Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

GHG Reporting and Impression Management: An Assessment of Sustainability Reports from the Energy Sector

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

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze the quality of climate information disclosed by companies and the impression management strategies they have developed to justify or conceal negative aspects of their performance. The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of the sustainability reports of 21 energy-sector companies that use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) with A or A+ application levels over a period of 5 years (n = 105). It contributes to the literature on climate disclosure by demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the external assurance process in ensuring the quality and representativeness of the data. Significant non-compliance with GRI standards was identified in 86 of the 93 reports audited by a third party. In addition, six of the 21 companies surveyed were found to disclose increasingly opaque information over time, concealing information on the measurement and methodology used. Through this study, four impression management strategies were identified. These are employed either to justify certain information (by minimizing impacts, excuses and commitment) or to conceal it (through strategic omissions and manipulation of figures). In exposing the high incidence of non-compliance in GRI reporting and the use of impression management strategies by companies, this study shows that it will be difficult or impossible for stakeholders to reasonably assess, monitor and compare companies’ climate performance on the basis of these 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The GRI database is constantly changing. Some companies can modify their profiles and add or remove certain reports. The selection of reports to be used in this study was made between February 1 and 5, 2014.

  2. In accordance with the GRI A and A+ application level, reports should disclose information on core indicators or provide reasons for failure to do so. The five Rosneft reports under study were granted the A+ application level.

References

  • Andrew, J., & Cortese, C. (2011). Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures. Accounting Forum, 35(3), 130–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostol, O. M. (2015). A project for Romania? The role of the civil society’s counter-accounts in facilitating democratic change in society. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(2), 210–241.

    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 

  • Bebbington, J., O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). Postscript and conclusions. In J. Bebbington, B. O’Dwyer, & J. Unerman (Eds.), Sustainability, accounting and accountability (pp. 345–349). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  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 

  • BG Group. (2012). Sustainability report.

  • BG Group. (2013). BG Group sustainability report 2011.

  • 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. (2015). Accounting for the unaccountable: Biodiversity reporting and impression management. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2497-9.

  • Boiral, O., & Henri, J. F. (2015). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business & Society.

  • 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 

  • Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP. (2011). Sustainability review 2010. London.

  • BP. (2012). Sustainability review 2011. London.

  • BPCL. (2013). BPCL sustainable development report 2012–13. Mumbai.

  • Brennan, N., & Merkl-Davies, D. (2014). Accounting narratives and impression management. In L. Jack, J. Davison, & R. Craig (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to communication in accounting (pp. 109–132). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burritt, R. L., Schaltegger, S., & Zvezdov, D. (2011). Carbon management accounting: Explaining practice in leading german companies. Australian Accounting Review, 21(1), 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon Disclosure Project. (2013). Sector insights: what is driving climate change action in the world’s largest companies? (p. 60). Carbon Disclosure Project.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2012a). Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Michelon, G., & Patten, D. M. (2012b). 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., 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 

  • Chu, C. I., Chatterjee, B., & Brown, A. (2013). The current status of greenhouse gas reporting by Chinese companies.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Depoers, F., Jeanjean, T., & Jérôme, T. (2014). Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the carbon disclosure project and corporate reports. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2432-0.

  • Dey, C. (2007). Developing silent and shadow accounts. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability, accounting and accountability (pp. 307–326). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  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 

  • Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, J., & Stubbs, W. (2013). No title evaluation of Australian companies’ scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56(1), 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragomir, V. D. (2012). The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: a critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29–30, 222–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Organizational perception management. Research In Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 297–332.

    Article  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 

  • Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I., & Principe, K. E. (1998). Averting expected challenges through anticipatory impression management: A study of hospital billing. Organization Science, 9(1), 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enagás (2009). Annual report 2008. Madrid.

  • Enagás (2010). Annual report 2009. Madrid.

  • Enagás (2013). Annual report 2012. Madrid.

  • Freedman, M., & Park, J. D. (2014). Mandated climate change disclosures by firms participating in the regional greenhouse gas initiative. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamesa. (2012). Sustainability report 2011.

  • Godfrey, J., Mather, P., & Ramsay, A. (2003). Earnings and impression management in financial reports: The case of CEO changes. Abacus, 39(1), 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., & Herrbach, O. (2006). Corporate social reporting as a learning tool? A theoretical framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Governance & Accountability Institute. (2014). Seventy-two percent (72%) of the S&P Index published corporate sustainability reports in 2013?

  • 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 

  • GRI. (2011a). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2011b). GRI G3 and G3.1 update—comparison sheet. Amsterdam.

  • GRI. (2011c). Indicator protocols set: Environment. Amsterdam.

  • GRI. (2013). Implementation manual. Amsterdam.

  • GRI. (2014). Trends in external assurance of sustainability reports: Update on the US. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(04), 447–482.

    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 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igalens, J., & Gond, J.-P. (2005). Measuring corporate social performance in France: A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(2), 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

  • Itaipu Binacional. (2009). 2008 Sustainability Report.

  • Jiang, R. J., & Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 1047–1067.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical perspectives on accounting conference. New York.

  • Luo, L., Lan, Y.-C., & Tang, Q. (2012). Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 report. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 23(2), 93–120.

    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 

  • Merkl-Davies, D., & Brennan, N. (2007). Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives: Incremental information or impression management? Journal of Accounting Literature, 27, 116–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations, formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Grubnic, S. (2011). Climate change accounting research: Keeping it interesting and different. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 948–977.

    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 

  • Mruck, K., & Breuer, F. (2003). Subjectivity and reflexivity in qualitative research—The FQS issues. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/696/1504.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759–787.

    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., & 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 

  • OMV. (2009). Sustainability report 2007/2008. Vienna.

  • OMV. (2013). Sustainability report 2012. Vienna.

  • Patelli, L., & Pedrini, M. (2013). Is the optimism in CEO’s letters to shareholders sincere? Impression management versus communicative action during the economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 19–34.

    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 

  • Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2014). Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 637–666.

  • Petrobras. (2011). Sustainability report 2010. Rio de Janeiro.

  • 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 

  • Rosneft. (2011). Rosneft sustainability report. Moscow.

  • Rosneft. (2012). Sustainability report. Moscow.

  • Rosneft. (2013). Sustainability report. Moscow.

  • Royal Dutch Shell. (2010). Sustainability report: Royal Dutch Shell PLC sustainability report 2009.

  • Schaltegger, S., & Csutora, M. (2012). Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., Nugent, M., & Huggins, A. L. (2009). Developing an international assurance standard on greenhouse gas statements. Accounting Horizons, 23(4), 347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S-OIL. (2012). Sustainability report 2011. Seoul.

  • Stanny, E. (2013). Voluntary disclosures of emissions by US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statoil ASA. (2011). Annual and sustainability report 2010.

  • Statoil ASA. (2012). Annual and sustainability report 2011.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sullivan, R., & Gouldson, A. (2012). Does voluntary carbon reporting meet investors’ needs? Journal of Cleaner Production, 36(January), 60–67.

    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 

  • Talbot, D., & Boiral, O. (2015). Strategies for climate change and impression management: A case study among Canada’s large industrial emitters. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 329–346.

  • 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 

  • Wärtsilä Corporation. (2013). Annual report 2012. Helsinki.

  • World Energy Council. (2014). Climate change: Implications for the energy sector.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), 555, boulevard Charest Est, Quebec, QC, G1K 9E5, Canada

    David Talbot

  2. KEDGE Business School, 680 Cours Libération, 33405, Talence, France

    David Talbot

  3. Department of Management, Laval University, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, Local 1638, 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. GHG Reporting and Impression Management: An Assessment of Sustainability Reports from the Energy Sector. J Bus Ethics 147, 367–383 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2979-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2979-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation