Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT)

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

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of rhetoric and rhetorical strategies that are implicit in the standalone sustainability reporting of the top 24 companies of the Fortune 500 Global. We adopt Bormann’s (Q J Speech 58(4):396–407, 1972) SCT framework to study the rhetorical situation and how corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) messages can be communicated to the audience (public). The SCT concepts in the sustainability reporting’s communication are subject to different types of legitimacy strategies that are used by corporations as a validity and legitimacy claim in the reports. A content analysis has been conducted and structural coding schemes have been developed based on the literature. The schemes are applied to the SCT model which recognizes the symbolic convergent processes of fantasy among communicators in a Society. The study reveals that most of the sample companies communicate fantasy type and rhetorical vision in their corporate sustainability reporting. However, the disclosure or messages are different across locations and other taxonomies of the SCT framework. This study contributes to the current CSR literature about how symbolic or fantasy understandings can be interpreted by the users. It also discusses the persuasion styles that are adopted by the companies for communication purposes. This study is the theoretical extension of the SCT. Researchers may be interested in further investigating other online communication paths, such as human rights reports and director’s reports.

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

Fig. 1

Source: Build on Cragan and Shields (1992), Hopkins (2011), Higgins and Robyn (2012), Marais (2012), Devin and Lane (2014), Zanin et al. (2016), Park et al. (2016) and our theoretical framework discussion

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For further reading, see Bormann (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985a, b).

  2. The terms ‘sustainability’, ‘environmental, social, and governance’ (ESG), and ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) have been used interchangeably in the past to describe a firm’s voluntary actions to manage its environmental and social impact and increase its positive contribution to Society (Khan et al. 2016). Therefore, we considered different names like corporate citizenship report or environment responsibility report as the sustainability report under the study and focus on 2015 report.

References

  • Abizadeh, A. (2002). The passions of the wise: “Phronêsis”, rhetoric, and Aristotle’s passionate practical deliberation. The Review of Metaphysics,56, 267–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W. (1994). On the use of accounting logic as an explanatory category in narrative accounting disclosures. Accounting, Organizations and Society,19(4–5), 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W. (2001). Inertia in the attributional content of annual accounting narratives. European Accounting Review,10(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review,19(4), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies,30(6), 997–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amernic, J. H. (1996). The rhetoric versus the reality, or is the reality “mere” rhetoric? a case study of public accounting firms’ responses to a company’s invitation for alternative opinions on an accounting matter. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,7(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1991). The art of rhetoric. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. E., & Schweiker, W. (1992). The rhetoric and rationality of accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17(6), 511–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2009). Non-financial information and the annual report. Working paper, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund.

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science,1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology,34(1), 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1989). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1994a). Constructing experience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1994b). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101).

  • Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social science. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review,18, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhling, K., Murguía, D. I., & Godfrid, J. (2017). Sustainability reporting in the mining sector: Exploring its symbolic nature. Business & Society, 25(1), 271–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech,58(4), 396–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1980). Communication theory. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1982). I. Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years later. Quarterly Journal of Speech,68(3), 288–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1983). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 99–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1985a). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication,35(4), 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G. (1985b). The force of fantasy: Restoring the America dream. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (2001). Three decades of developing, grounding, and using symbolic convergence theory (SCT). Annals of the International Communication Association,25(1), 271–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann, E. G., Knutson, R. L., & Musolf, K. (1997). Why do people share fantasies? An empirical investigation of a basic tenet of the symbolic convergence communication theory. Communication Studies,48(3), 254–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostdorff, D. M. (1992). “The decision is yours” campaign: Planned parenthood’s characteristic argument of moral virtue. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 301–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostdorff, D., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review,20, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination. Argumentation,6(3), 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N., & Gray, S. J. (2000). Rhetoric and argument in financial reporting. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. ACCA Occasional Research Papers; No. 31. http://www2.accaglobal.com/pubs/general/activities/research/research_archive/orp-031-001.pdf.

  • Brennan, M. N., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2014). Rhetoric and argument in social and environmental reporting: The Dirty Laundry case. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,27(4), 602–633.

    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, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullis, C. (1997). Business communication and the natural environment: Using traditional and contemporary perspectives to understand the connections. The Journal of Business Communication (1973),34(4), 455–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives (Vol. 111). Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J. (1982). Politics as rhetoric. Ethics,93(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review,4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons,34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review,100(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalaby, J. (1996). Beyond the prison-house of language: Discourse as a sociological concept. The British Journal of Sociology,47(4), 684–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Huang, Q., Peng, H., & Zhong, H. (2015). Research report on corporate social responsibility of China. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79–103).

  • Clatworthy, M. A., & Jones, M. J. (2006). Differential patterns of textual characteristics and company performance in the chairman’s statement. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,19(4), 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,20(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). The pseudo-panopticon: The illusion created by CSR-related transparency and the internet. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,18(2), 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (2012). Environmental communication and the public sphere. London: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1977). Foreign policy communication dramas: How mediated rhetoric played in Peoria in campaign’76. Quarterly Journal of Speech,63(3), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1981). Applied communication research: A dramatistic approach. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1992). The use of symbolic convergence theory in corporate strategic planning: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research,20(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1995). Symbolic theories in applied communication research: Bormann, Burke, and Fisher. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies,53(7), 1223–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M. (1991). Aristotle and business writing: Why we need to teach persuasion. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication,54(1), 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review,24(3), 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CVS Health. (2015). Sustainability report. https://cvshealth.com/social-responsibility/corporate-social-responsibility/annual-corporate-social-responsibility-reports.

  • Davison, J. (2014). Visual rhetoric and the case of intellectual capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society,39(1), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,15(3), 312–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hoonard, Van, & Will, C. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts: Analytical field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devin, B. L., & Lane, A. B. (2014). Communicating engagement in corporate social responsibility: A meta-level construal of engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research,26(5), 436–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: A struggle for the meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,20(3), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díez-Martín, F., Prado-Roman, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2013). Beyond legitimacy: Legitimacy types and organizational success. Management Decision,51(10), 1954–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, S., & Xu, L. (2016). The impact of explicit CSR regulation: Evidence from China’s mining firms. Journal of Applied Accounting Research,17(2), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drumheller, K. (2005). Millennial dogma: A fantasy theme analysis of the millennial generation’s uses and gratifications of religious content media. Journal of Communication & Religion,28, 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews,12(1), 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. E. (2003). Web of hate: A fantasy theme analysis of the rhetorical vision of hate groups online. Journal of Communication Inquiry,27(3), 291–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endres, T. G. (1994). Co-existing master analogues in symbolic convergence theory: The Knights of Columbus quincentennial campaign. Communication Studies,45(3–4), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estava, D. J. (2012). Lope de Aguirre, the tyrant, and the prince: Convergence and divergence in postcolonial collective memory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication,5(4), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization,50(2), 325–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization,52(4), 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S. K. (1989). Generic criticism. In S. K. Foss (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology,95(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garver, E. (1994). Aristotle’s rhetoric: An art of character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). Consolidated set of GRI sustainability reporting standards 2016. Accessed 7 December https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/.

  • Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative designs in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Critical points of CSR-related stakeholder dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review,23(3), 248–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,8(2), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society,36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital,5(2), 282–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyimóthy, S. (2013). Symbolic convergence and tourism social media. In A. M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, & L. Cai (Eds.), Tourism social media: Transformations in identity, community and culture (pp. 55–71). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, L. P., Rubin, R. S., & Dhanda, K. K. (2007). The communication of corporate social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corporations. Journal of Business Ethics,74(4), 373–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures,1(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L. (1993). A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogatives. Public Relations Review,19(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L. (2001). Chapter 2: A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L., & Ryan, M. (1989). Public relations’ role in defining corporate social responsibility. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,4(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., & Robyn, W. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum,36(3), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, K., & Pratt, M. (1995). Discourse and rhetoric: The case of the New Zealand Native Land Company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,8(1), 10–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, L. (2011). Symbolic convergence theory. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from http://www.leehopkins.net/2011/05/31/symbolic-convergence-theory/.

  • Ihlen, Ø. (2008). Mapping the environment for corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders, publics and the public sphere. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,13(2), 135–146.

    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 

  • Ihlen, Ø. (2011). Rhetoric and corporate social responsibility. In J. Bartlett, O. Ihlen, & S. May (Eds.), Handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 147–166). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihlen, Ø., Van Ruler, B., & Fredriksson, M. (Eds.). (2009). Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts. Abington: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, T. S., & Nielsen, A. E. (2011). Strategic stakeholder dialogues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,16(3), 204–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (2005). CSR Wonderland: Navigating between movement, community and organisation. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship,20, 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kartikawangi, D. (2017). Symbolic convergence of local wisdom in cross–cultural collaborative social responsibility: Indonesian case. Public Relations Review,43(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review,91(6), 1697–1724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiliç, M. (2016). Online corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in the banking industry: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Bank Marketing,34(4), 550–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. (1999). Norms in international relations: The struggle against apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis (Vol. 7, pp. 1–84). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,22(7), 1029–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laine, M. (2010). Towards sustaining the status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987–2005. European Accounting Review,19(2), 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). Understanding shifting power relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analysis. Academy of Management Journal,52(4), 672–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management,7(4), 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livesey, S. M. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable development. Management Communication Quarterly,15(3), 313–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livesey, S. M., & Graham, J. (2007). Greening of corporations? Eco-talk and the emerging social imaginary. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 336–350). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, J. (1990). The rhetoric of corporate legitimation: Public relations and philanthropy as social responsibility. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument—Concepts, evidence and research directions. European Journal of Marketing,35(3/4), 457–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä, H., & Laine, M. (2011). A CEO with many messages: Comparing the ideological representations provided by different corporate reports. Accounting Forum,35(4), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Bellucci, M. (2016). The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,29(6), 985–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marais, M. (2012). CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Society and Business Review,7(3), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masocha, W., & Weetman, P. (2007). Rhetoric in standard setting: The case of the going-concern audit. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,20(1), 74–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M., & Mason, R. D. (2012). Communicating a green corporate perspective: Ideological persuasion in the corporate environmental report. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,26(4), 479–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, S. K., & Zorn, T. E. (2003). Forum introduction. Management Communication Quarterly,16(4), 595–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. USA: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl-Davies, D. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., Brennan, N. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2017). A theoretical framework of external accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,30(2), 433–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S. J. (1990). An institutional model of organizational practice: Financial reporting at the Fortune 200. Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 431–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Organization,13(6), 801–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morhardt, J. E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the internet. Business Strategy and the Environment,19(7), 436–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: A thick description. Academy of Management Review,12(3), 523–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. P. (1987). Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric. The Journal of Politics,49(3), 657–677.

    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’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Communication Quarterly,24(4), 529–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onkila, T. J. (2009). Corporate argumentation for acceptability: Reflections of environmental values and stakeholder relations in corporate environmental statements. Journal of Business Ethics,87(2), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, D. K. (2004). Coming of age: Theoretical thinking, social responsibility, and a global perspective on qualitative research. In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), The qualitative research experience (pp. 297–315). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk communication model: Analysis of communication processes and message content. Journal of Public Relations Research,14(2), 127–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Lee, H., & Hong, H. (2016). The Analysis of Self-Presentation of Fortune 500 Corporations in Corporate Web Sites. Business and Society,55(5), 706–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. A. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations,7(1), 37–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. Notre Dame: The University of Notre dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Sage University papers series on qualitative research methods (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, I., & Picoto, W. N. (2016). Configurational analysis of firms’ performance: Understanding the role of Internet financial reporting. Journal of Business Research,69(11), 5360–5365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, S. J. (2006). A symbolic convergence theory approach to graduate recruiting. Master of Arts thesis, Texas Tech University, USA.

  • Preuss, L. (2005). Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: A view from the supply chain management function. Business Strategy and the Environment,14(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. (2004). Dialectical and rhetorical tropes in negotiations. Organization Studies,25, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1983). Communication and organizations, an interpretive approach (Vol. 65). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., & Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics,78(1–2), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17(6), 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. N. (2006). Rhetoric and character in Aristotle. The Review of Metaphysics,60, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2009). Evaluating corporate environmental reporting on the internet: The utility and resource industries in Spain. Business and Society,48(2), 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, D., & O’Keefe Bazzoni, J. (2009). Greening corporate identity: CSR online corporate identity reporting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,14(3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruebottom, T. (2013). The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship: Building legitimacy through heroes and villains. Journal of Business Venturing,28(1), 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly,19, 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Self, L. S. (1979). Rhetoric and phronesis: The Aristotelian ideal. Philosophy & Rhetoric,12, 130–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell. (2015). Sustainability report. https://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2015/.

  • Shields, D. C. (2000). Symbolic convergence and special communication theories: Sensing and examining dis/enchantment with the theoretical robustness of critical auto ethnography. Communications Monographs,67(4), 392–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, D. C., & Preston, C. T. (1985). Fantasy theme analysis in competitive rhetorical criticism. National Forensic Journal,3(2), 102–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sörensson, A., & Jansson, A. M. (2016). Sustainability reporting among Swedish tourism service providers: Information differences between them. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment,201, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K., & Ramana, M. V. (2015). Back to the future: Small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Science, Technology and Human Values,40(1), 96–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy context: The five “C” s of CSR and small business research agenda 2007. Business and Society Review,112(4), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,20(2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Thomson, I. (2009). Resonance tropes in corporate philanthropy discourse. Business Ethics: A European Review,18(4), 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallworth Williams, L. (2008). The mission statement: A corporate reporting tool with a past, present, and future. The Journal of Business Communication (1973),45(2), 94–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. F. (2002). Using symbolic convergence theory to discern and segment motives for enrolling in professional master’s degree programs. Communication Quarterly,50(2), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The mission statement. Discourse & Society,6(2), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications,14(2), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization. Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. J. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment,15(4), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., Kearins, K., & Milne, M. (2013). The politics of knowing “organizational sustainable development”. Organization & Environment,26(1), 102–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2014). (Re) presenting ‘sustainable organizations’. Accounting, Organizations and Society,39(6), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trittin, H., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017). Diversity as polyphony: Reconceptualizing diversity Management from a communication-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,144(2), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues-Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,13(5), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verizon. (2015). Corporate responsibility supplement. http://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/annual/verizon-annual-2015/downloads/2015_Verizon_Corporate_Responsibility_Supplement.pdf.

  • Wæraas, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Green legitimation: The construction of an environmental ethos. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,17(2), 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmart. (2015). Global responsibility report. https://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/c0/24/2383f0674d27823dcf7083e6fbc6/2015-global-responsibility-report.pdf.

  • Warnock, K. (1992). Structure and argument in accounting standards. Accounting and Business Research,22(86), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies,16, 805–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,1(1), 41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,16(4), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. J. (2003). Constructing, persuading and silencing: The rhetoric of accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society,28(6), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. O. (2016). Persuasive communication: How audiences decide. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zanin, A. C., Hoelscher, C. S., & Kramer, M. W. (2016). Extending Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Shared Identity Perspective of a Team’s Culture. Small Group Research,47(4), 438–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Md. Tarikul Islam

    Present address: Faculty of Business, Sohar University, Sohar, Sultanate of Oman

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith Business School, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Mohammed Hossain, Shamsun Nahar & Md. Samsul Alam

  2. Department of Accounting, Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland Central, New Zealand

    Mahmood Ahmed Momin

Authors
  1. Mohammed Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Md. Tarikul Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahmood Ahmed Momin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shamsun Nahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Md. Samsul Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed Hossain.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Appendix: Breakdown of Industry Classification as per Geographical Location

Appendix: Breakdown of Industry Classification as per Geographical Location

 

Petroleum

Automobiles

Technology

Financial

Telecommunications

Electronics

Othersa

Total

American

1

0

1

1

1

1

5

10

Asian

2

1

1

1

0

1

2

8

European

2

1

0

1

0

1

1

6

 

5

2

2

3

1

3

8

24

  1. aOthers include retail, power, pharmaceuticals, motor and food and heath industry

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hossain, M., Islam, M.T., Momin, M.A. et al. Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT). J Bus Ethics 160, 563–586 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3874-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3874-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation