizational approach. Human Relations, 34(4), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada. (2010). Complete set of emissions data by facility from 2004–2009.

  • Environment Canada. (2012a). Facility greenhouse gas emissions reporting program—Overview of reported 2010 emissions, p. 14, Ottawa.

  • Environment Canada. (2012b). A climate change plan for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act 2012, Ottawa.

  • Ernst & Young. (2010). Action amid uncertainty: The business response to climate change, p. 28.

  • Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2012). The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, S. (2003). Organizational Narcissism Technology, legitimacy, and identity in an Indian NGO. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 558–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Quebec. (2012). 2013-2020 Climate Change Action Plan (p. 58). Quebec.

  • Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting Auditing Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, W., & Li, Q. (2012). Evidence of an expectation gap for greenhouse gas emissions assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 146–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, V., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). How techniques of neutralization legitimize norm- and attitude-inconsistent consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2013). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., & Griffiths, A. (2009). The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(6), 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. C., & Daunt, K. L. (2011). Deviant customer behaviour: A study of techniques of neutralisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 834–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2006). Getting ahead of the curve: Corporate strategies that address climate change (p. 150). Arlington, VA: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2008). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527.

    Article  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 

  • Hrasky, S. (2012). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hucklesby, A. (2011). The working life of electronic monitoring officers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(1), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Business and climate change: The climate response of the world’s 30 largest corporations. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 244–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. A., & Levy, D. L. (2007). North American business strategies towards climate change. European Management Journal, 25(6), 428–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2007). Multinationals’ political activities on climate change. Business and Society, 46(2), 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Zurich: KPMG International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D., & Egan, D. (2003). A Neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: Conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 803–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, B., & Munro, I. (2012). Information warfare and new organizational landscapes: An inquiry into the ExxonMobil-Greenpeace dispute over climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1507–1536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice, 32(2005), 221–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). London: Sage.

  • McCormick, A. E., & Zampa, F. P. (1990). Over-riding accusations: Contexts of corporate responses to stockholder proxy resolutions. Deviant Behavior, 11(2), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midanik, L. T., & Greenfield, T. K. (2003). Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use: Results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 72(3), 209–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2007). Future prospects for corporate sustainability reporting. In J. Unerman, J. Bebington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability, accounting and accountability (pp. 184–208). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2), 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, A. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). An exploratory study of interorganizational defamation: An organizational impression management perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, P. W., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The effects of perceived loafing and defensive impression management on group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 29(3), 394–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nancarrow, C., Brace, I., & Wright, L. T. (2001). ‘Tell me Lies, Tell me Sweet Little Lies’*: Dealing with Socially Desirable Responses in Market Research. Marketing Review, 2(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook (Vol. 1, p. 301). London: Sage Publications.

  • Nyberg, D., Spicer, A., & Wright, C. (2013). Incorporating citizens: Corporate political engagement with climate change in Australia. Organization, 20(3), 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2012). Justifying business responses to climate change: Discursive strategies of similarity and difference. Environment and Planning A, 44(8), 1819–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, S., & Clarke, J. (2005). Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: Corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(3), 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okereke, C. (2007). An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management: The UK FTSE 100. European Management Journal, 25(6), 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okereke, C., & Russel, D. (2010). Regulatory pressure and competitive dynamics: Carbon management strategies of UK energy-intensive companies. California Management Review, 52(4), 100–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peretti-Watel, P. (2003). Neutralization theory and the denial of risk: Some evidence from cannabis use among French adolescents. The British journal of sociology, 54(1), 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perks, K. J., Farache, F., Shukla, P., & Berry, A. (2013). Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in CSR advertisements. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1881–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2009). Global climate change and business (p. 200). London: Taylor & Francis.

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 391–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., Gallego-Álvarez, I., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2009). Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision, 47(7), 1133–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, M., Windsor, C., & Wahyuni, D. (2011). An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system: Australian evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 1037–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E., & Toffel, M. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sæverud, I. A., & Skjærseth, J. B. (2007). Oil companies and climate change: Inconsistencies between strategy formulation and implementation? Global Environmental Politics, 7(3), 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlichting, I. (2013). Strategic framing of climate change by industry actors: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 7, 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjærseth, J. B., & Skodvin, T. (2001). Climate change and the oil industry: Common problems, different strategies. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(3), 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. (2003). Unbounded irrationality: Risk and organizational narcissism at long term capital management. Human Relations, 56(5), 523–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strutton, D., Vitell, S. J., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate behavior in market settings: An application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Research, 30(3), 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., & Worosz, M. R. (2011). Risk, anti-reflexivity, and ethical neutralization in industrial food processing. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(3), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2013). Can we trust corporates GHG inventories? An investigation among Canada’s large final emitters. Energy Policy, 63, 1075–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92(1), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., Bebington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2007). Sustainability, accounting and accountability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social Desirability scales from impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Grove, S. J. (1987). Marketing ethics and the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(6), 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Keith, M., & Mathur, M. (2011). Antecedents to the justification of norm violating behavior among business practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1209–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Laval University, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, local 2455, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, Quebec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    David Talbot

  2. Department of Management, Laval University, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, local 1638, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, Quebec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Olivier Boiral

Authors
  1. David Talbot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier Boiral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Talbot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Talbot, D., Boiral, O. Strategies for Climate Change and Impression Management: A Case Study Among Canada’s Large Industrial Emitters. J Bus Ethics 132, 329–346 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2322-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2322-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation