Description
This paper investigates how organizations represent themselves in relation to sustainable development in 365 publicly available corporate reports from 1992 to 2010. This period of
reporting captures the emergence and development of corporate reporting on sustainable
development within the context of the study, New Zealand. Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory is employed to frame the analysis and interpret the findings. In particular Laclau
and Mouffe’s conceptualizations of discourse, identity and group formation, and their theorization
of hegemony are drawn upon. The analysis uncovers a changing organizational
identity over time. Three distinct identities which capture key organizational representations
over time are highlighted: environmentally responsible and compliant organizations;
leaders in sustainability; and strategically ‘good’ organizations. The paper demonstrates
through an analysis of these evolving identities and their effects, how organizations have
maintained a ‘right to speak’ within the sustainable development debate, despite the fundamental
challenges and hegemonic threat that a broader reading of sustainable development
might imply.
(Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations’
Helen Tregidga
a,?
, Markus Milne
b
, Kate Kearins
a
a
Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
Department of Accounting, Finance, and Information Systems, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
a b s t r a c t
This paper investigates how organizations represent themselves in relation to sustainable
development in 365 publicly available corporate reports from 1992 to 2010. This period of
reporting captures the emergence and development of corporate reporting on sustainable
development within the context of the study, New Zealand. Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory is employed to frame the analysis and interpret the ?ndings. In particular Laclau
and Mouffe’s conceptualizations of discourse, identity and group formation, and their the-
orization of hegemony are drawn upon. The analysis uncovers a changing organizational
identity over time. Three distinct identities which capture key organizational representa-
tions over time are highlighted: environmentally responsible and compliant organizations;
leaders in sustainability; and strategically ‘good’ organizations. The paper demonstrates
through an analysis of these evolving identities and their effects, how organizations have
maintained a ‘right to speak’ within the sustainable development debate, despite the fun-
damental challenges and hegemonic threat that a broader reading of sustainable develop-
ment might imply.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
At the heart of the social accounting project lies a radi-
cal and emancipatory intent. Yet social accounting prac-
tice in the form of corporate self reporting, has
systematically failed to open up substantive critique.
Rather than rendering transparent the contradictions
within capitalism, corporate social accounting primarily
obfuscates these (Spence, 2009, p. 205).
Introduction
The social and environmental accounting project would
seem to hold much promise but there are concerns that its
potential has not been realized (see Gray, Dillard, & Spence,
2009; Milne, 2007; Owen, 2008; Spence, 2009). Gaf?kin
(2009, p. 271) posits that, instead of constituting critical
resistance, a large segment of social and environmental
accounting research which seeks to explain ‘‘existing dis-
closures rather than seeking new forms of effective disclo-
sure’’ comprises ‘‘co-opted resistance’’. He further declares
that ‘‘if accounting is to be involved in attempts to deter-
mine any effective solution to the problems of the impact
of exploitative corporate behaviour on the environment
(corporate domination) there needs to be much greater ef-
fort at building effective emancipatory resistance’’. Our at-
tempt to build such emancipatory resistance involves a
critical analysis of the representation of organizations in
relation to such fundamentals as nature and society. We
argue in this paper that the way in which ‘sustainable
organizations’ are represented works to establish and
maintain what Spence (2009) refers to as ‘faith’ in organi-
zations as change agents.
A range of studies have analyzed sustainable develop-
ment discourse within the organizational context (Levy,
1997; Livesey, 2001; Livesey, 2002a; Milne, Kearins, &
Walton, 2006; Prasad & Elmes, 2005; Spence, 2007;
Spence, 2009; Springett, 2003), as well as more speci?cally
in organizational reports (Buhr & Rieter, 2006; Ihlen &
Roper, 2011; Laine, 2005; Laine, 2009; Laine, 2010; Livesey,
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.006
?
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 921 9999; fax: +64 9 921 9990.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Tregidga), markus.
[email protected] (M. Milne), [email protected] (K. Kearins).
Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
2002b; Livesey & Kearins, 2002; Milne, Tregidga, & Walton,
2009; Tregidga & Milne, 2006). These studies have tended
to focus on what business organizations and their manag-
ers have to say and write about the concept of sustainable
development itself. That is they have concentrated on what
organizations and managers mean when they refer to sus-
tainable development. How organizations have been con-
structed – that is the construction of organizational
identity in relation to sustainable development – has not
been well investigated, however.
1
This paper ?lls this gap
in the literature by addressing the question ‘‘how have orga-
nizations constructed an identity in relation to sustainable
development (i.e. what does it mean to represent an organi-
zation as a sustainable organization)?’’
We draw on Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse the-
ory, in particular, their conceptualizations of discourse,
identity and group formation, and hegemony. We present
a critical analysis of ‘sustainable organization’ identity
constructed in a large sample of corporate reports over
a key period in the development of sustainable develop-
ment reporting along with its potential implications.
These representations are examined in relation to the
New Zealand context within which the organizations are
located. We take up Hopwood’s (2009) call for more re-
search examining corporate environmental reporting
which contributes to, and addresses the gap in the litera-
ture which analyses the discourse of sustainable develop-
ment within corporate reports (see also Gray, 2010). This
study complements previous work within New Zealand,
notably Tregidga and Milne (2006) a longitudinal study
of a single organization’s reporting, and Milne et al.
(2009), a close examination of eight organizations and
an industry association. Both Tregidga and Milne (2006)
and Milne et al. (2009), like other existing studies of re-
ports noted above, focus on how the concept of sustain-
able development is de?ned/constructed and how these
constructions have affected, or been affected by broader
discourses of sustainable development. However, the role
of identity and its effects is largely left unexamined in
this earlier, much smaller scale work.
Based on our sustained analysis of representations of
‘sustainable organizations’ within corporate reports, our
argument is that organizations have been able to resist
substantive change to business-as-usual through a pro-
cess of apparent identity transformation. Not only have
organizations transformed the concept of sustainable
development, and thereby potentially emasculated its
radical potential, but they have also represented
themselves as transformed. It is not just what organiza-
tions claim to do, but also what they claim to be which
creates resistance to necessary change (Owen, Gray, &
Bebbington, 1997) and contributes to understandings of
organizations as legitimate social actors. How the ‘sus-
tainable organization’ serves to position the organiza-
tional ‘voice’ in the discursive debate on sustainable
development and how the discursive identity constructed
works to maintain a legitimate and in?uential voice, a
‘right to speak’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) within that de-
bate – despite the challenges that sustainable develop-
ment poses to capitalist ideologies – is the key
contribution of this paper.
What we do not offer, however, is a consideration of
intentionality. We cannot know if those in charge of the
organizations, or those writing on behalf of the organiza-
tions whose reports we analyze intended to create the
identities we articulate, if they would concur with the
identities we portray, or if they would necessarily be aware
of any such intentions themselves. Often social actors are
unaware of the identities they project, or project images
that others read and interpret in ways that are at odds with
those intentions. Coupling identity to intention is some-
what problematic, and especially in an organizational con-
text. As with texts and authorial intention, identity is often
in the eye of the beholder, or the mind of the reader. Orga-
nizations are not single social actors, so it is even less clear
who might unambiguously articulate an organization’s
intentions. Leaving aside these conceptual and practical
dif?culties, an analysis of intention would require both
an analysis of the production, and also the consumption
(see Hardy, 2011) of the texts, with consequent dif?culties
in determining who should represent those who produce
and those who consume. In this study, we have kept the fo-
cus on our consumption, reading and interpretation of
organizational texts/identities. We read the texts as schol-
ars of accounting and organizations, with a declared inter-
est in whether the social and environmental accounting
project can, in part, be realized through the reporting
process.
The paper is structured as follows. First, Laclau and
Mouffe’s concept of hegemony and ours and others’ argu-
ment that sustainable development represents a hege-
monic threat to organizations is presented. A discussion
of organizational identity, group formation and represen-
tation follows. Once again Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory and the consideration of collective or group iden-
tity is discussed as it forms the perspective taken by our-
selves as authors of this paper. Literature from
organizational studies on identity and identity construc-
tion is reviewed, in particular literature considering the
role of discourse and communication in constructing
identity. A critical reading of organizational engagement
in the discursive debate surrounding sustainable develop-
ment follows. The method of identifying, selecting and
analyzing the organizational reports from which the
empirical insights are drawn is then described. Thereafter
?ndings are presented along with a discussion of the po-
tential implications of the constructed identities. The pa-
per concludes with some ?nal comments and directions
for future research.
Hegemony and the hegemonic threat of sustainable
development
Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of hegemony provides a
key part of the theoretical framework for this paper. One
of the advantages of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory,
1
See Carroll (1998), Fuoli (2012), Heikkurinen and Ketola (2012), Nyberg
and Wright (2012), Siltaoja (2009) and Shinkle and Spencer (2011) for some
consideration of identity in relation to social responsibility, climate change
and corporate citizenship.
478 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
and in particular their concept of hegemony, is its empha-
sis on power and con?ict in the constitution and transfor-
mation of social meanings and identity (Martin, 2002).
Within discourse theory, the realm of the discursive con-
sists of the linguistic and non-linguistic practices that
structure thought and action. Laclau and Mouffe (1985)
adopt and modify the concept of hegemony from Gramsci
(1971) to denote the structuring of meanings through dis-
cursive practices (Martin, 2002). As Brown (2003, p. 96,
drawing on Clegg, 1989) notes, ‘‘[h]egemony is a form of
cleverly masked, taken-for-granted domination, most of-
ten articulated as what is ‘common sense’ or ‘natural’,
and which thus ‘involves the successful mobilisation and
reproduction of the active consent’ of those subject to it’’.
Hegemony is not based simply on domination or coer-
cion but on the demonstration of moral and intellectual
leadership of the hegemonic group, and it rests on the con-
sent of the masses (Levy & Egan, 2003; Spence, 2007).
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) consider the role of language
in forming such consent. Central to their theory of dis-
course are the concepts articulation, nodal points and
closure. Articulation is de?ned as ‘‘any practice establish-
ing relations among elements such that their identity is
modi?ed as a result (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 105). As
such, the process of articulation partially ?xes meaning.
This partial ?xing of meaning occurs around the nodal
points within the discursive ?eld. Nodal points are
privileged signi?ers within a discourse that bind together
a particular system of meaning (Howarth & Stavrakakis,
2000). For example, sustainable development can be
considered a nodal point, so too ‘sustainable organization’
– the nodal point focused on in this paper.
However, at the core of discourse theory is the recogni-
tion that total meaning can never be ultimately ?xed
(closed) and therefore must be constantly renegotiated
and rearticulated. This lack of ?xity is important as it opens
up struggles over meaning which always takes place in a
terrain of power and resistance. This openness to modi?ca-
tion leads us to the concept of hegemony and the structur-
ing of meaning through discursive practices and
articulations of sustainable organizations.
Tor?ng (1999) relates Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of
hegemony to politics stating that ‘‘hegemony is just an-
other name for politics, but one that emphasises the con-
struction of identity [meaning], and conceives values and
beliefs as an integral part of such an identity. Within this
perspective, identity is not the starting point of politics,
but rather something that is constructed, maintained or
transformed in and through political struggles’’ (Tor?ng,
1999, p. 82). Hegemony is therefore an articulatory prac-
tice that structures concepts and practices in a way that
makes certain elements come to be viewed as natural or
taken for granted. As such, while meaning can never fully
be ?xed, certain discourses can come to dominate others
and become ‘‘the main guide for action’’ (Spence, 2007).
The role of the discourse analyst with regards to an analy-
sis of hegemony and the construction of meaning is to
‘‘plot the course of these struggles to ?x meaning at all lev-
els of the social’’ (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p.24).
Laclau and Mouffe’s insights are of particular interest in
this study in making sense of the language that organizations
use to construct anidentity in relationto sustainable develop-
ment, and also the hegemonic character of these representa-
tions of organizations. Laclau and Mouffe also offer us the
means to understandthe ?uidandchanging nature of identity
constructionandconsider identityrenegotiationand(re)artic-
ulation in order to resist threats and maintain hegemony. We
address such aspects in our longitudinal analysis and chang-
ing identity observations.
Like Levy (1997), Levy and Egan (2003) and Livesey
(2002a) who draw on the concept of hegemony, we con-
sider the emergence of the concept of sustainable develop-
ment within business organizations to represent a ‘threat
to hegemony’. Through the need to respond to and accom-
modate the growing public awareness of environmental
and social issues, the dominant hegemonic position of
the organization is threatened. Sustainable development
represents not just an economic and regulatory threat,
but also a broader ideological challenge to the organiza-
tional control of resources and markets. Organizational
discourse on sustainable development can consequently
be interpreted as an attempt to maintain hegemonic con-
trol in the wake of these challenges (Livesey, 2002a), and
corporate reports on society and the environment can be
viewed as a product of the hegemonic threat. As Levy
(1997) concludes, organizational discourse on sustainable
development can be seen to be more about political than
environmental sustainability.
Of particular interest here is how a consideration of
hegemony allows an analysis of how business organiza-
tions have maintained, and continue to maintain, a right
to speak within the sustainable development debate, de-
spite the fundamental challenges and ‘hegemonic threat’
sustainable development would seem to impose. How
organizations have established a voice in the discourse
(i.e. how organizations have achieved an arguably author-
itative position within the discursive debate on sustainable
development, discussed below), and how they have main-
tained that voice through the capacity to modify the con-
cept as well as to construct the organizational identity as
legitimate, is therefore analyzed through a consideration
of hegemony. First, however, a further part of our theoret-
ical framework, organizational identity and group forma-
tion, and how organizations are conceptualized in this
paper are discussed.
Organizations and organizational identity
There remains a steady and continued interest in dis-
course and organizations. This interest can be explained
by the linguistic turn in social sciences whereby language
is regarded as constitutive rather than re?ective of social
reality (see, for example, Aritz & Walker, 2012). As such,
much of the extant literature understands organizational
identity to be ‘‘unstable social constructions constituted
through acts of languaging’’ (Brown & Humphreys, 2006,
p. 231; see also, Clarke, Brown, & Hope Hailey, 2009). In
the Communicative Constitution of Organizations litera-
ture, organizations are understood to be ‘‘realized, experi-
enced, and identi?ed primarily – if not exclusively – in
communication processes’’ (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, &
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 479
Clark, 2011, p. 1150, see also Putnam & Nicotera, 2009).
Our focus is on how a group of organizations are repre-
sented to both their members and to others through corpo-
rate reports in relation to sustainable development and in
doing so construct what it means to be a ‘sustainable orga-
nization’. In addition, as discussed further below, we are
concerned with how such reports and the identity con-
structions they contain relate to notions of legitimacy
(see Brown, 2001; Hopwood, 2009; Nyberg & Wright,
2012; Shinkle & Spencer, 2011; Sillince & Brown, 2009)
and how these identity constructions change and are
maintained through time.
Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory and their
treatment of group formation and collective identities in-
form our understanding of organizations (see also, Laclau
(1993), Laclau (1996), Laclau (2000) and also Howarth
(2000) and Jørgensen & Phillips (2002)). Within Laclau
and Mouffe’s discourse theory, group identities are not so-
cially predetermined but, like individual identities, are
constituted through discourse and are fragmented, over-
determined and contingent. As identities are contingently
constructed, there is a plurality of identities that could be
adopted, but those which are adopted depend on particular
historical and social circumstances. As Spence (2007, p.
858) notes when discussing identity in relation to Laclau
and Mouffe, ‘‘people or social groups have no real essence
beyond the precarious identities that they adopt in relation
to the establishment of a particular order. . . the identities
that people adopt are not pre-given or necessarily class-
based, but contingently constructed’’.
An important element in the process of organizational
identi?cation is representation. Representation often in-
volves someone ‘talking about’ or ‘on behalf of’ the group.
Laclau and Mouffe largely focus on representative democ-
racy where citizens elect representatives who can be pres-
ent on their behalf in situations where all citizens cannot
be present (i.e. parliamentary discussions of political is-
sues). However, the concepts of group identities and repre-
sentation have been extended to the consideration of
organizational identity formation, in recognizing an orga-
nization as ‘‘a bounded social system, with speci?c struc-
tures and goals’’ (Cooper & Burrell, 1988, p. 102).
As with meaning construction discussed above, group
identities are once again contingent constructions formed
through discourse. As such, groups are not formed and
then represented, but rather, the group identity is formed
through representation, ‘‘It is not until someone speaks
of, or to, or on behalf of, a group that it is constituted as
a group’’ (Laclau, 1993, p. 289). Laclau (2000, p. 57) notes
that ‘‘representation is constitutive of the hegemonic rela-
tion’’. A consideration of the formation of group identity
construction through discourse therefore requires a focus
on articulations that constitute particular groups through
representation, and would further consider the under-
standings that are implied. The starting point is to identify
which subject or group position is being investigated, the
nodal point around which identity is organized. In this
case, the nodal point is the ‘sustainable organization’. The
second step in the analysis of the construction of identity
is to consider how that nodal point is being ?lled within
meaning. And third, how this meaning changes over time
is examined. These steps are discussed further below in
the method section.
In considering the function of representation in this pa-
per, it is important to note the role of the data set, the orga-
nizational text. Organizational texts, in the formof corporate
reports (annual and stand-alone) are considered here to be a
form of organizational representation. As such, organiza-
tional texts are considered to speak on behalf of organiza-
tions. Acknowledging that organizations themselves do not
‘speak’ and that all organizational texts are in some way
products of individuals, we also recognize that when con-
structing organizational texts, individuals or groups of indi-
viduals do so from particular subject positions, most likely
as members of/consultants to organizations, and in an at-
tempt tospeakonbehalf of, or as their organizations. We also
note that in their roles as ‘authors’ on behalf of particular
organizations they are writing from a particular stance and
witha particular set of discursive resources (i.e. they are both
enabled and constrained by position, place and time). It is,
however, the view here that organizational texts represent
the organization and play a role in constructing organiza-
tional identity. Similar treatment of the organizational text
or message, as representations of organizations, andas a pro-
cess of identi?cation, has a long history in the organizational
communication literature (for example, Cheney, 1991;
Cheney, 1992; Cheney & Christensen, 2001).
Public pronouncements on sustainable development by
organizations are said to have transformative effects on
organizations and on the concept of sustainable develop-
ment itself (Livesey, 2001; Livesey, 2002a). Representing
‘sustainable organizations’ in particular ways not only con-
structs new possibilities in terms of relationships between
organizations and the natural environment (Fineman,
1996; Livesey, 1999; Livesey, 2001), but also engages in
wider social and political struggles over de?ning an
acceptable organization/environment/society relationship
– one that might be deemed worthy of respect.
Our focus is on three related aspects. First, how organi-
zations are represented in relation to sustainable develop-
ment is investigated through analyzing pronouncements
about what it means to be a ‘sustainable organization’. Sec-
ond these pronouncements are considered over time.
Third, the apparent or potential effects of organizational
representations are examined. Within different discourses,
some actors, through the subject positions that they hold,
warrant a louder voice or ‘right to speak’ than do others
(Hardy & Phillips, 1999; Phillips & Hardy, 1997). As Mills
(2003, p. 65) states, ‘‘Not everyone is able to make state-
ments, or have statements taken seriously by others. Some
statements are more authorised than others, in that they
are more associated with those in positions of power or
with institutions.’’ Within sustainable development dis-
course, that is both the organizational sustainable develop-
ment discourse and the discourse of sustainable
development beyond the organizational context, we argue
that organizations have an ‘authoritative voice’, and as
such are producers of what counts as knowledge. Before
presenting representations of organizations inherent in
the reports analyzed, we consider the context of the study
- organizational engagement in the discursive debate
around sustainable development.
480 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Organizational engagement in discursive debate on
sustainable development
Sustainable development emerged as a dominant dis-
course of environmental concern in the 1980s and 1990s.
A signi?cant moment was the 1987 release of the Brundt-
land Report (more formally titled Our Common Future) by
the World Commission for Environment and Development
(WCED). Seen as a ‘‘global agenda for change’’ (WCED,
1987, p. ix), the report identi?ed sustainable development
as a solution to growing concerns over environmental deg-
radation and the effects of consumer society. It positioned
sustainable development as a topic of global importance
and provided the most widely adopted de?nition of the
concept: ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
Internationally, the United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992 was a further de?ning moment in placing sustain-
able development at the forefront of many political agen-
da. As Castro (2004, p. 197, emphasis in original) notes,
‘‘[t]he 1992 Earth Summit really turned sustainable devel-
opment into a well known term.’’ It was also signi?cant be-
cause of the dialogue process it created, and also because
of the involvement of nearly 100 world leaders (172 na-
tions were represented), non-governmental organizations
and others in the discussion. As some commentators claim,
however, it was the business voice which prevailed –
resulting in what Greer and Bruno (1996) refer to as ‘‘the
corporate hijack of UNCED’’.
Organizational engagement with sustainable develop-
ment discourse can be directly related to the 1992 Earth
Summit. The (now World) Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) was formed in 1990 to participate
in the process leading up to the Summit. The purpose of
the group’s formation was to provide the ‘business voice’,
along with advice and guidance, to the UNCED secretariat.
As Mayhew (1997, p. 70) notes, the UNCED posed a threat
to corporations as ‘‘sustainable development was in danger
of becoming de?ned and widely understood as altogether
contrary to the existing, corporate friendly, liberal-produc-
tivist development paradigm’’. The WBCSD, with a close
working relationship with the International Chamber of
Commerce, engaged in the debate at a strategic level, and
through ‘‘sheer institutional muscle’’ (Mayhew, 1997, p.
68) sought to neutralise the threat. Through the process
these business lobby groups were arguably able to estab-
lish themselves as a legitimate voice.
Leading up to the Summit, the WBCSD, under the direc-
tion of its Chief Executive Stephen Schmidheiny, released
the book Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on
Development and the Environment. It ‘‘painted a ‘rosy’ fu-
ture in which corporate environmentalism, based on open
markets, free trade and self-regulation, will give birth to
global green capitalism’’ (Bruno & Karliner, 2002, pp. 26–
27). Mayhew (1997, p. 74) argues that through the WBCSD
‘‘the corporate world was given a privileged role and voice
in the UNCED process, without being subject to it’’ as issues
such as ‘‘TNCs [trans-national corporations] and their
responsibility for various forms of unsustainable develop-
ment’’ were not addressed.
After Rio the WBCSD continued its lobbying activities
and worked on projects purportedly ‘implementing’ sus-
tainable development (Mayhew, 1997). Ten years later,
Earth Summit II gave the WBCSD the ‘‘opportunity to in?u-
ence the global agenda, not as an infant movement but as a
matured and established player’’ (WBCSD, 2006a, p. 50).
The WBCSD itself identi?ed that the second Summit ‘‘made
it clear that the business voice was being heard, loud and
clear’’ with one whole day of the summit being declared
‘‘business day’’ (WBCSD, 2006a, p. 50).
Through the WBCSD, and others such as the Interna-
tional Chamber of Commerce (see Eden, 1994), the organi-
zational voice has remained prominent in international
sustainable development debates. The WBCSD has released
publications on a range of issues, including: sustainable
development reporting and accountability (WBCSD,
2005); the role of business in society (WBCSD, 2007a);
health and safety (WBCSD, 2006b); water (WBCSD,
2009a); energy and climate change (WBCSD, 2009b) and
ecosystem services valuation (WBCSD, 2011). These publi-
cations, and the high pro?le of many WBCSD members,
have resulted in the WBCSD becoming a pre-eminent voice
on sustainable development. National branches have been
established, expanding and entrenching the WBCSD’s
sphere of in?uence.
The in?uence and position of the business voice at the
Rio Earth Summit, and consequently its effect on the con-
cept of sustainable development, is noted by Bruno and
Karliner (2002, pp. 4–5) who contend:
The idea of linking ‘environment’ and ‘development’
had its conceptual bene?ts, but, in the end, the Sum-
mit’s failure to properly de?ne the terms and the over-
whelming corporate in?uence of the words’ meaning
corrupted the original concept. Sustainable develop-
ment was originally de?ned as meeting the needs of
the present generation without compromising the abil-
ity of future generations to meet their needs. However,
in Rio, ‘needs’ were not de?ned, leaving overconsump-
tion by the richest corporations and individuals
untouched.
Despite the high pro?le given to environmental con-
cerns in the immediate wake of, and since the 1992,
2002 and 2012 Earth Summits, there is considerable pessi-
mism about what has actually been achieved (e.g. UNEP,
2012).
Another in?uence upon the broader organizational con-
text, as well as a further example of the manifestation of
organizational in?uence, is the Global Reporting Initiative
(see Etzion & Ferraro, 2010; Levy, Brown, & de Jong,
2010). While the Global Reporting Initiative has been rela-
tively successful in promulgating the practice of non-?nan-
cial reporting it has arguably been less effective in
achieving its aspirations of its founders to empower non-
governmental organizations (Levy et al., 2010), and place
suf?cient emphasis on protecting ecological systems
(Milne & Gray, 2012), perhaps in part due to the co-option
by business language and interests.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 481
Within New Zealand where the research is located, sev-
eral context-speci?c developments occurred in the last two
decades or so. The 1991 enactment of the Resource Man-
agement Act,
2
through its attempt to embody the concept
of sustainability in legislation, constituted an important part
of New Zealand’s environmental history (Dewar, 1999;
Grundy, 2000). The Resource Management Act, and its key
underpinning concept of sustainable management, contin-
ues to have in?uence in the New Zealand context, including
on organizations and on development more generally. This
is particularly so for organizations whose economic objec-
tives and operations rely on natural resources (e.g., utilities,
waste management, agriculture and ?sheries). Given the
ongoing impact of the legislation it is not surprising that
organizations are involved in lobbying and making submis-
sions on possible legislative changes.
Industry associations with a sustainability focus also
emerged within the New Zealand context. A New Zealand
branch of the WBCSD, the NZBCSD was established in
May 1999 and became a key player in sustainable develop-
ment nationally (see Milne et al., 2009). The NZBCSD also
produced a range of publications and has been vocal on
several issues, notably reporting, green buildings and pro-
curement (see, www.nzbcsd.org.nz). The Sustainable Busi-
ness Network established in 2002 is another New Zealand
based business association. Set up as a not-for-pro?t, it
provides ‘‘advice and support to help business succeed
through becoming more sustainable’’ (Sustainable Busi-
ness Network, 2011). While initially catering for small to
medium businesses, membership of the Sustainable Busi-
ness Network has come to include a range of businesses
both large and small in size and across numerous indus-
tries. Given its practical focus, supporting members with
‘‘network opportunities, practical tools, training and sus-
tainability assessments’’ (Sustainable Business Network,
2011), the Sustainable Business Network has appeared, at
least from the outside, less active in policy debates and
lobbying activities. While others have more recently en-
tered the frame (for example, Pure Advantage), the
NZBCSD, now in the form of the Sustainable Business
Council since its merger with the Sustainable Business For-
um in 2012, and the Sustainable Business Network remain
the most signi?cant.
Against this background several points can be made.
First, global concerns clearly remain regarding the (envi-
ronmental, social and economic) ‘sustainability’ of present
forms of development – indeed such concerns are growing
(for example, see Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Worldwatch
Institute, 2008; Worldwatch Institute, 2011; Worldwatch
Institute, 2013; WWF, 2012; WWF, 2010). Consequently,
for some, signi?cant corporate and institutional change is
still required (see, for example, Gray, 2006; Gray, 2010;
Milne & Gray, 2012; Walker et al., 2009; Whiteman,
2010; Whiteman, Walker, & Perego, 2012). Second, despite
its critics, the discourse of sustainable development re-
mains largely intact as a discourse of change and the
means for problem resolution. Sustainable development
is, therefore, likely to remain in?uential in policy and busi-
ness decisions in the foreseeable future and implies not
only a role for business organizations, but also foreshad-
ows change. Third, businesses and business lobby groups
internationally and locally have established a legitimate
voice within the debate surrounding what sustainable
development means both conceptually and in practice –
and therefore arguably are able to in?uence understand-
ings of the change required. It is this positioning that we
empirically investigate in this paper through a context-
speci?c analysis.
Method
This paper employs discourse analysis inspired by
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) to investigate the constructive
effects of discourse through the systematic and structured
study of texts. Not only does discourse analysis and a
consideration of hegemony enable the analysis of the
constructive elements of discourse, it also ‘‘subverts and
challenges taken-for-granted assumptions and under-
mines the tendency to reify and solidify knowledge’’
(Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 84). A discourse approach is rel-
evant to the aims and critical intent of this paper as it links
with notions of power and hegemony and enables the
investigation of the production of ‘truths’ and legitimacy.
We note some potential critiques of the approach
embraced by organizational discourse theorists
(Grant, Iedema, & Oswick, 2009), and recognize the subjec-
tive nature of discourse analysis can create unease for
some (see Grant, Keenoy, & Oswick, 2001 for discussion
regarding various critiques).
3
However, while
recognizing these critiques, we agree with Phillips and
2
The enactment of the Resource Management Act integrated environ-
mental management by replacing 50 different statues so all environmental
effects of a proposed activity could be considered at once. The Act identi?es
its purpose as ‘‘to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources’’ (Resource Management Act., 1991, A2–3).
3
Critiques of discourse analysis range in focus from concerns with
practical issues (e.g. time and energy required to master the theory and
method, non-institutionalized nature of the approach, and labour intensive
and time consuming nature of the method) to concerns with methodolog-
ical rigour and subjectivity (Grant et al., 2001; Grant et al., 2009; Hardy,
2001; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). While the former challenges need to be
considered in relation to research design, they are not detrimental to
research aims. The critique that discourse analysis ‘‘lacks methodological
rigor in that it is overly subjective, is fraught with sampling problems, and
only draws on qualitative methodologies’’ (Grant et al., 2001, p. 10) needs
to be considered, albeit a possible critique of any qualitative analysis that
favours and highlights an interpretivist approach. As identi?ed by Leitch
and Palmer (2010) with reference to Critical Discourse Analysis and
organization studies, concept de?nitions, data selection and data analysis
are often seen to be the major weaknesses. We have systematically
addressed these three areas in this paper by ?rst, situating our under-
standing of discourse in relation to Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse
theory and further explicating the key concept of hegemony, and secondly
by clearly outlining the research parameters of the study and clearly
explaining data selection and its rationale and data analyses. A further
relevant critique often labelled at Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and
their concept of hegemony is in relation to the contingent nature of
discourse and the critique that they overestimate the possibility for change
(see Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, p.54–57). While we would argue that
permanence and constraint to change are present in Laclau and Mouffe’s
theory, we have highlighted the possibility for change through further
engagement with and resistance to the organizational constructions.
However, we have not presented it as an easy endeavour.
482 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Hardy (2002, p. 11) that the bene?ts that discourse analysis
can bring to a project (e.g. the ability to question the taken-
for-granted) outweigh the disadvantages. We seek to ad-
dress potential concerns by providing a clear description of
our approach to data collection and analysis, and also recog-
nize re?exivity and statements around our own position as
important.
As earlier indicated, when considering the formation of
group identity from a Laclau and Mouffe perspective it is
?rst important to identify the nodal point around which
the group position is being organized – that is, the identity
which forms the basis for the analysis. Here, the nodal
point under consideration is that of the sustainable organi-
zation. This has been an under-investigated topic as noted
above. Second, how the selected nodal point is ?lled with
meaning is investigated. And third, how this ?lling with
meaning changes over time is examined. This section out-
lines the method by which this process of analyzing the
?lling-of-meaning was undertaken.
Identifying and selecting the texts
Texts selected for analysis were stand-alone reports,
4
or
if a stand-alone report was not produced the annual reports,
published by members of the NZBCSD
5
over a 19 year period,
1992–2010. The NZBCSD, established in 1999, was a coali-
tion of leading New Zealand businesses with a mission to
‘‘provide business leadership as a catalyst for change
towards sustainable development, and to promote eco-
ef?ciency, innovation, and responsible entrepreneurship’’
(NZBCSD, 2004, p. 6). NZBCSDmembers were among the ?rst
in the country to engage in sustainable development discus-
sions locally and are seen to be, and promote themselves as
knowledgeable in sustainable development and business. A
key way in which they communicated such knowledge and
engage in this discourse is through their reporting. A condi-
tion of NZBCSD membership was that organizations publish
a sustainable development report within three years of join-
ing. This requirement, along with several projects related to
fostering sustainable development reporting practices, led to
the NZBCSD and its member organizations being central to
both the promotion and practice of social and environmental
reporting and sustainable development more generally in
New Zealand (Milne et al., 2009).
The total number of NZBCSD member reports included
in the analysis is 365.
6
These reports, the year they were
produced, and the reporting organization can be seen in
Fig. 1. Of those who regularly report, many are larger orga-
nizations including utilities, infrastructure, retail/manufac-
turing and science or knowledge-based research
organizations. Many of the non-reporting organizations are
service consultancies, often small in size, or New Zealand
of?ces of large multinationals where no local report exists.
Furthermore, from Fig. 1, the potential effect that the forma-
tion of the NZBCSD in 1999 had on the rise in reporting orga-
nizations can be seen with an immediate increase and
steady rise in stand-alone report production. A further trend
in the report is the move towards combined and integrated
reporting,
7
that is reporting social and environmental infor-
mation with ?nancial reporting in a single report. The re-
ports vary substantially in length, layout and style.
The period of almost two decades covers both the emer-
gence and development of organizational reporting on the
environment and/or society in New Zealand. It was also a
time where there was development in the business context
surrounding sustainable development. The period of anal-
ysis begins directly after the Resource Management Act
legislation was introduced in New Zealand and includes
several key developments in the national and international
sustainable development reporting context, including the
introduction and continuing development of the Global
Reporting Initiative, the formation of the NZBCSD and Sus-
tainable Business Network, and the establishment of a na-
tional reporting award scheme. The country also
experienced an economic recession in 2008–2009,
although less severely than many other nations (Treasury,
2010).
8
Prominent reasons for the selection of organizational
reports as an archive for analysis are that they represent
‘‘important texts’’, they are widely distributed, associated
with changes in practice, or are produced in reaction to a
particular event(s) (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 73). Corpo-
rate reports can further be regarded as ‘‘ideological weap-
ons’’ – ‘‘not passive describers of an ‘objective reality’ but
play a part in forming the world-view or social ideology
that fashions and legitimizes’’ (Tinker & Neimark, 1987,
p. 72). While there are limitations to using one form of
media (Holland & Foo, 2003; Unerman, 2000), our focus
is on the construction of organizational identity in relation
to sustainable development and as such the interest is not
in how much is reported or where it is reported, but rather
in what is reported, and in particular how it is reported and
how this changes over time.
4
The term ‘stand-alone’ report is used in this paper to refer to a range of
reports which have numerous labels e.g. Sustainable Development Reports,
Sustainability Reports, and Triple Bottom Line Reports. The de?ning
characteristics of these reports are that they provide a focus on the
environment and/or society.
5
Members as at 25 November 2003, the beginning date of this research,
were selected for inclusion.
6
After an exhaustive search including websites, databases, library
collections and email/telephone contact with organization representatives,
it was ascertained that 365 reports were produced by the sample
organizations over the selected time period. Once all 365 reports were
analyzed, it was ascertained that 303 reports included extracts relating to
the construction of identity in relation to sustainable development. These
303 reports are noted in Fig. 1 by way of a tick (
p
). Those reports analyzed
and determined not to include relevant extracts are denoted with an
asterisk (*) in Fig. 1.
7
The move to report via combined or integrated annual reports is a move
that can be seen by both previously non-reporting organizations and
organizations that formerly produced a stand-alone report. This move to
producing integrated annual reports further problematizes the ‘labelling’ of
reports. This has perhaps become more problematic with latest develop-
ments promoting new forms of reporting labelled ‘integrated reporting’
(IIRC, 2011). It is for this reason, and our focus on the construction of a
sustainable organizational identity across the archive, that no distinction is
made in the analysis between stand-alone and annual report constructions.
8
Within the sample the number of reports reduced during and
subsequent to the economic recession. While 24 reports were produced
in 2007 and 2008, the number of reports declined to 21and 17 in 2009 and
2010 respectively. While this decline may be due to the economic recession
this conclusion falls outside the scope of this paper and its analysis.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 483
Analyzing the reports
The analytical process was driven by the aim of ‘know-
ing the data’ and was conducted via a number of readings.
9
First, initial readings of the reports and a reduction of the
volume of text from the entire report to a focused set of ex-
tracts was undertaken. The focus here was the consideration
of how the group position of a sustainable organization was
being ?lled. Therefore, a ‘report analysis worksheet’ contain-
ing sections in which to record extracts related to our partic-
ular area of interest, that is articulations of what it meant for
an organization to be sustainable, was developed and a
worksheet was generated for each report. Serious speech
acts in relation to ‘sustainable organizations’, statements
which represent knowledge and truth claims presenting an
utterance as ‘taken-for-granted’ (Dreyfus & Rabinow,
1983), were recorded. Extracts took two main forms, either
extracts constructing ‘sustainable organizations’ in general
(i.e. sustainable organizations are. . .) or extracts showing
organizations talking about themselves in relation to sus-
tainable development or the environment/society (predom-
inantly referring to the organization by name or using the
term ‘we’, for example, ‘‘we are. . .’’).
In keeping with a discourse perspective that acknowl-
edges that what is not said or is marginalized is as impor-
tant or relevant as that which is said, silences and evidence
of marginalization were also noted. These observations
were further derived from considering what themes/issues
were present in the context and wider discourse of sustain-
able development but not present in the organizational re-
ports, and also examining how the meaning of sustainable
organizations differed, or not, from other organizational
identities (for example, the pro?t orientated organization).
While this analytical stage involved multiple readings and
examinations of the entire text, it did not ‘code’ the entire
text. It was a process where, based on our research focus,
relevant extracts were retrieved while extracts not related
to the construction of sustainable organizational identity
were not coded. Report analysis worksheets were printed
and collated chronologically for the second stage of the
analysis.
Second, a manual coding of extracts into topic areas was
completed. Once all the extracts were coded, key themes
were identi?ed which focused on the construction of
Fig. 1. Reports Included in Analysis.
9
The data set originally comprised of reports dated 1992–2003 with
reports from 2004 to 2010 subsequently added. While this resulted in the
earlier reports being analyzed ?rst and independently, the process for
analysing the later reports was the same. With the decision to include
reports from 2004 to 2010, the report worksheets prepared for the earlier
reports were reanalyzed.
484 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
meaning around the nodal point. Extracts were recoded,
theme categories were broadened to include what were
initially two related or contrasting codes and some extracts
remained un-themed as they were considered trivial in
relation to addressing the research questions (e.g. they
were one-off occurrences). Six themes were subsequently
identi?ed. These themes were: (1) sustainable organiza-
tions as providers; (2) sustainable organizations as com-
mitted and responsible; (3) ‘sustainable organizations’ as
accountable and transparent; (4) organizations as in?uenc-
ers of sustainable development; (5) ‘sustainable organiza-
tions’ as protectors; and (6) ‘sustainable organizations’ as
partners.
Once themes exploring how ‘sustainable organizations’
were represented were determined, extracts from each of
the reports were then organized chronologically to deter-
mine when the theme emerged, whether it became more
or less dominant/prominent, and how it changed over
time. Importantly, context, and the relationship between
text and context, was considered throughout the process
of analyzing the texts. Again, it was an iterative process,
moving between the texts and analysis of the context
within which they occurred (primarily the international
developments around sustainable development as re-
viewed earlier and the New Zealand reporting and busi-
ness contexts). Overall, this analysis process resulted in
an identi?cation of the changing nature of the representa-
tion of ‘sustainable organizations’ over time. Speci?cally,
three emerging identities were identi?ed. These identities
are presented and discussed below.
Re?exivity
We acknowledge the need to be re?exive and acknowl-
edge our position and how it may impact on our reading of
the data. We have outlined our approach and method
above as part of this process. However, we also identify
that we should brie?y acknowledge our position in relation
to the subject matter as this too has an effect as it forms
the lens through which we read, interpret and analyze
the texts. We do not believe that bringing such values to
our analysis necessarily leads to a biased interpretation
or distortion, but rather, that it needs to be recognized so
the reader can understand from what position we come
in making the claims we make. These positions have been
formed through our respective upbringings, experience
and reading in multiple areas (notably, accounting, organi-
zation studies, and environmentalism).
First, and in common with others engaged in the social
and environmental accounting project, we believe that the
current model of organizing and organizations is unsus-
tainable and change is required. Such change, we would
suggest, involves a fundamental rethink and goes beyond
a business as usual approach and the level of incremental
change that is currently occurring. We recognize that the
level of change proposed is outside of what is considered
common-sense in current organizations (that is, it requires
a system where such things as pro?t and growth do not
come ?rst). As such, we believe it is important to expose
organizations’ discursive practices and to critique these
in an aim to move towards less unsustainable
organizations.
Our attempt to expose organizational identities and
their role in preserving ‘faith’ and ‘business as usual’ fol-
lows with an examination of each of the three relatively
distinct representations of sustainable organizations over
time and their apparent effects.
(Re)Presenting ‘sustainable organizations’: Three
evolving identities and their effects
10
In line with the above mentioned identi?cation by
Jørgensen and Phillips’ (2002, p. 24) of the role of the dis-
course analyst with regards to the analysis of hegemony
and the construction of meaning, we ‘‘plot the course’’ of
the struggle to ?x meaning to the nodal point ‘sustainable
organization’ by a group of reporting organizations. We fo-
cus on a discussion of three evolving identities that emerge
from our longitudinal analysis of the texts and their con-
text. These three distinct identities capture the ways in
which the nodal point has been partially ?lled with con-
tent over time, and allow for a consideration of the poten-
tial effects of these constructions. In recognizing that
hegemony is not based simply on domination and coercion
but rather on demonstration of moral and intellectual lead-
ership, we focus on how these representations construct
the identity of ‘sustainable organizations’ and how they
make certain elements come to be viewed as natural or
taken-for-granted, and in the process how they marginal-
ize and subjugate.
As outlined, from a holistic consideration of the themes
identi?ed from the texts and a consideration of their emer-
gence and presence throughout the time period analyzed,
three distinct identities over time in relation to sustainable
development emerge. These identities and the key ele-
ments from the context within which they appear are out-
lined in Table 1.
1992–1999: Environmentally responsible and compliant
organizations
The ?rst distinct identity which emerges from our anal-
ysis appears between 1992 and 1999. Within this distinct
identity, when constituting the nodal point ‘sustainable
organizations’, organizations are identi?ed as portraying
a sense of social and environmental responsibility and also
constituted as compliant with the law. The main themes
drawn upon in this construction are sustainable organiza-
tions as providers and sustainable organizations as com-
mitted and responsible.
Providing or contributing to community and/or envi-
ronmental initiatives is a key feature in many of the early
texts and consequently a key feature in this ?rst distinct
identity. Organizations in these early reports are consti-
tuted as providers of a range of things including: sponsor-
ship to the sports and arts (e.g., Port of Tauranga,
10
Due to space constraints, and to allow room for interpretation and
discussion, only a small sample of extracts from the texts is offered. In total
1,690 extracts were analyzed with between 53 and 534 extracts per theme.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 485
TrustPower); support for environmental and charitable
organizations (e.g., Watercare Services, Telecom); rescue
and emergency services (e.g., TranzRail, Telecom); recrea-
tional facilities (e.g., Meridian Energy, Ports of Auckland,
Waste Management NZ); and perhaps most notably, edu-
cation (either as providers of funding for education or pro-
viding the education itself). As noted in one report,
A good corporate citizen will always be involved in the
community at levels other than the ones that immedi-
ately bene?t themselves (TrustPower, 1998, p. x).
Althoughanaltruistic perspective was evident, anad hoc
approach to sponsorship and support arrangements ap-
pears to be takenin these early texts. Nonetheless, the infer-
ence is that the responsible organization is not one that just
takes and provides goods and/or services (economic
responsibility), but also one that gives back to the wider
community (social and environmental responsibility).
Statements in relation to commitment and responsibil-
ity across these early years of reporting refer to an organi-
zational commitment to compliance and, to some extent,
consultation with stakeholders. While commitment to
consultation may, at ?rst, appear limited, it is important
to note that this is at the time when the Resource Manage-
ment Act was introduced into New Zealand and brought
with it signi?cant changes for organizations who were
seeking resource consents and operating under this new
legislation. The Resource Management Act was at the time
considered to be at the forefront of worldwide environ-
mental legislation and therefore compliance with it con-
sidered to be leading edge environmental responsibility.
The stated organizational commitment to stakeholder con-
sultation at this time too can be related to the Resource
Management Act with wider community participation in
resource decisions being one of its cornerstone principles.
Furthermore, and as discussed further below, references
to commitment in these early statements often go beyond
a general statement to identify precisely how this commit-
ment is actually ‘demonstrated’ – for example, compliance
and consultation are often identi?ed with the existence of
an environmental policy or environmental management
system, and particular stakeholder groups.
Overall, in these early texts, there is a low level of con-
sideration of the organization’s identity in relation to sus-
tainable development explicitly (rather instead focusing
on environmental and social responsibility). This low level
of consideration of the organization’s identity speci?cally
in relation to sustainable development is consistent with
the context at the time and the largely absent threat of
sustainable development as a concept requiring organiza-
tional attention. Despite the Brundtland Report being re-
leased in 1987 and organizations internationally
discussing and organizing around the concept of sustain-
able development (e.g., the establishment of the WBCSD),
the concept of sustainable development was only just
emerging in the New Zealand business context and was
yet to constitute a substantive hegemonic threat. Focus
instead was on the national context and by complying
with the Resource Management Act and its principles of
consultation and sustainable management, organizations
were presented as (arguably world) leaders in environ-
mental responsibility.
Table 1
Three distinct identities 1992–2010.
1992–1999 2000–2004 2005–2010
Environmentally responsible and
compliant organizations
Organizations as leaders in Sustainable Development Strategically ‘good’ organizations
Description
Organizations portray a sense of social
and environmental responsibility
and comply with the law
Organizations portray a sense of leadership through
characteristics of trust, honesty and knowledge, as
well as through the act of reporting itself
Organizations are both good at business and good
businesses – they are strategic and socially/
environmentally and economically responsible
Themes
Providers Providers
– Ad hoc philanthropy and important
products and services directly and
indirectly related to core business
– Strategic philanthropy
Responsible and committed Responsible and committed Responsible and committed
– Compliance mentality – Association memberships – Long term commitments (e.g. green buildings)
Transparent and accountable
– Business/accounting language used
In?uencers In?uencers
– Leaders of sustainable development – Knowledgeable (inform policy)
– Knowledgeable
Protectors
– Resource dependent Partners (internal and external stakeholders –
mainly staff, customers and suppliers)
International context
Earth Summit Global Reporting Initiative and Earth Summit II Global Financial Crisis
Domestic context
Resource Management Act 1991 NZBCSD and Sustainable Business Network (local
networks)
NZBCSD and Sustainable Business Network (local
networks)
486 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
If the production of separate non-?nancial reports
themselves are viewed as a product of the hegemonic
threat of sustainable development, the low levels of so-
cial/environmental and/or sustainability reporting during
this early period also suggests such a threat was not being
considered seriously. In all but one instance, there was a
complete absence of stand-alone reporting during this per-
iod. The reporting organizations in this period are also
notably mainly large in size and many are utilities, heavy
polluters or resource dependent organizations. These orga-
nizations represent those that were most impacted upon
by the national legislation, the Resource Management
Act. At this time, we suggest, being environmentally
responsible and legally compliant with cutting edge envi-
ronmental legislation (Jackson & Dixon, 2007) was more
than adequate to maintain legitimacy and hence became
the focus of the constructed identity.
This initial engagement with the concept of sustainable
development (or more accurately ‘sustainable manage-
ment’ as it was enshrined in the Resource Management
Act) and the apparent relationship between organizations
and the environment and society, however, does set the
preliminary stage for the identity constructions that fol-
low. Along with the connotations that follow notions of
commitment, we see, in this period, the establishment of
organizations as natural actors to take responsibility for
and care for the environment and society. We observe,
consistent with the arguments and analysis of Levy
(1997) and Prasad and Elmes (2005) and the ?ndings of
Tregidga and Milne (2006) and Milne et al. (2009) how, rel-
atively seamlessly, the environment and society are inte-
grated as a part of ‘normal’ organizational operations.
These two elements of the sustainable organization iden-
tity (i.e., organizations as natural actors in sustainable
development and the integration of the environmental
and social responsibility into operations) are established
as taken-for-granted, and endure throughout the subse-
quent emerging identities. These enduring characteristics
establish a legitimate role for organizations within sustain-
able development, and, as discussed below, arguably work
to ward off potential hegemonic threat.
2000–2004 Organizations as leaders in sustainable
development
In 2000 there is a sharp increase in the number of
reporting companies, most likely aligned to the establish-
ment and prominence of the NZBCSD, the Sustainable Busi-
ness Network, the Global Reporting Initiative and
enhanced knowledge and practice of ‘sustainability report-
ing’ internationally. The year 2000 coincided with the re-
lease of the second version of the Global Reporting
Initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines (Global
Reporting Initiative, 2000). In 2002, the KPMG triennial
survey of international stand-alone reporting made clear
references to sustainability reporting, the NZBCSD issued
a guideline on corporate sustainable development report-
ing, and the UNEP/SustainAbility Global reporters bench-
mark survey, entitled Trust Us, was released (KPMG,
2002; NZBCSD, 2002; UNEP/SustainAbility, 2002). The
diversity of stand-alone reporters also increased in this
period.
Aligned with these changes, from 2000 until 2004 a dif-
ferent identity is constructed from that seen in 1992–1999.
While some of the themes that make up the content of the
nodal point are the same, the overall construction of the
sustainable organization identity is one of leadership. The
identity of organizations as leaders in sustainable develop-
ment recognized in this period is built on implied charac-
teristics of trust, honesty/transparency and responsibility,
themes which echoed the contemporary and wider devel-
opments in both the national and international reporting
context. This identity is established most notably through
reference to three themes: representation of organizations
as responsible and committed; as transparent and
accountable; and, particularly, as knowledgeable.
The theme of commitment is evident in a different way
during this second period. Unlike the ?rst identity con-
struction, references to compliance, and particularly envi-
ronmental legal compliance, do not feature within
references to commitment. References to compliance with
the Resource Management Act, now ten years old, were
likely no longer suf?cient to demonstrate ‘sustainability’,
and particularly not by ‘knowledgeable leaders’ keen to
maintain legitimacy and demonstrate superiority.
Around the year 2000, not only was there an increas-
ingly vibrant international discourse around sustainable
development that directly involved business, it had begun
to spill into New Zealand with the formation of the
NZBCSD, and member organizations needed to demon-
strate that they were up with the play and that they had
moved ‘beyond (legal) compliance’. Moreover, and initially
at least, the nature of these discussions of sustainable
development echoed wider international debates at the
Earth Summits which had the potential to severely threa-
ten business-as-usual. With references emerging that de-
?ned sustainable development as within ‘‘social and
ecological limits’’, about ‘‘future generations’’ and needing
to consider issues of equity (Milne et al., 2009), New Zea-
land organizations proclaiming their sustainability creden-
tials needed to change and rearticulate a new commitment
and identity.
An initial, and relatively easy step, was to ‘demonstrate’
commitment through references to membership of associ-
ations, most commonly the NZBCSD (from 2000) and the
Sustainable Business Network (from 2004), rather than
explicitly through links to the presence of an organiza-
tional level policy or an environmental management sys-
tem as seen in the earlier identity. Alignment with such
perceived ‘legitimate’ associations with in?uence poten-
tially increases the legitimacy of member organizations
(and vice versa) (see Lindblom, 1993) and contributes to
the overall leadership identity recognized here.
Through membership of such associations, organiza-
tions communicate their ‘legitimacy’ and ‘in?uence’, and
also ‘leadership’.
The move away from representing commitment as legal
compliance and speci?c organizational practices (e.g. poli-
cies, environmental management systems) to one of mem-
bership to external associations arguably introduces
vagueness and ambiguity to an organization’s position
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 487
and identity. Organizations are no longer committed to
environmental responsibility or sustainable development
by what they claim to do, but rather by who or what they
claim to belong to. ‘Beyond compliance’ has the capacity to
communicate something novel and ‘extra’, yet at the same
time it also introduces uncertainly since it is no longer
speci?ed what that ‘something’ is. In this study, member-
ship, without the expression of practices or actions at-
tached, signals commitment in a more vacuous way than
previously. By universalizing commitment to sustainable
development without articulating particular content, orga-
nizations work to achieve consent and maintain hegemony
in ways that carry no particular requirements for action. As
recognized by Ihren and Roper (2011, p.6) in the context of
sustainability reporting, and observed in Milne et al.
(2006) with regard to organizational constructions of sus-
tainability as a journey, strategic ambiguity (see Eisenberg,
1984) ‘‘can unite participants with incommensurable ide-
ologies in an on-going debate’’.
A further key element within this second identity is that
of sustainable organizations as ‘accountable and transpar-
ent’. This theme is also most prominent during 2000–2004,
re?ecting the reporting context, and particularly the emer-
gence of the Global Reporting Initiative and the NZBCSD
reporting guidelines. Instances of language sharing and
‘intertexuality’ (Fairclough, 1992) between the organiza-
tional reports and the guidelines constituting the reporting
context are commonplace. However, the emergence of this
theme may also be due in part to wider changes in society
and more direct expectations from stakeholders of organi-
zations, as noted by Shell NZ (2001/2001, p. xiii):
Reports like The Shell Report and this Review are
important because they demonstrate part of the jour-
ney from a ‘trust me’ world – one in which stakeholders
are asked to trust that we were operating in a sustain-
able and careful manner – to a ‘show me’ world – where
stakeholders rightly demand that we account for our
activities in an open and engaging manner.
11
This theme hints at the existence of, or at least the orga-
nizational awareness of, the need for a changed relation-
ship between organizations and society. By stating the
act of reporting as a means of producing (social and envi-
ronmental) accountability/transparency organizations rep-
resent themselves as being involved in a changed
relationship. Such a declaration may not provide a compel-
ling substantiation of how such transparency and account-
ability might be achieved (say through ‘genuine’ acts of
stakeholder engagement), but it may not need to. As
Livesey and Kearins (2002) note, in their analysis of ‘sus-
tainability reports’, through the metaphor of transparency,
organizations may seek to establish a relationship of trust.
Establishing the concepts of accountability and transpar-
ency, whatever they may actually mean, as part of what
it means to be a ‘sustainable organization’, even rhetori-
cally, may serve to partially ?ll the nodal point with posi-
tive identity character traits such as openness, honesty,
transparency, accountability and trust/trustworthiness.
Such characteristics are often associated with respected
authorities, leaders and good reputations.
In addition, explicitly constituting organizations during
this second period as ‘leaders in sustainable development’
is a key development.
The Warehouse has often taken a leadership role in sus-
tainability in New Zealand. . .The Warehouse is
acknowledging that it is taking a leadership role to chal-
lenge other New Zealand businesses and an in?uencing
role for other stakeholders (The Warehouse, 2001, p. 1).
As above, when representing organizations as leaders in
sustainable development, the texts draw on context. Lead-
ership, like commitment, is often proclaimed on the basis
of membership to ‘sustainable’ business associations. Some
(e.g., Watercare Services, Landcare Research) also present
membership of these associations as a sign and con?rma-
tion of their existing superior knowledge and leadership
role. Thus, a mutually reinforcing relationship is
maintained.
The organizational identity of leader in sustainable
development is present not only in the reports of those
that have been reporting for a number of years, but also
among the new reporters. The lack of maturity in pro-
claimed sustainable development practices or its reporting,
then, provides no barrier to organizations professing their
leadership. Instead, organizations are able to present
themselves as leaders through the language used, narra-
tives constructed and particularly references to their
attachment to ‘progressive’ associations and initiatives
(e.g. NZBCSD, Sustainable Business Network and Global
Reporting Initiative).
By now, business associations (e.g., WBCSD) and others
(e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, KPMG, UNEP/SustainAbil-
ity, Elkington) had seriously, and somewhat successfully,
attempted to ?ll the signi?er sustainable development
within the business context with elements of concern for
the measurement, management, and reporting of the so-
cial, environmental and economic impacts of organiza-
tions, that is, the triple bottom line (see Elkington, 1997;
Livesey, 2001; Milne & Gray, 2012; Milne et al., 2009;
Tregidga & Milne, 2006). What was required to convey
the identity of the ‘sustainable organization’, then, was
organizational knowledge of those elements of concern,
and a willingness to at least signal an organizational
responsibility for them, to be accountable for them and,
through reporting, to be transparent about them. This is
what an organizational leader in sustainable development
does, or at least proclaims to do. And it is arguably through
this process of articulation and proclamation that the role
of ‘sustainability reporting’ becomes critically important in
the representation of the sustainable organization. Not
11
This extract does not just imply that Shell is open and transparent, but
also suggests that Shell is operating in a ‘‘sustainable and careful manner’’.
Moreover, through noting the change from a ‘trust me’ to a ‘show me’
world, Shell implies not only that it is now operating in such a sustainable
manner – but also that it was previously. While Shell may have changed its
communication outlook, this extract does not necessarily suggest there has
been a change in behavior or performance. Indeed, it may be read as
suggesting there is no need for such a change. Ihren and Roper (2011) draw
similar conclusions in their analysis of international sustainability report-
ing. They note that when reporting on sustainability that the corporations
analyzed present a position where the ‘‘corporations have not only arrived,
they have been here a long time’’.
488 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
only do the reports provide the means by which to render
an ‘account’ of the measurement and management of an
organization’s social and environmental impacts, they are
the primary means by which to articulate and substantiate
the identity, and existence of the sustainable organization.
Previously, under a novel and dominant regime of sustain-
able management under the Resource Management Act,
reporting and external communication played a much less
signi?cant role in the identity construction.
Ongoing articulations as to what constitutes ‘sustain-
able organizations’ are likely to have been required in or-
der to maintain hegemony within the changing context
where sustainable development was becoming more com-
monplace and social and environmental concerns within
the business context more prominent. To what extent
organizational reports and their identity constructions
within can help gain or maintain a dominant or hegemonic
position is dif?cult to judge. Knowledge about organiza-
tional sustainable development is neither neutral nor
objective but rather ?lled from a position of interest and
constituted in a ?eld of power relations. How it is that
we know something and the process whereby something
becomes established as ‘fact’ are always inside power rela-
tions (Foucault, 1977/1980) and the result of articulations
and political struggles (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). What we
are con?dent our analysis does show is that by articulating
themselves as knowledgeable leaders of sustainable devel-
opment, along with the attributes of openness, honesty,
transparency, being accountable and trusting/trustworthy,
organizations maintained ‘a right to speak’ and so estab-
lished the means by which to potentially in?uence the
evolving (and potentially threatening) discourses of sus-
tainable development. Establishing the means to be taken
seriously because of who the organization is or who it
claims to be, as well as what it knows or claims to know,
is an important step in the hegemonic potential of organi-
zations. To what extent the organizations analyzed have
been taken seriously, and to what extent they have in?u-
enced the broader organizational and societal discourses
on sustainable development during this period is less cer-
tain. From our point of view, however, what remains criti-
cal is less their actual in?uence, but that they have now
sought to use sustainability reporting as a means to artic-
ulate a changed organizational identity, and so have the
potential to in?uence more broadly what is appropriate
in this domain.
2005–2010 Strategically ‘good’ organizations
In the last and most recent time period analyzed, a third
and distinct organizational identity of strategically ‘good’
organizations emerges. Good organizations are portrayed
as good in two senses of the word – good in the business
sense and good in relation to responsibility towards the
environment and society. The ‘good’ construction is similar
to the ‘win–win’ discourse common in the business dis-
course (Milne et al., 2009) as it is represented as having
bene?ts for both the organization and the environment
and/or society. While ‘being good’ is implied in all themes
noted during this period (e.g., responsible and committed,
in?uencers), it is perhaps through the themes of provider
and partner that this identity becomes most clear.
In this latter part of the reporting archive the theme of
provider changes from the provider of many things and of
ad hoc sponsorship, as observed in the ?rst period, to the
provision of focused support (usually ?nancial) for a small
number of causes either relevant to the organization or
seen as important to the community/environment. In
many cases this more strategic approach to changes in
practice is subtle or not stated, but others, such as Telecom
(2009, p. 41) make their approach explicit:
In 2010 we will be making announcements about the
new direction for our community support, focused on
a small number of community organisations under the
general theme of ‘better futures for your New
Zealanders’.
This more strategic approach is constructed not only as
being a good and responsible business but also as good
business practice. It emerges in our sample of texts during
2008–2009, which coincides with the global ?nancial crisis
during which New Zealand experienced a recession. The
impact of a constrained economic climate seems likely to
have necessitated a movement away from the need for
bold proclamations of being a ‘sustainable organization’
in the sense of being a knowledgeable and committed lea-
der of sustainable development, to one of demonstrating a
focus on ‘‘?nancial sustainability’’ or ‘‘?nancial responsibil-
ity’’. In 2009, the economic and political landscape in New
Zealand (indeed globally) was radically different from that
seen 10 years earlier. Simply abandoning all prior commit-
ments to sustainable development, however, had the po-
tential to damage organizational reputation, and so what
appears to emerge in this ?nal period of our analysis is
an identity which conveys a clearer reiteration of economic
priorities and a retrenchment of social and environmental
responsibilities. Our ?ndings therefore ?nd a similar trend
to Spence (2007). He notes Bebbington and Thomson
(1996) showed that business conceptions of sustainable
development in the 1990s contained a greater acceptance
of con?icts between business and society than did his
study. This trend is re?ected here with more challenging
notions entering the identity construction earlier, but
these are almost negligible in this latter identity – in par-
ticular where business and environmental performance
are somewhat equated.
In addition to articulating ‘focused’ support and provi-
sion, a key theme in articulating the ‘good’ organization
is by means of partnerships. Sustainable organizations
are constituted as partners of a range of internal and exter-
nal stakeholders. Staff, customers and suppliers are all rep-
resented as key partners and networks and relationships
are communicated as important for successful, and ‘sus-
tainable organizations’. By now, however, it is becoming
clearer that ‘sustainable organizations’ are those that
maintain ?nancial/economic viability. Partnerships are of-
ten portrayed as mutually bene?cial and the reporting
organization is often positioned central to, and fostering,
the partnership (e.g. working with suppliers or customers
to assist them in becoming ‘more sustainable’). This theme
and its presentation signi?es the greatest effect on the
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 489
organizational reports in relation to their structure and
content. Case studies and stakeholder attestations are a
common device. Some reports, such as Port of Tauranga’s
2009 report, appear nearly as much about the stories and
views of employees and customers as they are about the
organization’s own performance and impacts. While orga-
nizational centrality is not challenged here, the organiza-
tional boundaries are once again broadened. The
sustainable organization becomes positioned as a ‘good’
organization seeking others to work with and, given the
positive nature of the stories presented, successful at doing
so.
This third identity in relation to organizations and sus-
tainable development represents a further maturing of the
constitution of sustainable development, but also arguably
a weakening, and a further convolution of sustainable
development with Corporate Social Responsibility and Cor-
porate Citizenship. Such an identity more clearly aligns
with the economically rational organizational identity evi-
dent in the positive accounting and organizational studies
literature yet seeming to adopt environmental and social
sensibilities, to the extent that they are strategically
aligned with the economic viability and ?nancial success
of the organization. It asserts far less problematically than
before that an organization can be both run ef?ciently and
productively as well as being ‘responsible’. Indeed, this is
what being a sustainable organization appears to have
come to ‘mean’, and perhaps represents a more authentic
construction of the identity of a ‘sustainable organization’.
In his analysis of the hegemonic discourse of social and
environmental reporting, Spence (2007, p. 865) notes that
business discourse ‘‘does not ignore or refute the demands
and the criticisms made of it by marginal social move-
ments. Rather, these demands are brought into business
discourse insofar as they can be made to cohere with busi-
ness’s fundamental aims of pro?t and growth’’. This iden-
tity reveals how business discourse, through this
manifestation of the sustainable organization nodal point,
has aligned aspects of the discourse of sustainable devel-
opment with discourses of pro?t and success.
‘Becoming’ sustainable
The above discussion has analyzed how the nodal point
‘sustainable organizations’ has been ?lled with content
over time and its effects through the consideration of three
distinct and evolving identities that emerged from an anal-
ysis of the texts. It shows the ‘rise and fall’ of an explicitly
constructed organizational identity based on proclaimed
knowledge of and leadership in sustainable development.
It also shows the rise and importance of sustainability
and stand-alone reporting as the means by which to artic-
ulate such an identity. And it also shows that the three
identities that emerge and evolve are inextricably bound
up in the economic, political, organizational and reporting
contexts in which they emerge. Arguably, these changing
and evolving identities form part of the means by which
organizations seek to maintain legitimacy and power and
in?uence (hegemony) in broader debates over economic
and social and environmental priorities. Yet, when consid-
ering the hegemonic potential of such organizational
discourse and related identity it is also important to con-
sider the concept of closure. As Spence (2007) notes, and
as discussed above, while meaning can never fully be ?xed
certain discourses can come to dominate others and be-
come the main guide for action. The ability to engage in
such dialogues, and more importantly to gain legitimacy
within such discussions and the ability to be ‘heard’, we
suggest, can be linked to the organizational identities con-
structed in relation to sustainable development analyzed
in this paper.
Unlike organizational references to ‘the meaning’ of the
concept of sustainable development which are relatively
commonplace in the reports, statements which provide a
clear de?nition of the nodal point ‘sustainable organiza-
tions’ are largely absent. Indeed, only one concise state-
ment within the texts was identi?ed, and that itself is
not a particularly clear or direct statement since it is
couched as aspirational.
We endorse the triple bottom line perspective that for
an organisation to be sustainable it must be ?nancially
secure, must minimise its negative environmental
impacts and must act in conformity with societal expec-
tations (Metrowater, 2001, p. 1).
The absence of statements stating what constitutes a
‘sustainable organization’ could be interpreted as repre-
senting uncertainty around the concept. Alternatively, it
could indicate that the organizations analyzed here have
not reached a position where they have conceptualized
what it means to be sustainable, they do not directly align
their current identity with that of a sustainable organiza-
tion, or that strategically, they avoid such precise expres-
sion. Regardless, the openness of the construction is
likely to assist in achieving social consent as, while con-
taining some particular themes, the construction of the
sustainable development concept within this organiza-
tional context analyzed remains vague and universal.
Rather than identifying what ‘sustainable organizations’
mean or are, the texts focus on becoming (Tsoukas & Chia,
2002) sustainable, or what is required in order to be sus-
tainable. Most notably, the need to be ?nancially sound
or pro?table is by far the most common reported charac-
teristic of ‘sustainable organizations’ in the texts analyzed.
To be sustainable a business must be ?nancially sound
and able to provide the means for its future growth
(TrustPower, 2001, p. 11).
Ultimately, through the avoidance of de?nitive and
holistic statements articulating what sustainable organiza-
tions are, instead using a series of themes which are im-
bued with mostly positive characteristics, the nodal point
of the sustainable organization is partially ?lled with con-
tent while leaving the meaning open enough to allow
space for, and be unchallenging of growth and pro?tability.
Fundamental challenges posed by some variants of sus-
tainable development are left unacknowledged in the con-
struction of the ‘sustainable organization’ identity, such as,
for example, meeting the needs of the world’s poor, or any-
thing particularly explicit about providing for future gener-
ations (WCED, 1987). Yet through the lack of closure to the
concept and no clear de?nitive articulation as to what a
490 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
sustainable organization is (or is not), these absences or si-
lences are also not completely excluded. The incomplete
nature of the identity construction helps to gain consent
(since it remains open enough to include multiple posi-
tions) as well as potentially helps to ward off critique.
However, since the nodal point is not closed, and cannot
ever be fully ?xed, continued (re)presentation of the iden-
tity is required. And this perhaps signals a further positive
attribute to it remaining free from tight speci?cation. It
creates a form of strategic ambiguity that permits its rear-
ticulation as times and contexts change, and a new version
of the sustainable organization identity is required to meet
new hegemonic threats and maintain legitimacy and sur-
vive. Questions remain such as ‘how will the sustainable
organization identity evolve into the future?’, and ‘what
is the best way to engage in order to in?uence future iden-
tity constructions so that they are more socially and envi-
ronmentally emancipatory?’. Further research in this area
is therefore needed. Some potential directions for future
research are outlined below.
Concluding comments and further research
This paper contributes to the literature which analyzes
the discourse of sustainable development within corporate
reports and the organizational context more broadly. It
draws on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory as a means
to understand the ?uid and changing nature of identity
construction and consider identity renegotiation and
(re)articulation in order to resist threats and maintain
hegemony. In our analysis of how organizations have con-
structed an identity in relation to sustainable develop-
ment, three evolving identities over time have been
identi?ed from the organizational discourse within corpo-
rate reports, which are themselves considered to be a prod-
uct of the hegemonic threat of sustainable development.
We believe an understanding of the way in which orga-
nizations are positioned within the discursive debate on
sustainable development has been overlooked in past re-
search and is useful to further our understanding of sus-
tainable development within the organizational context,
and the ancillary role of sustainability reporting. Such an
understanding is also important if we wish to critically re-
sist (Gaf?kin, 2009) the organizational discourse and real-
ize the emancipatory potential of the social and
environmental accounting project. Resistance is likely to
require not only challenging what is said, but also who is
saying it, and the identities that they adhere to.
An understanding of constructed identity is important
given that the potential effect of these representations
and the identities that they constitute is the establishment
of a powerful ‘right to speak’ and be heard within the sus-
tainable development debate. Considering reporting as a
strategic, symbolic and legitimizing device, we ?nd that
organizations are positioned from early on as natural and
legitimate actors to take care of society and the environ-
ment. Through the constitution of organizations as central,
society and the environment are positioned as subordinate,
rather than fundamental to the opus of business. This posi-
tioning of organizations and the evolving nature of the
sustainable organization identity, we argue, work to
engender a ‘‘trust us’’ attitude, and perhaps wrongfully
encourage what is referred to by Spence (2009), and
acknowledged in our introduction, as faith in the corpora-
tion as an emancipatory change agent.
The representations of ‘sustainable organizations’ found
here might lead some, including powerful institutional ac-
tors like governments, to assume all is well, that organiza-
tions are, or at least are becoming, reformed ‘sustainable’
actors, when the change they posit may be largely rhetor-
ical. An obvious danger is that while organizations are able
to convey an adaptable and ‘changed’ identity to meet the
demands of a changed social and political context, and
thereby maintain legitimacy and avoid more stringent reg-
ulatory reform, the nature of that ‘change’ is not suf?cient
to provide for social and environmental betterment in the
absence of such regulatory reform. These identity con-
structions may serve to reinforce the organizational posi-
tion, and in the process the organizational position
obfuscates apparent transparency and accountability
(Hopwood, 2009; Messner, 2009). Further incisive insights
into these representations could help resist and counter
the organizational discourse on sustainable development.
For example, positions of trust and transparency estab-
lished in the texts have been challenged by shadow and si-
lent reports (see, for example, ASH, Christian Aid & Friends
of the Earth, 2005; Friends of the Earth, 2011) and other
academic work that exposes inaccuracies (Jowit, 2011).
There are several areas for future research that arise
from this study which could advance the broader aim of
the social and environmental accounting project. Whether
the representations of ‘sustainable organizations’ noted
here are the same in organizational and non-organizational
texts beyond the organizational report, and beyond the re-
ports and context analyzed here, requires investigation.
We also see value in case studies which further investigate
the construction of sustainable organizational identities
and their effects. In addition to studies of organizational
presence or in?uence in relevant policy debates and out-
comes as noted above, ethnographies where researchers
are located within the organization and view a range of
constitutive communication practices such as signs, sym-
bols actual practices and practice rationales, would give
unique insight into how sustainable organizations are con-
structed and the effects over time. By focusing on corpo-
rate reports, this paper has analyzed a relatively discrete
archive of texts where resistance or con?ict is largely ab-
sent. Studies of such debates where resistance and con?ict
are evident would be advantageous in further exploring
constructions of organizational identity in relation to sus-
tainable development.
In addition, and where we believe these ?ndings could
be extended to have the greatest impact, is the opportunity
to create constructive engagements with organizations and
other interested individuals or groups. Providing antago-
nisms (e.g. critically engaging with organizations over their
constitution of what a ‘sustainable organization’ is) as well
as providing and engaging in discussions (e.g. at public for-
ums, through establishment of, or contribution to, web-
sites engaging in these issues, or feeding ?ndings back to
individuals or groups who attempt to counter or resist
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 491
organizations) could all formpart of a larger research agen-
da which engages with, counters, and seeks to move be-
yond the hegemonic position of organizations in
sustainable development debates. Our own activity here
has been limited to invited critique of one signi?cant re-
porter, assisting another, and public addresses and engage-
ment in judging both sustainable business and
sustainability reporting awards. Here we seek to go beyond
rhetoric to ?nd evidence of substantive change and
encourage others to do so in a bid to extend the impact
of academic work. Recognizing the constructed identities,
including their subtleties, changes over time and hege-
monic characteristics, we believe, is a useful platform for
prompting a wide range of engagement by academics.
We also believe engagement and informed resistance are
also essential if scholars are to help realize the emancipa-
tory potential of social and environmental accounting.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the
2008 Academy of Management Meeting, Anaheim, and
the Accounting and Commercial Law Seminar Series at Vic-
toria University, Wellington. We would like to thank refer-
ees and participants from these events. We would also like
to thank the Editor and two anonymous journal referees
for their helpful and constructive comments. This work
was funded through the Royal Society of New Zealand’s
Marsden Fund, Grant No. 02-UOO-120 New Zealand Busi-
ness and Sustainability: Critically Analysing Discourse
and Practice.
References
Aritz, J., & Walker, C. (Eds.). (2012). Discourse perspectives on organizational
communication. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
ASH, Christian Aid & Friends of the Earth (2005). BAT in its own words.
.
Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I., (1996). Business conceptions of sustainability
and implications for accountancy, London: Chartered Association of
Certi?ed Accountants.
Brown, A. (2001). Organization studies and identity: Towards a research
agenda. Human Relations, 54(1), 113–121.
Brown, A. (2003). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report.
Organization Studies, 25(1), 95–112.
Brown, A., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and place: A
discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(2), 231–257.
Bruno, K., & Karliner, J. (2002). Earthsummit.biz: The corporate takeover of
sustainable development. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.
Buhr, N., & Rieter, S. (2006). Ideology, the environment and one
worldview: A discourse analysis of Noranda’s environmental and
sustainable development reports. Advances in Environmental
Accounting and Management, 3, 1–48.
Carroll, A. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and
Society Review, 100(101), 1–7.
Castro, C. J. (2004). Sustainable development: Mainstream and critical
perspectives. Organization and Environment, 17(2), 195–225.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple
identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages
between internal and external communication. In F. Jablin & L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cheney, G. (1992). The corporate person (re)presents itself. In E. Toth & R.
Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clarke, C. A., Brown, A. D., & Hope Hailey, V. (2009). Working identities?
Antagonistic discursive resources and managerial identity. Human
Relations, 62(3), 323–352.
Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and
organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1),
91–112.
Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication,
organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the
special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.
Dewar, K. (1999). Sustainable management – Enacting the RMA. In N.
Monin, J. Monin, & R. Walker (Eds.), Narratives of business and society:
Differing New Zealand voices (pp. 265–277). Auckland: Longman.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism
and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eden, S. (1994). Using sustainable development: The business case. Global
Environmental Change, 4(2), 160–167.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational
communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st
century business. Oxford: Capstone.
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the
institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science,
21(5), 1092–1107.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic textual analysis
within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217.
Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening.
Organization Studies, 17(3), 478–500.
Foucault, M. (1977/1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/
knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977
(pp. 78–108). Sussex: Harvester Press.
Friends of the Earth (2011). Erratum to the Annual Report. .
Fuoli, M. (2012). Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of
appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse and
Communication, 6(1), 55–81.
Gaf?kin, M. (2009). Twenty-one years of critical resistance – Almost: A
re?ection. Accounting Forum, 33, 268–273.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). (2000). Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Grant, D., Iedema, R., & Oswick, C. (2009). Discourse and critical
management studies. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2001). Organizational discourse: Key
contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 31(3), 5–24.
Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental, and sustainability reporting and
organizational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation?
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for
sustainability. . . and how would we know? An exploration of
narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Gray, R., Dillard, J., & Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting research as if the
world matters. Public Management Review, 11(5), 545–573.
Greer, J., & Bruno, K. (1996). Greenwash: The reality behind corporate
environmentalism. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.
Grundy, K. (2000). Purpose and principles: Interpreting section 5 of the
Resource Management Act. In P. Memon & H. Perkins (Eds.),
Environmental planning and management in New Zealand
(pp. 64–73). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International
Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3), 25–47.
Hardy, C. (2011). How institutions communicate; or how does
communication institutionalize? Management Communication
Quarterly, 25(1), 191–199.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in
the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20(1), 1–24.
Heikkurinen, P., & Ketola, T. (2012). Corporate responsibility and identity:
From a stakeholder to an awareness approach. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 21, 326–337.
Holland, L., & Foo, Y. B. (2003). Differences in environmental reporting
practices in the UK and the US: The legal and regulatory context.
British Accounting Review, 35, 1–18.
Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 433–439.
492 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and
political analysis. In D. Howarth, A. Norval, & Y. Stavrakakis (Eds.),
Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies, and social
change. Manchester: Manchester University.
Ihlen, O., & Roper, J. (2011). Corporate reports on sustainability and
sustainable development: ‘We have arrived’. Sustainable development.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.524.
International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC). (2011). Towards
integrated reporting: Communicating value in the 21st Century, .
Jackson, T., & Dixon, J. (2007). The New Zealand Resource Management
Act: an exercise in delivering sustainable development through an
ecological modernisation agenda. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 34, 107–120.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and
method. London: Sage.
Jowit, J. (2011). Howlers and omissions exposed in world of corporate
social responsibility. The Guardian, 24 November. .
KPMG (2002). KPMG International survey of corporate sustainability
reporting 2002. The Netherlands: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.
Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony: the role of universality in the
constitution of political logics. In J. Butler, E. Laclau, & S. Zizek (Eds.),
Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the
left. London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (1996). Universalism, particularism and the question of identity.
In E. Laclau (Ed.), Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a
radical democratic politics. London: Verso (W Moore & P Cammack,
Trans.).
Laclau, E. (1993). Power and representation. In M. Poster (Ed.), Politics,
theory and contemporary culture. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in
Finnish corporate disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 395–413.
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A
longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a
leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054.
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.
Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices
and new protocols for Critical Discourse Analysis in organization
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1194–1212.
Levy, D. (1997). Environmental management as political sustainability.
Organization and Environment, 10(2), 126–147.
Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. (2010). The contested politics of
corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative.
Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.
Levy, D., & Egan, D. (2003). A neo-gramscian approach to corporate
political strategy: Con?ict and accommodation in the climate change
negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 803–829.
Lindblom, C. (1993). The implications of organizational legitimacy for
corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the
Critical Perspectives in Accounting Conference, New York.
Livesey, S. (1999). McDonald’s and the Environmental Defence Fund: A
case study of a green alliance. The Journal of Business Communication,
36(1), 5–39.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell,
Brent Spar, and Nigeria. The Journal of Business Communication, 38(1),
58–91.
Livesey, S. (2002a). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell
commits to sustainable development. Management Communication
Quarterly, 15(3), 313–349.
Livesey, S. (2002b). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse
analytic approaches to ExxonMobil’s corporate public discourse. The
Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117–148.
Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A
study of sustainability reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/
Shell. Organization and Environment, 15(3), 233–258.
Martin, J. (2002). The political logic of discourse: A neo-Gramscian view.
History of European Ideas, 28, 21–31.
Mayhew, N. (1997). Fading to grey: The use and abuse of corporate
executives’ ‘representational power’. In R. Welford (Ed.), Hijacking
environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development
(pp. 63–95). London: Earthscan.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). The limits to growth: The
30-year update. White River Junction, USA: Chelsea Green.
Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 34, 918–938.
Metrowater (2001). Annual Report 2001, www.metrowater.co.nz.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: Current state and trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.
Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2012). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line,
the Global Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting.
Journal of Business Ethics.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1543-8.
Milne, M. J. (2007). Downsizing Reg (Me and You)! Addressing the ‘real’
sustainability agenda at work and home. In R. H. Gray & J. J. Guthrie
(Eds.), Social accounting, mega accounting and beyond: Festschrift in
honour of Martin (Reg) Mathews. St Andrews: CSEAR.
Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in
wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental
sustainability. Organization, 13(6), 801–839.
Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not actions!: The
ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1211–1257.
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.
NZBCSD (New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development).
(2002). Business Guide to Sustainable Development Reporting. October
2002, Auckland: NZBCSD.
NZBCSD (New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development).
(2004). The journey: The ?rst ?ve years. Auckland: NZBCSD.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal re?ection on the
current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
21(2), 240–267.
Owen, D., Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: cosmetic
irrelevance or radical agenda for change? Asia-Paci?c Journal of
Accounting, 4(2), 175–198.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (1997). Managing multiple identities: Discourse,
legitimacy and resources in the UK refugee system. Organization, 4(2),
159–185.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of
social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Prasad, P., & Elmes, M. (2005). In the name of the practical: Unearthing
the hegemony of pragmatics in the discourse of environmental
management. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 845–867.
Putnam, L., & Nicotera, A. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization:
The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.
Resource Management Act. (1991). Wellington: New Zealand.
Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. W. (2011). The social construction of global
corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports for automotive
corporations. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 123–133.
Sillince, J., & Brown, A. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and
legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(2),
1829–1856.
Siltaoja, M. (2009). On the discursive construction of a socially
responsible organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25,
191–202.
Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic
discourse. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6),
855–882.
Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A
Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 205–227.
Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A
perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 12, 71–86.
Sustainable Business Network (2011). .
[Accessed 11.12.11].
Telecom (2009). Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited Annual
Report,http://investor.telecom.co.nz/phoenix.zhtml?c=91956&p=
irol-reportsannualhist.
Tinker, T., & Neimark, M. (1987). The struggle over meaning in accounting
and corporate research. A comparative evaluation of conservative and
critical historiography. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 1(1),
55–74.
Tor?ng, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek.
Oxford: Blackwell.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 493
Treasury. (2010). New Zealand economic and ?nancial overview 2010.
[Accessed 03.11.11].
Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. (2006). From sustainable management to
sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New
Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15, 219–241.
TrustPower (1998). Annual Report 1998,http://annualreport.trustpower.
co.nz/.
TrustPower (2001). 2001 Annual Report,http://annualreport.trustpower.
co.nz/.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking
organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.
UNEP (2012). Keeping track of our changing environment – from Rio to
Rio +20 (1992–2012). [Accessed 30.05.12].
UNEP/SustainAbility (2002). Trust Us: The Global Reporters 2002 Survey
of Corporate Sustainability, London.
Unerman, J. (2000). Re?ections on quanti?cation in corporate social
reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 123(5), 667–680.
Walker, B., Barret, S., Polasky, S., Galaz, V., Folke, C., et al. (2009). Looming
global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science, 325,
1345–1346.
Warehouse (2001). Triple Bottom Line Report 2001, http://
www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/content/homepage/investors/company-
reports/archived-company-reports.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2005).
Beyond reporting: Creating business value and accountability.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2006a).
Catalyzing change: A short history of the WBCSD.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2006b).
The business of health: The health of business. (produced in
association with the International Business Leaders Forum).
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2007a).
Doing business with the world: The new role of corporate leadership
in global development.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2009a).
Water for business: Initiatives guiding sustainable water
management in the private sector.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2009b).
Water, energy and climate.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2011).
WBCSD guide to corporate ecosystem valuation.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987).
Our common future (the Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Whiteman, G. (2010). Corporate greening falls short. Nature, 273,
149–150.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2012, May). Planetary boundaries:
ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. In Paper presented
at 4th annual conference of the Alliance for Research into Corporate
Sustainability, Yale, New Haven.
Worldwatch Institute (2008). State of the world 2008: Innovations for a
sustainable economy. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Worldwatch Institute (2011). State of the world 2011: Innovations that
nourish the planet. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Worldwatch Institute (2013). State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still
possible? Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
WWF. (2010). Living planet report 2010. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
[Accessed 03.02.10].
WWF (2012). Living planet report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better
choices. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
494 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
doc_692327405.pdf
This paper investigates how organizations represent themselves in relation to sustainable development in 365 publicly available corporate reports from 1992 to 2010. This period of
reporting captures the emergence and development of corporate reporting on sustainable
development within the context of the study, New Zealand. Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory is employed to frame the analysis and interpret the findings. In particular Laclau
and Mouffe’s conceptualizations of discourse, identity and group formation, and their theorization
of hegemony are drawn upon. The analysis uncovers a changing organizational
identity over time. Three distinct identities which capture key organizational representations
over time are highlighted: environmentally responsible and compliant organizations;
leaders in sustainability; and strategically ‘good’ organizations. The paper demonstrates
through an analysis of these evolving identities and their effects, how organizations have
maintained a ‘right to speak’ within the sustainable development debate, despite the fundamental
challenges and hegemonic threat that a broader reading of sustainable development
might imply.
(Re)presenting ‘sustainable organizations’
Helen Tregidga
a,?
, Markus Milne
b
, Kate Kearins
a
a
Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
Department of Accounting, Finance, and Information Systems, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
a b s t r a c t
This paper investigates how organizations represent themselves in relation to sustainable
development in 365 publicly available corporate reports from 1992 to 2010. This period of
reporting captures the emergence and development of corporate reporting on sustainable
development within the context of the study, New Zealand. Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory is employed to frame the analysis and interpret the ?ndings. In particular Laclau
and Mouffe’s conceptualizations of discourse, identity and group formation, and their the-
orization of hegemony are drawn upon. The analysis uncovers a changing organizational
identity over time. Three distinct identities which capture key organizational representa-
tions over time are highlighted: environmentally responsible and compliant organizations;
leaders in sustainability; and strategically ‘good’ organizations. The paper demonstrates
through an analysis of these evolving identities and their effects, how organizations have
maintained a ‘right to speak’ within the sustainable development debate, despite the fun-
damental challenges and hegemonic threat that a broader reading of sustainable develop-
ment might imply.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
At the heart of the social accounting project lies a radi-
cal and emancipatory intent. Yet social accounting prac-
tice in the form of corporate self reporting, has
systematically failed to open up substantive critique.
Rather than rendering transparent the contradictions
within capitalism, corporate social accounting primarily
obfuscates these (Spence, 2009, p. 205).
Introduction
The social and environmental accounting project would
seem to hold much promise but there are concerns that its
potential has not been realized (see Gray, Dillard, & Spence,
2009; Milne, 2007; Owen, 2008; Spence, 2009). Gaf?kin
(2009, p. 271) posits that, instead of constituting critical
resistance, a large segment of social and environmental
accounting research which seeks to explain ‘‘existing dis-
closures rather than seeking new forms of effective disclo-
sure’’ comprises ‘‘co-opted resistance’’. He further declares
that ‘‘if accounting is to be involved in attempts to deter-
mine any effective solution to the problems of the impact
of exploitative corporate behaviour on the environment
(corporate domination) there needs to be much greater ef-
fort at building effective emancipatory resistance’’. Our at-
tempt to build such emancipatory resistance involves a
critical analysis of the representation of organizations in
relation to such fundamentals as nature and society. We
argue in this paper that the way in which ‘sustainable
organizations’ are represented works to establish and
maintain what Spence (2009) refers to as ‘faith’ in organi-
zations as change agents.
A range of studies have analyzed sustainable develop-
ment discourse within the organizational context (Levy,
1997; Livesey, 2001; Livesey, 2002a; Milne, Kearins, &
Walton, 2006; Prasad & Elmes, 2005; Spence, 2007;
Spence, 2009; Springett, 2003), as well as more speci?cally
in organizational reports (Buhr & Rieter, 2006; Ihlen &
Roper, 2011; Laine, 2005; Laine, 2009; Laine, 2010; Livesey,
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.006
?
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 921 9999; fax: +64 9 921 9990.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Tregidga), markus.
[email protected] (M. Milne), [email protected] (K. Kearins).
Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
2002b; Livesey & Kearins, 2002; Milne, Tregidga, & Walton,
2009; Tregidga & Milne, 2006). These studies have tended
to focus on what business organizations and their manag-
ers have to say and write about the concept of sustainable
development itself. That is they have concentrated on what
organizations and managers mean when they refer to sus-
tainable development. How organizations have been con-
structed – that is the construction of organizational
identity in relation to sustainable development – has not
been well investigated, however.
1
This paper ?lls this gap
in the literature by addressing the question ‘‘how have orga-
nizations constructed an identity in relation to sustainable
development (i.e. what does it mean to represent an organi-
zation as a sustainable organization)?’’
We draw on Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse the-
ory, in particular, their conceptualizations of discourse,
identity and group formation, and hegemony. We present
a critical analysis of ‘sustainable organization’ identity
constructed in a large sample of corporate reports over
a key period in the development of sustainable develop-
ment reporting along with its potential implications.
These representations are examined in relation to the
New Zealand context within which the organizations are
located. We take up Hopwood’s (2009) call for more re-
search examining corporate environmental reporting
which contributes to, and addresses the gap in the litera-
ture which analyses the discourse of sustainable develop-
ment within corporate reports (see also Gray, 2010). This
study complements previous work within New Zealand,
notably Tregidga and Milne (2006) a longitudinal study
of a single organization’s reporting, and Milne et al.
(2009), a close examination of eight organizations and
an industry association. Both Tregidga and Milne (2006)
and Milne et al. (2009), like other existing studies of re-
ports noted above, focus on how the concept of sustain-
able development is de?ned/constructed and how these
constructions have affected, or been affected by broader
discourses of sustainable development. However, the role
of identity and its effects is largely left unexamined in
this earlier, much smaller scale work.
Based on our sustained analysis of representations of
‘sustainable organizations’ within corporate reports, our
argument is that organizations have been able to resist
substantive change to business-as-usual through a pro-
cess of apparent identity transformation. Not only have
organizations transformed the concept of sustainable
development, and thereby potentially emasculated its
radical potential, but they have also represented
themselves as transformed. It is not just what organiza-
tions claim to do, but also what they claim to be which
creates resistance to necessary change (Owen, Gray, &
Bebbington, 1997) and contributes to understandings of
organizations as legitimate social actors. How the ‘sus-
tainable organization’ serves to position the organiza-
tional ‘voice’ in the discursive debate on sustainable
development and how the discursive identity constructed
works to maintain a legitimate and in?uential voice, a
‘right to speak’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) within that de-
bate – despite the challenges that sustainable develop-
ment poses to capitalist ideologies – is the key
contribution of this paper.
What we do not offer, however, is a consideration of
intentionality. We cannot know if those in charge of the
organizations, or those writing on behalf of the organiza-
tions whose reports we analyze intended to create the
identities we articulate, if they would concur with the
identities we portray, or if they would necessarily be aware
of any such intentions themselves. Often social actors are
unaware of the identities they project, or project images
that others read and interpret in ways that are at odds with
those intentions. Coupling identity to intention is some-
what problematic, and especially in an organizational con-
text. As with texts and authorial intention, identity is often
in the eye of the beholder, or the mind of the reader. Orga-
nizations are not single social actors, so it is even less clear
who might unambiguously articulate an organization’s
intentions. Leaving aside these conceptual and practical
dif?culties, an analysis of intention would require both
an analysis of the production, and also the consumption
(see Hardy, 2011) of the texts, with consequent dif?culties
in determining who should represent those who produce
and those who consume. In this study, we have kept the fo-
cus on our consumption, reading and interpretation of
organizational texts/identities. We read the texts as schol-
ars of accounting and organizations, with a declared inter-
est in whether the social and environmental accounting
project can, in part, be realized through the reporting
process.
The paper is structured as follows. First, Laclau and
Mouffe’s concept of hegemony and ours and others’ argu-
ment that sustainable development represents a hege-
monic threat to organizations is presented. A discussion
of organizational identity, group formation and represen-
tation follows. Once again Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse
theory and the consideration of collective or group iden-
tity is discussed as it forms the perspective taken by our-
selves as authors of this paper. Literature from
organizational studies on identity and identity construc-
tion is reviewed, in particular literature considering the
role of discourse and communication in constructing
identity. A critical reading of organizational engagement
in the discursive debate surrounding sustainable develop-
ment follows. The method of identifying, selecting and
analyzing the organizational reports from which the
empirical insights are drawn is then described. Thereafter
?ndings are presented along with a discussion of the po-
tential implications of the constructed identities. The pa-
per concludes with some ?nal comments and directions
for future research.
Hegemony and the hegemonic threat of sustainable
development
Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of hegemony provides a
key part of the theoretical framework for this paper. One
of the advantages of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory,
1
See Carroll (1998), Fuoli (2012), Heikkurinen and Ketola (2012), Nyberg
and Wright (2012), Siltaoja (2009) and Shinkle and Spencer (2011) for some
consideration of identity in relation to social responsibility, climate change
and corporate citizenship.
478 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
and in particular their concept of hegemony, is its empha-
sis on power and con?ict in the constitution and transfor-
mation of social meanings and identity (Martin, 2002).
Within discourse theory, the realm of the discursive con-
sists of the linguistic and non-linguistic practices that
structure thought and action. Laclau and Mouffe (1985)
adopt and modify the concept of hegemony from Gramsci
(1971) to denote the structuring of meanings through dis-
cursive practices (Martin, 2002). As Brown (2003, p. 96,
drawing on Clegg, 1989) notes, ‘‘[h]egemony is a form of
cleverly masked, taken-for-granted domination, most of-
ten articulated as what is ‘common sense’ or ‘natural’,
and which thus ‘involves the successful mobilisation and
reproduction of the active consent’ of those subject to it’’.
Hegemony is not based simply on domination or coer-
cion but on the demonstration of moral and intellectual
leadership of the hegemonic group, and it rests on the con-
sent of the masses (Levy & Egan, 2003; Spence, 2007).
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) consider the role of language
in forming such consent. Central to their theory of dis-
course are the concepts articulation, nodal points and
closure. Articulation is de?ned as ‘‘any practice establish-
ing relations among elements such that their identity is
modi?ed as a result (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 105). As
such, the process of articulation partially ?xes meaning.
This partial ?xing of meaning occurs around the nodal
points within the discursive ?eld. Nodal points are
privileged signi?ers within a discourse that bind together
a particular system of meaning (Howarth & Stavrakakis,
2000). For example, sustainable development can be
considered a nodal point, so too ‘sustainable organization’
– the nodal point focused on in this paper.
However, at the core of discourse theory is the recogni-
tion that total meaning can never be ultimately ?xed
(closed) and therefore must be constantly renegotiated
and rearticulated. This lack of ?xity is important as it opens
up struggles over meaning which always takes place in a
terrain of power and resistance. This openness to modi?ca-
tion leads us to the concept of hegemony and the structur-
ing of meaning through discursive practices and
articulations of sustainable organizations.
Tor?ng (1999) relates Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of
hegemony to politics stating that ‘‘hegemony is just an-
other name for politics, but one that emphasises the con-
struction of identity [meaning], and conceives values and
beliefs as an integral part of such an identity. Within this
perspective, identity is not the starting point of politics,
but rather something that is constructed, maintained or
transformed in and through political struggles’’ (Tor?ng,
1999, p. 82). Hegemony is therefore an articulatory prac-
tice that structures concepts and practices in a way that
makes certain elements come to be viewed as natural or
taken for granted. As such, while meaning can never fully
be ?xed, certain discourses can come to dominate others
and become ‘‘the main guide for action’’ (Spence, 2007).
The role of the discourse analyst with regards to an analy-
sis of hegemony and the construction of meaning is to
‘‘plot the course of these struggles to ?x meaning at all lev-
els of the social’’ (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p.24).
Laclau and Mouffe’s insights are of particular interest in
this study in making sense of the language that organizations
use to construct anidentity in relationto sustainable develop-
ment, and also the hegemonic character of these representa-
tions of organizations. Laclau and Mouffe also offer us the
means to understandthe ?uidandchanging nature of identity
constructionandconsider identityrenegotiationand(re)artic-
ulation in order to resist threats and maintain hegemony. We
address such aspects in our longitudinal analysis and chang-
ing identity observations.
Like Levy (1997), Levy and Egan (2003) and Livesey
(2002a) who draw on the concept of hegemony, we con-
sider the emergence of the concept of sustainable develop-
ment within business organizations to represent a ‘threat
to hegemony’. Through the need to respond to and accom-
modate the growing public awareness of environmental
and social issues, the dominant hegemonic position of
the organization is threatened. Sustainable development
represents not just an economic and regulatory threat,
but also a broader ideological challenge to the organiza-
tional control of resources and markets. Organizational
discourse on sustainable development can consequently
be interpreted as an attempt to maintain hegemonic con-
trol in the wake of these challenges (Livesey, 2002a), and
corporate reports on society and the environment can be
viewed as a product of the hegemonic threat. As Levy
(1997) concludes, organizational discourse on sustainable
development can be seen to be more about political than
environmental sustainability.
Of particular interest here is how a consideration of
hegemony allows an analysis of how business organiza-
tions have maintained, and continue to maintain, a right
to speak within the sustainable development debate, de-
spite the fundamental challenges and ‘hegemonic threat’
sustainable development would seem to impose. How
organizations have established a voice in the discourse
(i.e. how organizations have achieved an arguably author-
itative position within the discursive debate on sustainable
development, discussed below), and how they have main-
tained that voice through the capacity to modify the con-
cept as well as to construct the organizational identity as
legitimate, is therefore analyzed through a consideration
of hegemony. First, however, a further part of our theoret-
ical framework, organizational identity and group forma-
tion, and how organizations are conceptualized in this
paper are discussed.
Organizations and organizational identity
There remains a steady and continued interest in dis-
course and organizations. This interest can be explained
by the linguistic turn in social sciences whereby language
is regarded as constitutive rather than re?ective of social
reality (see, for example, Aritz & Walker, 2012). As such,
much of the extant literature understands organizational
identity to be ‘‘unstable social constructions constituted
through acts of languaging’’ (Brown & Humphreys, 2006,
p. 231; see also, Clarke, Brown, & Hope Hailey, 2009). In
the Communicative Constitution of Organizations litera-
ture, organizations are understood to be ‘‘realized, experi-
enced, and identi?ed primarily – if not exclusively – in
communication processes’’ (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, &
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 479
Clark, 2011, p. 1150, see also Putnam & Nicotera, 2009).
Our focus is on how a group of organizations are repre-
sented to both their members and to others through corpo-
rate reports in relation to sustainable development and in
doing so construct what it means to be a ‘sustainable orga-
nization’. In addition, as discussed further below, we are
concerned with how such reports and the identity con-
structions they contain relate to notions of legitimacy
(see Brown, 2001; Hopwood, 2009; Nyberg & Wright,
2012; Shinkle & Spencer, 2011; Sillince & Brown, 2009)
and how these identity constructions change and are
maintained through time.
Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory and their
treatment of group formation and collective identities in-
form our understanding of organizations (see also, Laclau
(1993), Laclau (1996), Laclau (2000) and also Howarth
(2000) and Jørgensen & Phillips (2002)). Within Laclau
and Mouffe’s discourse theory, group identities are not so-
cially predetermined but, like individual identities, are
constituted through discourse and are fragmented, over-
determined and contingent. As identities are contingently
constructed, there is a plurality of identities that could be
adopted, but those which are adopted depend on particular
historical and social circumstances. As Spence (2007, p.
858) notes when discussing identity in relation to Laclau
and Mouffe, ‘‘people or social groups have no real essence
beyond the precarious identities that they adopt in relation
to the establishment of a particular order. . . the identities
that people adopt are not pre-given or necessarily class-
based, but contingently constructed’’.
An important element in the process of organizational
identi?cation is representation. Representation often in-
volves someone ‘talking about’ or ‘on behalf of’ the group.
Laclau and Mouffe largely focus on representative democ-
racy where citizens elect representatives who can be pres-
ent on their behalf in situations where all citizens cannot
be present (i.e. parliamentary discussions of political is-
sues). However, the concepts of group identities and repre-
sentation have been extended to the consideration of
organizational identity formation, in recognizing an orga-
nization as ‘‘a bounded social system, with speci?c struc-
tures and goals’’ (Cooper & Burrell, 1988, p. 102).
As with meaning construction discussed above, group
identities are once again contingent constructions formed
through discourse. As such, groups are not formed and
then represented, but rather, the group identity is formed
through representation, ‘‘It is not until someone speaks
of, or to, or on behalf of, a group that it is constituted as
a group’’ (Laclau, 1993, p. 289). Laclau (2000, p. 57) notes
that ‘‘representation is constitutive of the hegemonic rela-
tion’’. A consideration of the formation of group identity
construction through discourse therefore requires a focus
on articulations that constitute particular groups through
representation, and would further consider the under-
standings that are implied. The starting point is to identify
which subject or group position is being investigated, the
nodal point around which identity is organized. In this
case, the nodal point is the ‘sustainable organization’. The
second step in the analysis of the construction of identity
is to consider how that nodal point is being ?lled within
meaning. And third, how this meaning changes over time
is examined. These steps are discussed further below in
the method section.
In considering the function of representation in this pa-
per, it is important to note the role of the data set, the orga-
nizational text. Organizational texts, in the formof corporate
reports (annual and stand-alone) are considered here to be a
form of organizational representation. As such, organiza-
tional texts are considered to speak on behalf of organiza-
tions. Acknowledging that organizations themselves do not
‘speak’ and that all organizational texts are in some way
products of individuals, we also recognize that when con-
structing organizational texts, individuals or groups of indi-
viduals do so from particular subject positions, most likely
as members of/consultants to organizations, and in an at-
tempt tospeakonbehalf of, or as their organizations. We also
note that in their roles as ‘authors’ on behalf of particular
organizations they are writing from a particular stance and
witha particular set of discursive resources (i.e. they are both
enabled and constrained by position, place and time). It is,
however, the view here that organizational texts represent
the organization and play a role in constructing organiza-
tional identity. Similar treatment of the organizational text
or message, as representations of organizations, andas a pro-
cess of identi?cation, has a long history in the organizational
communication literature (for example, Cheney, 1991;
Cheney, 1992; Cheney & Christensen, 2001).
Public pronouncements on sustainable development by
organizations are said to have transformative effects on
organizations and on the concept of sustainable develop-
ment itself (Livesey, 2001; Livesey, 2002a). Representing
‘sustainable organizations’ in particular ways not only con-
structs new possibilities in terms of relationships between
organizations and the natural environment (Fineman,
1996; Livesey, 1999; Livesey, 2001), but also engages in
wider social and political struggles over de?ning an
acceptable organization/environment/society relationship
– one that might be deemed worthy of respect.
Our focus is on three related aspects. First, how organi-
zations are represented in relation to sustainable develop-
ment is investigated through analyzing pronouncements
about what it means to be a ‘sustainable organization’. Sec-
ond these pronouncements are considered over time.
Third, the apparent or potential effects of organizational
representations are examined. Within different discourses,
some actors, through the subject positions that they hold,
warrant a louder voice or ‘right to speak’ than do others
(Hardy & Phillips, 1999; Phillips & Hardy, 1997). As Mills
(2003, p. 65) states, ‘‘Not everyone is able to make state-
ments, or have statements taken seriously by others. Some
statements are more authorised than others, in that they
are more associated with those in positions of power or
with institutions.’’ Within sustainable development dis-
course, that is both the organizational sustainable develop-
ment discourse and the discourse of sustainable
development beyond the organizational context, we argue
that organizations have an ‘authoritative voice’, and as
such are producers of what counts as knowledge. Before
presenting representations of organizations inherent in
the reports analyzed, we consider the context of the study
- organizational engagement in the discursive debate
around sustainable development.
480 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Organizational engagement in discursive debate on
sustainable development
Sustainable development emerged as a dominant dis-
course of environmental concern in the 1980s and 1990s.
A signi?cant moment was the 1987 release of the Brundt-
land Report (more formally titled Our Common Future) by
the World Commission for Environment and Development
(WCED). Seen as a ‘‘global agenda for change’’ (WCED,
1987, p. ix), the report identi?ed sustainable development
as a solution to growing concerns over environmental deg-
radation and the effects of consumer society. It positioned
sustainable development as a topic of global importance
and provided the most widely adopted de?nition of the
concept: ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
Internationally, the United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992 was a further de?ning moment in placing sustain-
able development at the forefront of many political agen-
da. As Castro (2004, p. 197, emphasis in original) notes,
‘‘[t]he 1992 Earth Summit really turned sustainable devel-
opment into a well known term.’’ It was also signi?cant be-
cause of the dialogue process it created, and also because
of the involvement of nearly 100 world leaders (172 na-
tions were represented), non-governmental organizations
and others in the discussion. As some commentators claim,
however, it was the business voice which prevailed –
resulting in what Greer and Bruno (1996) refer to as ‘‘the
corporate hijack of UNCED’’.
Organizational engagement with sustainable develop-
ment discourse can be directly related to the 1992 Earth
Summit. The (now World) Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) was formed in 1990 to participate
in the process leading up to the Summit. The purpose of
the group’s formation was to provide the ‘business voice’,
along with advice and guidance, to the UNCED secretariat.
As Mayhew (1997, p. 70) notes, the UNCED posed a threat
to corporations as ‘‘sustainable development was in danger
of becoming de?ned and widely understood as altogether
contrary to the existing, corporate friendly, liberal-produc-
tivist development paradigm’’. The WBCSD, with a close
working relationship with the International Chamber of
Commerce, engaged in the debate at a strategic level, and
through ‘‘sheer institutional muscle’’ (Mayhew, 1997, p.
68) sought to neutralise the threat. Through the process
these business lobby groups were arguably able to estab-
lish themselves as a legitimate voice.
Leading up to the Summit, the WBCSD, under the direc-
tion of its Chief Executive Stephen Schmidheiny, released
the book Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on
Development and the Environment. It ‘‘painted a ‘rosy’ fu-
ture in which corporate environmentalism, based on open
markets, free trade and self-regulation, will give birth to
global green capitalism’’ (Bruno & Karliner, 2002, pp. 26–
27). Mayhew (1997, p. 74) argues that through the WBCSD
‘‘the corporate world was given a privileged role and voice
in the UNCED process, without being subject to it’’ as issues
such as ‘‘TNCs [trans-national corporations] and their
responsibility for various forms of unsustainable develop-
ment’’ were not addressed.
After Rio the WBCSD continued its lobbying activities
and worked on projects purportedly ‘implementing’ sus-
tainable development (Mayhew, 1997). Ten years later,
Earth Summit II gave the WBCSD the ‘‘opportunity to in?u-
ence the global agenda, not as an infant movement but as a
matured and established player’’ (WBCSD, 2006a, p. 50).
The WBCSD itself identi?ed that the second Summit ‘‘made
it clear that the business voice was being heard, loud and
clear’’ with one whole day of the summit being declared
‘‘business day’’ (WBCSD, 2006a, p. 50).
Through the WBCSD, and others such as the Interna-
tional Chamber of Commerce (see Eden, 1994), the organi-
zational voice has remained prominent in international
sustainable development debates. The WBCSD has released
publications on a range of issues, including: sustainable
development reporting and accountability (WBCSD,
2005); the role of business in society (WBCSD, 2007a);
health and safety (WBCSD, 2006b); water (WBCSD,
2009a); energy and climate change (WBCSD, 2009b) and
ecosystem services valuation (WBCSD, 2011). These publi-
cations, and the high pro?le of many WBCSD members,
have resulted in the WBCSD becoming a pre-eminent voice
on sustainable development. National branches have been
established, expanding and entrenching the WBCSD’s
sphere of in?uence.
The in?uence and position of the business voice at the
Rio Earth Summit, and consequently its effect on the con-
cept of sustainable development, is noted by Bruno and
Karliner (2002, pp. 4–5) who contend:
The idea of linking ‘environment’ and ‘development’
had its conceptual bene?ts, but, in the end, the Sum-
mit’s failure to properly de?ne the terms and the over-
whelming corporate in?uence of the words’ meaning
corrupted the original concept. Sustainable develop-
ment was originally de?ned as meeting the needs of
the present generation without compromising the abil-
ity of future generations to meet their needs. However,
in Rio, ‘needs’ were not de?ned, leaving overconsump-
tion by the richest corporations and individuals
untouched.
Despite the high pro?le given to environmental con-
cerns in the immediate wake of, and since the 1992,
2002 and 2012 Earth Summits, there is considerable pessi-
mism about what has actually been achieved (e.g. UNEP,
2012).
Another in?uence upon the broader organizational con-
text, as well as a further example of the manifestation of
organizational in?uence, is the Global Reporting Initiative
(see Etzion & Ferraro, 2010; Levy, Brown, & de Jong,
2010). While the Global Reporting Initiative has been rela-
tively successful in promulgating the practice of non-?nan-
cial reporting it has arguably been less effective in
achieving its aspirations of its founders to empower non-
governmental organizations (Levy et al., 2010), and place
suf?cient emphasis on protecting ecological systems
(Milne & Gray, 2012), perhaps in part due to the co-option
by business language and interests.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 481
Within New Zealand where the research is located, sev-
eral context-speci?c developments occurred in the last two
decades or so. The 1991 enactment of the Resource Man-
agement Act,
2
through its attempt to embody the concept
of sustainability in legislation, constituted an important part
of New Zealand’s environmental history (Dewar, 1999;
Grundy, 2000). The Resource Management Act, and its key
underpinning concept of sustainable management, contin-
ues to have in?uence in the New Zealand context, including
on organizations and on development more generally. This
is particularly so for organizations whose economic objec-
tives and operations rely on natural resources (e.g., utilities,
waste management, agriculture and ?sheries). Given the
ongoing impact of the legislation it is not surprising that
organizations are involved in lobbying and making submis-
sions on possible legislative changes.
Industry associations with a sustainability focus also
emerged within the New Zealand context. A New Zealand
branch of the WBCSD, the NZBCSD was established in
May 1999 and became a key player in sustainable develop-
ment nationally (see Milne et al., 2009). The NZBCSD also
produced a range of publications and has been vocal on
several issues, notably reporting, green buildings and pro-
curement (see, www.nzbcsd.org.nz). The Sustainable Busi-
ness Network established in 2002 is another New Zealand
based business association. Set up as a not-for-pro?t, it
provides ‘‘advice and support to help business succeed
through becoming more sustainable’’ (Sustainable Busi-
ness Network, 2011). While initially catering for small to
medium businesses, membership of the Sustainable Busi-
ness Network has come to include a range of businesses
both large and small in size and across numerous indus-
tries. Given its practical focus, supporting members with
‘‘network opportunities, practical tools, training and sus-
tainability assessments’’ (Sustainable Business Network,
2011), the Sustainable Business Network has appeared, at
least from the outside, less active in policy debates and
lobbying activities. While others have more recently en-
tered the frame (for example, Pure Advantage), the
NZBCSD, now in the form of the Sustainable Business
Council since its merger with the Sustainable Business For-
um in 2012, and the Sustainable Business Network remain
the most signi?cant.
Against this background several points can be made.
First, global concerns clearly remain regarding the (envi-
ronmental, social and economic) ‘sustainability’ of present
forms of development – indeed such concerns are growing
(for example, see Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Worldwatch
Institute, 2008; Worldwatch Institute, 2011; Worldwatch
Institute, 2013; WWF, 2012; WWF, 2010). Consequently,
for some, signi?cant corporate and institutional change is
still required (see, for example, Gray, 2006; Gray, 2010;
Milne & Gray, 2012; Walker et al., 2009; Whiteman,
2010; Whiteman, Walker, & Perego, 2012). Second, despite
its critics, the discourse of sustainable development re-
mains largely intact as a discourse of change and the
means for problem resolution. Sustainable development
is, therefore, likely to remain in?uential in policy and busi-
ness decisions in the foreseeable future and implies not
only a role for business organizations, but also foreshad-
ows change. Third, businesses and business lobby groups
internationally and locally have established a legitimate
voice within the debate surrounding what sustainable
development means both conceptually and in practice –
and therefore arguably are able to in?uence understand-
ings of the change required. It is this positioning that we
empirically investigate in this paper through a context-
speci?c analysis.
Method
This paper employs discourse analysis inspired by
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) to investigate the constructive
effects of discourse through the systematic and structured
study of texts. Not only does discourse analysis and a
consideration of hegemony enable the analysis of the
constructive elements of discourse, it also ‘‘subverts and
challenges taken-for-granted assumptions and under-
mines the tendency to reify and solidify knowledge’’
(Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 84). A discourse approach is rel-
evant to the aims and critical intent of this paper as it links
with notions of power and hegemony and enables the
investigation of the production of ‘truths’ and legitimacy.
We note some potential critiques of the approach
embraced by organizational discourse theorists
(Grant, Iedema, & Oswick, 2009), and recognize the subjec-
tive nature of discourse analysis can create unease for
some (see Grant, Keenoy, & Oswick, 2001 for discussion
regarding various critiques).
3
However, while
recognizing these critiques, we agree with Phillips and
2
The enactment of the Resource Management Act integrated environ-
mental management by replacing 50 different statues so all environmental
effects of a proposed activity could be considered at once. The Act identi?es
its purpose as ‘‘to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources’’ (Resource Management Act., 1991, A2–3).
3
Critiques of discourse analysis range in focus from concerns with
practical issues (e.g. time and energy required to master the theory and
method, non-institutionalized nature of the approach, and labour intensive
and time consuming nature of the method) to concerns with methodolog-
ical rigour and subjectivity (Grant et al., 2001; Grant et al., 2009; Hardy,
2001; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). While the former challenges need to be
considered in relation to research design, they are not detrimental to
research aims. The critique that discourse analysis ‘‘lacks methodological
rigor in that it is overly subjective, is fraught with sampling problems, and
only draws on qualitative methodologies’’ (Grant et al., 2001, p. 10) needs
to be considered, albeit a possible critique of any qualitative analysis that
favours and highlights an interpretivist approach. As identi?ed by Leitch
and Palmer (2010) with reference to Critical Discourse Analysis and
organization studies, concept de?nitions, data selection and data analysis
are often seen to be the major weaknesses. We have systematically
addressed these three areas in this paper by ?rst, situating our under-
standing of discourse in relation to Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse
theory and further explicating the key concept of hegemony, and secondly
by clearly outlining the research parameters of the study and clearly
explaining data selection and its rationale and data analyses. A further
relevant critique often labelled at Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and
their concept of hegemony is in relation to the contingent nature of
discourse and the critique that they overestimate the possibility for change
(see Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, p.54–57). While we would argue that
permanence and constraint to change are present in Laclau and Mouffe’s
theory, we have highlighted the possibility for change through further
engagement with and resistance to the organizational constructions.
However, we have not presented it as an easy endeavour.
482 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Hardy (2002, p. 11) that the bene?ts that discourse analysis
can bring to a project (e.g. the ability to question the taken-
for-granted) outweigh the disadvantages. We seek to ad-
dress potential concerns by providing a clear description of
our approach to data collection and analysis, and also recog-
nize re?exivity and statements around our own position as
important.
As earlier indicated, when considering the formation of
group identity from a Laclau and Mouffe perspective it is
?rst important to identify the nodal point around which
the group position is being organized – that is, the identity
which forms the basis for the analysis. Here, the nodal
point under consideration is that of the sustainable organi-
zation. This has been an under-investigated topic as noted
above. Second, how the selected nodal point is ?lled with
meaning is investigated. And third, how this ?lling with
meaning changes over time is examined. This section out-
lines the method by which this process of analyzing the
?lling-of-meaning was undertaken.
Identifying and selecting the texts
Texts selected for analysis were stand-alone reports,
4
or
if a stand-alone report was not produced the annual reports,
published by members of the NZBCSD
5
over a 19 year period,
1992–2010. The NZBCSD, established in 1999, was a coali-
tion of leading New Zealand businesses with a mission to
‘‘provide business leadership as a catalyst for change
towards sustainable development, and to promote eco-
ef?ciency, innovation, and responsible entrepreneurship’’
(NZBCSD, 2004, p. 6). NZBCSDmembers were among the ?rst
in the country to engage in sustainable development discus-
sions locally and are seen to be, and promote themselves as
knowledgeable in sustainable development and business. A
key way in which they communicated such knowledge and
engage in this discourse is through their reporting. A condi-
tion of NZBCSD membership was that organizations publish
a sustainable development report within three years of join-
ing. This requirement, along with several projects related to
fostering sustainable development reporting practices, led to
the NZBCSD and its member organizations being central to
both the promotion and practice of social and environmental
reporting and sustainable development more generally in
New Zealand (Milne et al., 2009).
The total number of NZBCSD member reports included
in the analysis is 365.
6
These reports, the year they were
produced, and the reporting organization can be seen in
Fig. 1. Of those who regularly report, many are larger orga-
nizations including utilities, infrastructure, retail/manufac-
turing and science or knowledge-based research
organizations. Many of the non-reporting organizations are
service consultancies, often small in size, or New Zealand
of?ces of large multinationals where no local report exists.
Furthermore, from Fig. 1, the potential effect that the forma-
tion of the NZBCSD in 1999 had on the rise in reporting orga-
nizations can be seen with an immediate increase and
steady rise in stand-alone report production. A further trend
in the report is the move towards combined and integrated
reporting,
7
that is reporting social and environmental infor-
mation with ?nancial reporting in a single report. The re-
ports vary substantially in length, layout and style.
The period of almost two decades covers both the emer-
gence and development of organizational reporting on the
environment and/or society in New Zealand. It was also a
time where there was development in the business context
surrounding sustainable development. The period of anal-
ysis begins directly after the Resource Management Act
legislation was introduced in New Zealand and includes
several key developments in the national and international
sustainable development reporting context, including the
introduction and continuing development of the Global
Reporting Initiative, the formation of the NZBCSD and Sus-
tainable Business Network, and the establishment of a na-
tional reporting award scheme. The country also
experienced an economic recession in 2008–2009,
although less severely than many other nations (Treasury,
2010).
8
Prominent reasons for the selection of organizational
reports as an archive for analysis are that they represent
‘‘important texts’’, they are widely distributed, associated
with changes in practice, or are produced in reaction to a
particular event(s) (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, p. 73). Corpo-
rate reports can further be regarded as ‘‘ideological weap-
ons’’ – ‘‘not passive describers of an ‘objective reality’ but
play a part in forming the world-view or social ideology
that fashions and legitimizes’’ (Tinker & Neimark, 1987,
p. 72). While there are limitations to using one form of
media (Holland & Foo, 2003; Unerman, 2000), our focus
is on the construction of organizational identity in relation
to sustainable development and as such the interest is not
in how much is reported or where it is reported, but rather
in what is reported, and in particular how it is reported and
how this changes over time.
4
The term ‘stand-alone’ report is used in this paper to refer to a range of
reports which have numerous labels e.g. Sustainable Development Reports,
Sustainability Reports, and Triple Bottom Line Reports. The de?ning
characteristics of these reports are that they provide a focus on the
environment and/or society.
5
Members as at 25 November 2003, the beginning date of this research,
were selected for inclusion.
6
After an exhaustive search including websites, databases, library
collections and email/telephone contact with organization representatives,
it was ascertained that 365 reports were produced by the sample
organizations over the selected time period. Once all 365 reports were
analyzed, it was ascertained that 303 reports included extracts relating to
the construction of identity in relation to sustainable development. These
303 reports are noted in Fig. 1 by way of a tick (
p
). Those reports analyzed
and determined not to include relevant extracts are denoted with an
asterisk (*) in Fig. 1.
7
The move to report via combined or integrated annual reports is a move
that can be seen by both previously non-reporting organizations and
organizations that formerly produced a stand-alone report. This move to
producing integrated annual reports further problematizes the ‘labelling’ of
reports. This has perhaps become more problematic with latest develop-
ments promoting new forms of reporting labelled ‘integrated reporting’
(IIRC, 2011). It is for this reason, and our focus on the construction of a
sustainable organizational identity across the archive, that no distinction is
made in the analysis between stand-alone and annual report constructions.
8
Within the sample the number of reports reduced during and
subsequent to the economic recession. While 24 reports were produced
in 2007 and 2008, the number of reports declined to 21and 17 in 2009 and
2010 respectively. While this decline may be due to the economic recession
this conclusion falls outside the scope of this paper and its analysis.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 483
Analyzing the reports
The analytical process was driven by the aim of ‘know-
ing the data’ and was conducted via a number of readings.
9
First, initial readings of the reports and a reduction of the
volume of text from the entire report to a focused set of ex-
tracts was undertaken. The focus here was the consideration
of how the group position of a sustainable organization was
being ?lled. Therefore, a ‘report analysis worksheet’ contain-
ing sections in which to record extracts related to our partic-
ular area of interest, that is articulations of what it meant for
an organization to be sustainable, was developed and a
worksheet was generated for each report. Serious speech
acts in relation to ‘sustainable organizations’, statements
which represent knowledge and truth claims presenting an
utterance as ‘taken-for-granted’ (Dreyfus & Rabinow,
1983), were recorded. Extracts took two main forms, either
extracts constructing ‘sustainable organizations’ in general
(i.e. sustainable organizations are. . .) or extracts showing
organizations talking about themselves in relation to sus-
tainable development or the environment/society (predom-
inantly referring to the organization by name or using the
term ‘we’, for example, ‘‘we are. . .’’).
In keeping with a discourse perspective that acknowl-
edges that what is not said or is marginalized is as impor-
tant or relevant as that which is said, silences and evidence
of marginalization were also noted. These observations
were further derived from considering what themes/issues
were present in the context and wider discourse of sustain-
able development but not present in the organizational re-
ports, and also examining how the meaning of sustainable
organizations differed, or not, from other organizational
identities (for example, the pro?t orientated organization).
While this analytical stage involved multiple readings and
examinations of the entire text, it did not ‘code’ the entire
text. It was a process where, based on our research focus,
relevant extracts were retrieved while extracts not related
to the construction of sustainable organizational identity
were not coded. Report analysis worksheets were printed
and collated chronologically for the second stage of the
analysis.
Second, a manual coding of extracts into topic areas was
completed. Once all the extracts were coded, key themes
were identi?ed which focused on the construction of
Fig. 1. Reports Included in Analysis.
9
The data set originally comprised of reports dated 1992–2003 with
reports from 2004 to 2010 subsequently added. While this resulted in the
earlier reports being analyzed ?rst and independently, the process for
analysing the later reports was the same. With the decision to include
reports from 2004 to 2010, the report worksheets prepared for the earlier
reports were reanalyzed.
484 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
meaning around the nodal point. Extracts were recoded,
theme categories were broadened to include what were
initially two related or contrasting codes and some extracts
remained un-themed as they were considered trivial in
relation to addressing the research questions (e.g. they
were one-off occurrences). Six themes were subsequently
identi?ed. These themes were: (1) sustainable organiza-
tions as providers; (2) sustainable organizations as com-
mitted and responsible; (3) ‘sustainable organizations’ as
accountable and transparent; (4) organizations as in?uenc-
ers of sustainable development; (5) ‘sustainable organiza-
tions’ as protectors; and (6) ‘sustainable organizations’ as
partners.
Once themes exploring how ‘sustainable organizations’
were represented were determined, extracts from each of
the reports were then organized chronologically to deter-
mine when the theme emerged, whether it became more
or less dominant/prominent, and how it changed over
time. Importantly, context, and the relationship between
text and context, was considered throughout the process
of analyzing the texts. Again, it was an iterative process,
moving between the texts and analysis of the context
within which they occurred (primarily the international
developments around sustainable development as re-
viewed earlier and the New Zealand reporting and busi-
ness contexts). Overall, this analysis process resulted in
an identi?cation of the changing nature of the representa-
tion of ‘sustainable organizations’ over time. Speci?cally,
three emerging identities were identi?ed. These identities
are presented and discussed below.
Re?exivity
We acknowledge the need to be re?exive and acknowl-
edge our position and how it may impact on our reading of
the data. We have outlined our approach and method
above as part of this process. However, we also identify
that we should brie?y acknowledge our position in relation
to the subject matter as this too has an effect as it forms
the lens through which we read, interpret and analyze
the texts. We do not believe that bringing such values to
our analysis necessarily leads to a biased interpretation
or distortion, but rather, that it needs to be recognized so
the reader can understand from what position we come
in making the claims we make. These positions have been
formed through our respective upbringings, experience
and reading in multiple areas (notably, accounting, organi-
zation studies, and environmentalism).
First, and in common with others engaged in the social
and environmental accounting project, we believe that the
current model of organizing and organizations is unsus-
tainable and change is required. Such change, we would
suggest, involves a fundamental rethink and goes beyond
a business as usual approach and the level of incremental
change that is currently occurring. We recognize that the
level of change proposed is outside of what is considered
common-sense in current organizations (that is, it requires
a system where such things as pro?t and growth do not
come ?rst). As such, we believe it is important to expose
organizations’ discursive practices and to critique these
in an aim to move towards less unsustainable
organizations.
Our attempt to expose organizational identities and
their role in preserving ‘faith’ and ‘business as usual’ fol-
lows with an examination of each of the three relatively
distinct representations of sustainable organizations over
time and their apparent effects.
(Re)Presenting ‘sustainable organizations’: Three
evolving identities and their effects
10
In line with the above mentioned identi?cation by
Jørgensen and Phillips’ (2002, p. 24) of the role of the dis-
course analyst with regards to the analysis of hegemony
and the construction of meaning, we ‘‘plot the course’’ of
the struggle to ?x meaning to the nodal point ‘sustainable
organization’ by a group of reporting organizations. We fo-
cus on a discussion of three evolving identities that emerge
from our longitudinal analysis of the texts and their con-
text. These three distinct identities capture the ways in
which the nodal point has been partially ?lled with con-
tent over time, and allow for a consideration of the poten-
tial effects of these constructions. In recognizing that
hegemony is not based simply on domination and coercion
but rather on demonstration of moral and intellectual lead-
ership, we focus on how these representations construct
the identity of ‘sustainable organizations’ and how they
make certain elements come to be viewed as natural or
taken-for-granted, and in the process how they marginal-
ize and subjugate.
As outlined, from a holistic consideration of the themes
identi?ed from the texts and a consideration of their emer-
gence and presence throughout the time period analyzed,
three distinct identities over time in relation to sustainable
development emerge. These identities and the key ele-
ments from the context within which they appear are out-
lined in Table 1.
1992–1999: Environmentally responsible and compliant
organizations
The ?rst distinct identity which emerges from our anal-
ysis appears between 1992 and 1999. Within this distinct
identity, when constituting the nodal point ‘sustainable
organizations’, organizations are identi?ed as portraying
a sense of social and environmental responsibility and also
constituted as compliant with the law. The main themes
drawn upon in this construction are sustainable organiza-
tions as providers and sustainable organizations as com-
mitted and responsible.
Providing or contributing to community and/or envi-
ronmental initiatives is a key feature in many of the early
texts and consequently a key feature in this ?rst distinct
identity. Organizations in these early reports are consti-
tuted as providers of a range of things including: sponsor-
ship to the sports and arts (e.g., Port of Tauranga,
10
Due to space constraints, and to allow room for interpretation and
discussion, only a small sample of extracts from the texts is offered. In total
1,690 extracts were analyzed with between 53 and 534 extracts per theme.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 485
TrustPower); support for environmental and charitable
organizations (e.g., Watercare Services, Telecom); rescue
and emergency services (e.g., TranzRail, Telecom); recrea-
tional facilities (e.g., Meridian Energy, Ports of Auckland,
Waste Management NZ); and perhaps most notably, edu-
cation (either as providers of funding for education or pro-
viding the education itself). As noted in one report,
A good corporate citizen will always be involved in the
community at levels other than the ones that immedi-
ately bene?t themselves (TrustPower, 1998, p. x).
Althoughanaltruistic perspective was evident, anad hoc
approach to sponsorship and support arrangements ap-
pears to be takenin these early texts. Nonetheless, the infer-
ence is that the responsible organization is not one that just
takes and provides goods and/or services (economic
responsibility), but also one that gives back to the wider
community (social and environmental responsibility).
Statements in relation to commitment and responsibil-
ity across these early years of reporting refer to an organi-
zational commitment to compliance and, to some extent,
consultation with stakeholders. While commitment to
consultation may, at ?rst, appear limited, it is important
to note that this is at the time when the Resource Manage-
ment Act was introduced into New Zealand and brought
with it signi?cant changes for organizations who were
seeking resource consents and operating under this new
legislation. The Resource Management Act was at the time
considered to be at the forefront of worldwide environ-
mental legislation and therefore compliance with it con-
sidered to be leading edge environmental responsibility.
The stated organizational commitment to stakeholder con-
sultation at this time too can be related to the Resource
Management Act with wider community participation in
resource decisions being one of its cornerstone principles.
Furthermore, and as discussed further below, references
to commitment in these early statements often go beyond
a general statement to identify precisely how this commit-
ment is actually ‘demonstrated’ – for example, compliance
and consultation are often identi?ed with the existence of
an environmental policy or environmental management
system, and particular stakeholder groups.
Overall, in these early texts, there is a low level of con-
sideration of the organization’s identity in relation to sus-
tainable development explicitly (rather instead focusing
on environmental and social responsibility). This low level
of consideration of the organization’s identity speci?cally
in relation to sustainable development is consistent with
the context at the time and the largely absent threat of
sustainable development as a concept requiring organiza-
tional attention. Despite the Brundtland Report being re-
leased in 1987 and organizations internationally
discussing and organizing around the concept of sustain-
able development (e.g., the establishment of the WBCSD),
the concept of sustainable development was only just
emerging in the New Zealand business context and was
yet to constitute a substantive hegemonic threat. Focus
instead was on the national context and by complying
with the Resource Management Act and its principles of
consultation and sustainable management, organizations
were presented as (arguably world) leaders in environ-
mental responsibility.
Table 1
Three distinct identities 1992–2010.
1992–1999 2000–2004 2005–2010
Environmentally responsible and
compliant organizations
Organizations as leaders in Sustainable Development Strategically ‘good’ organizations
Description
Organizations portray a sense of social
and environmental responsibility
and comply with the law
Organizations portray a sense of leadership through
characteristics of trust, honesty and knowledge, as
well as through the act of reporting itself
Organizations are both good at business and good
businesses – they are strategic and socially/
environmentally and economically responsible
Themes
Providers Providers
– Ad hoc philanthropy and important
products and services directly and
indirectly related to core business
– Strategic philanthropy
Responsible and committed Responsible and committed Responsible and committed
– Compliance mentality – Association memberships – Long term commitments (e.g. green buildings)
Transparent and accountable
– Business/accounting language used
In?uencers In?uencers
– Leaders of sustainable development – Knowledgeable (inform policy)
– Knowledgeable
Protectors
– Resource dependent Partners (internal and external stakeholders –
mainly staff, customers and suppliers)
International context
Earth Summit Global Reporting Initiative and Earth Summit II Global Financial Crisis
Domestic context
Resource Management Act 1991 NZBCSD and Sustainable Business Network (local
networks)
NZBCSD and Sustainable Business Network (local
networks)
486 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
If the production of separate non-?nancial reports
themselves are viewed as a product of the hegemonic
threat of sustainable development, the low levels of so-
cial/environmental and/or sustainability reporting during
this early period also suggests such a threat was not being
considered seriously. In all but one instance, there was a
complete absence of stand-alone reporting during this per-
iod. The reporting organizations in this period are also
notably mainly large in size and many are utilities, heavy
polluters or resource dependent organizations. These orga-
nizations represent those that were most impacted upon
by the national legislation, the Resource Management
Act. At this time, we suggest, being environmentally
responsible and legally compliant with cutting edge envi-
ronmental legislation (Jackson & Dixon, 2007) was more
than adequate to maintain legitimacy and hence became
the focus of the constructed identity.
This initial engagement with the concept of sustainable
development (or more accurately ‘sustainable manage-
ment’ as it was enshrined in the Resource Management
Act) and the apparent relationship between organizations
and the environment and society, however, does set the
preliminary stage for the identity constructions that fol-
low. Along with the connotations that follow notions of
commitment, we see, in this period, the establishment of
organizations as natural actors to take responsibility for
and care for the environment and society. We observe,
consistent with the arguments and analysis of Levy
(1997) and Prasad and Elmes (2005) and the ?ndings of
Tregidga and Milne (2006) and Milne et al. (2009) how, rel-
atively seamlessly, the environment and society are inte-
grated as a part of ‘normal’ organizational operations.
These two elements of the sustainable organization iden-
tity (i.e., organizations as natural actors in sustainable
development and the integration of the environmental
and social responsibility into operations) are established
as taken-for-granted, and endure throughout the subse-
quent emerging identities. These enduring characteristics
establish a legitimate role for organizations within sustain-
able development, and, as discussed below, arguably work
to ward off potential hegemonic threat.
2000–2004 Organizations as leaders in sustainable
development
In 2000 there is a sharp increase in the number of
reporting companies, most likely aligned to the establish-
ment and prominence of the NZBCSD, the Sustainable Busi-
ness Network, the Global Reporting Initiative and
enhanced knowledge and practice of ‘sustainability report-
ing’ internationally. The year 2000 coincided with the re-
lease of the second version of the Global Reporting
Initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines (Global
Reporting Initiative, 2000). In 2002, the KPMG triennial
survey of international stand-alone reporting made clear
references to sustainability reporting, the NZBCSD issued
a guideline on corporate sustainable development report-
ing, and the UNEP/SustainAbility Global reporters bench-
mark survey, entitled Trust Us, was released (KPMG,
2002; NZBCSD, 2002; UNEP/SustainAbility, 2002). The
diversity of stand-alone reporters also increased in this
period.
Aligned with these changes, from 2000 until 2004 a dif-
ferent identity is constructed from that seen in 1992–1999.
While some of the themes that make up the content of the
nodal point are the same, the overall construction of the
sustainable organization identity is one of leadership. The
identity of organizations as leaders in sustainable develop-
ment recognized in this period is built on implied charac-
teristics of trust, honesty/transparency and responsibility,
themes which echoed the contemporary and wider devel-
opments in both the national and international reporting
context. This identity is established most notably through
reference to three themes: representation of organizations
as responsible and committed; as transparent and
accountable; and, particularly, as knowledgeable.
The theme of commitment is evident in a different way
during this second period. Unlike the ?rst identity con-
struction, references to compliance, and particularly envi-
ronmental legal compliance, do not feature within
references to commitment. References to compliance with
the Resource Management Act, now ten years old, were
likely no longer suf?cient to demonstrate ‘sustainability’,
and particularly not by ‘knowledgeable leaders’ keen to
maintain legitimacy and demonstrate superiority.
Around the year 2000, not only was there an increas-
ingly vibrant international discourse around sustainable
development that directly involved business, it had begun
to spill into New Zealand with the formation of the
NZBCSD, and member organizations needed to demon-
strate that they were up with the play and that they had
moved ‘beyond (legal) compliance’. Moreover, and initially
at least, the nature of these discussions of sustainable
development echoed wider international debates at the
Earth Summits which had the potential to severely threa-
ten business-as-usual. With references emerging that de-
?ned sustainable development as within ‘‘social and
ecological limits’’, about ‘‘future generations’’ and needing
to consider issues of equity (Milne et al., 2009), New Zea-
land organizations proclaiming their sustainability creden-
tials needed to change and rearticulate a new commitment
and identity.
An initial, and relatively easy step, was to ‘demonstrate’
commitment through references to membership of associ-
ations, most commonly the NZBCSD (from 2000) and the
Sustainable Business Network (from 2004), rather than
explicitly through links to the presence of an organiza-
tional level policy or an environmental management sys-
tem as seen in the earlier identity. Alignment with such
perceived ‘legitimate’ associations with in?uence poten-
tially increases the legitimacy of member organizations
(and vice versa) (see Lindblom, 1993) and contributes to
the overall leadership identity recognized here.
Through membership of such associations, organiza-
tions communicate their ‘legitimacy’ and ‘in?uence’, and
also ‘leadership’.
The move away from representing commitment as legal
compliance and speci?c organizational practices (e.g. poli-
cies, environmental management systems) to one of mem-
bership to external associations arguably introduces
vagueness and ambiguity to an organization’s position
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 487
and identity. Organizations are no longer committed to
environmental responsibility or sustainable development
by what they claim to do, but rather by who or what they
claim to belong to. ‘Beyond compliance’ has the capacity to
communicate something novel and ‘extra’, yet at the same
time it also introduces uncertainly since it is no longer
speci?ed what that ‘something’ is. In this study, member-
ship, without the expression of practices or actions at-
tached, signals commitment in a more vacuous way than
previously. By universalizing commitment to sustainable
development without articulating particular content, orga-
nizations work to achieve consent and maintain hegemony
in ways that carry no particular requirements for action. As
recognized by Ihren and Roper (2011, p.6) in the context of
sustainability reporting, and observed in Milne et al.
(2006) with regard to organizational constructions of sus-
tainability as a journey, strategic ambiguity (see Eisenberg,
1984) ‘‘can unite participants with incommensurable ide-
ologies in an on-going debate’’.
A further key element within this second identity is that
of sustainable organizations as ‘accountable and transpar-
ent’. This theme is also most prominent during 2000–2004,
re?ecting the reporting context, and particularly the emer-
gence of the Global Reporting Initiative and the NZBCSD
reporting guidelines. Instances of language sharing and
‘intertexuality’ (Fairclough, 1992) between the organiza-
tional reports and the guidelines constituting the reporting
context are commonplace. However, the emergence of this
theme may also be due in part to wider changes in society
and more direct expectations from stakeholders of organi-
zations, as noted by Shell NZ (2001/2001, p. xiii):
Reports like The Shell Report and this Review are
important because they demonstrate part of the jour-
ney from a ‘trust me’ world – one in which stakeholders
are asked to trust that we were operating in a sustain-
able and careful manner – to a ‘show me’ world – where
stakeholders rightly demand that we account for our
activities in an open and engaging manner.
11
This theme hints at the existence of, or at least the orga-
nizational awareness of, the need for a changed relation-
ship between organizations and society. By stating the
act of reporting as a means of producing (social and envi-
ronmental) accountability/transparency organizations rep-
resent themselves as being involved in a changed
relationship. Such a declaration may not provide a compel-
ling substantiation of how such transparency and account-
ability might be achieved (say through ‘genuine’ acts of
stakeholder engagement), but it may not need to. As
Livesey and Kearins (2002) note, in their analysis of ‘sus-
tainability reports’, through the metaphor of transparency,
organizations may seek to establish a relationship of trust.
Establishing the concepts of accountability and transpar-
ency, whatever they may actually mean, as part of what
it means to be a ‘sustainable organization’, even rhetori-
cally, may serve to partially ?ll the nodal point with posi-
tive identity character traits such as openness, honesty,
transparency, accountability and trust/trustworthiness.
Such characteristics are often associated with respected
authorities, leaders and good reputations.
In addition, explicitly constituting organizations during
this second period as ‘leaders in sustainable development’
is a key development.
The Warehouse has often taken a leadership role in sus-
tainability in New Zealand. . .The Warehouse is
acknowledging that it is taking a leadership role to chal-
lenge other New Zealand businesses and an in?uencing
role for other stakeholders (The Warehouse, 2001, p. 1).
As above, when representing organizations as leaders in
sustainable development, the texts draw on context. Lead-
ership, like commitment, is often proclaimed on the basis
of membership to ‘sustainable’ business associations. Some
(e.g., Watercare Services, Landcare Research) also present
membership of these associations as a sign and con?rma-
tion of their existing superior knowledge and leadership
role. Thus, a mutually reinforcing relationship is
maintained.
The organizational identity of leader in sustainable
development is present not only in the reports of those
that have been reporting for a number of years, but also
among the new reporters. The lack of maturity in pro-
claimed sustainable development practices or its reporting,
then, provides no barrier to organizations professing their
leadership. Instead, organizations are able to present
themselves as leaders through the language used, narra-
tives constructed and particularly references to their
attachment to ‘progressive’ associations and initiatives
(e.g. NZBCSD, Sustainable Business Network and Global
Reporting Initiative).
By now, business associations (e.g., WBCSD) and others
(e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, KPMG, UNEP/SustainAbil-
ity, Elkington) had seriously, and somewhat successfully,
attempted to ?ll the signi?er sustainable development
within the business context with elements of concern for
the measurement, management, and reporting of the so-
cial, environmental and economic impacts of organiza-
tions, that is, the triple bottom line (see Elkington, 1997;
Livesey, 2001; Milne & Gray, 2012; Milne et al., 2009;
Tregidga & Milne, 2006). What was required to convey
the identity of the ‘sustainable organization’, then, was
organizational knowledge of those elements of concern,
and a willingness to at least signal an organizational
responsibility for them, to be accountable for them and,
through reporting, to be transparent about them. This is
what an organizational leader in sustainable development
does, or at least proclaims to do. And it is arguably through
this process of articulation and proclamation that the role
of ‘sustainability reporting’ becomes critically important in
the representation of the sustainable organization. Not
11
This extract does not just imply that Shell is open and transparent, but
also suggests that Shell is operating in a ‘‘sustainable and careful manner’’.
Moreover, through noting the change from a ‘trust me’ to a ‘show me’
world, Shell implies not only that it is now operating in such a sustainable
manner – but also that it was previously. While Shell may have changed its
communication outlook, this extract does not necessarily suggest there has
been a change in behavior or performance. Indeed, it may be read as
suggesting there is no need for such a change. Ihren and Roper (2011) draw
similar conclusions in their analysis of international sustainability report-
ing. They note that when reporting on sustainability that the corporations
analyzed present a position where the ‘‘corporations have not only arrived,
they have been here a long time’’.
488 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
only do the reports provide the means by which to render
an ‘account’ of the measurement and management of an
organization’s social and environmental impacts, they are
the primary means by which to articulate and substantiate
the identity, and existence of the sustainable organization.
Previously, under a novel and dominant regime of sustain-
able management under the Resource Management Act,
reporting and external communication played a much less
signi?cant role in the identity construction.
Ongoing articulations as to what constitutes ‘sustain-
able organizations’ are likely to have been required in or-
der to maintain hegemony within the changing context
where sustainable development was becoming more com-
monplace and social and environmental concerns within
the business context more prominent. To what extent
organizational reports and their identity constructions
within can help gain or maintain a dominant or hegemonic
position is dif?cult to judge. Knowledge about organiza-
tional sustainable development is neither neutral nor
objective but rather ?lled from a position of interest and
constituted in a ?eld of power relations. How it is that
we know something and the process whereby something
becomes established as ‘fact’ are always inside power rela-
tions (Foucault, 1977/1980) and the result of articulations
and political struggles (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). What we
are con?dent our analysis does show is that by articulating
themselves as knowledgeable leaders of sustainable devel-
opment, along with the attributes of openness, honesty,
transparency, being accountable and trusting/trustworthy,
organizations maintained ‘a right to speak’ and so estab-
lished the means by which to potentially in?uence the
evolving (and potentially threatening) discourses of sus-
tainable development. Establishing the means to be taken
seriously because of who the organization is or who it
claims to be, as well as what it knows or claims to know,
is an important step in the hegemonic potential of organi-
zations. To what extent the organizations analyzed have
been taken seriously, and to what extent they have in?u-
enced the broader organizational and societal discourses
on sustainable development during this period is less cer-
tain. From our point of view, however, what remains criti-
cal is less their actual in?uence, but that they have now
sought to use sustainability reporting as a means to artic-
ulate a changed organizational identity, and so have the
potential to in?uence more broadly what is appropriate
in this domain.
2005–2010 Strategically ‘good’ organizations
In the last and most recent time period analyzed, a third
and distinct organizational identity of strategically ‘good’
organizations emerges. Good organizations are portrayed
as good in two senses of the word – good in the business
sense and good in relation to responsibility towards the
environment and society. The ‘good’ construction is similar
to the ‘win–win’ discourse common in the business dis-
course (Milne et al., 2009) as it is represented as having
bene?ts for both the organization and the environment
and/or society. While ‘being good’ is implied in all themes
noted during this period (e.g., responsible and committed,
in?uencers), it is perhaps through the themes of provider
and partner that this identity becomes most clear.
In this latter part of the reporting archive the theme of
provider changes from the provider of many things and of
ad hoc sponsorship, as observed in the ?rst period, to the
provision of focused support (usually ?nancial) for a small
number of causes either relevant to the organization or
seen as important to the community/environment. In
many cases this more strategic approach to changes in
practice is subtle or not stated, but others, such as Telecom
(2009, p. 41) make their approach explicit:
In 2010 we will be making announcements about the
new direction for our community support, focused on
a small number of community organisations under the
general theme of ‘better futures for your New
Zealanders’.
This more strategic approach is constructed not only as
being a good and responsible business but also as good
business practice. It emerges in our sample of texts during
2008–2009, which coincides with the global ?nancial crisis
during which New Zealand experienced a recession. The
impact of a constrained economic climate seems likely to
have necessitated a movement away from the need for
bold proclamations of being a ‘sustainable organization’
in the sense of being a knowledgeable and committed lea-
der of sustainable development, to one of demonstrating a
focus on ‘‘?nancial sustainability’’ or ‘‘?nancial responsibil-
ity’’. In 2009, the economic and political landscape in New
Zealand (indeed globally) was radically different from that
seen 10 years earlier. Simply abandoning all prior commit-
ments to sustainable development, however, had the po-
tential to damage organizational reputation, and so what
appears to emerge in this ?nal period of our analysis is
an identity which conveys a clearer reiteration of economic
priorities and a retrenchment of social and environmental
responsibilities. Our ?ndings therefore ?nd a similar trend
to Spence (2007). He notes Bebbington and Thomson
(1996) showed that business conceptions of sustainable
development in the 1990s contained a greater acceptance
of con?icts between business and society than did his
study. This trend is re?ected here with more challenging
notions entering the identity construction earlier, but
these are almost negligible in this latter identity – in par-
ticular where business and environmental performance
are somewhat equated.
In addition to articulating ‘focused’ support and provi-
sion, a key theme in articulating the ‘good’ organization
is by means of partnerships. Sustainable organizations
are constituted as partners of a range of internal and exter-
nal stakeholders. Staff, customers and suppliers are all rep-
resented as key partners and networks and relationships
are communicated as important for successful, and ‘sus-
tainable organizations’. By now, however, it is becoming
clearer that ‘sustainable organizations’ are those that
maintain ?nancial/economic viability. Partnerships are of-
ten portrayed as mutually bene?cial and the reporting
organization is often positioned central to, and fostering,
the partnership (e.g. working with suppliers or customers
to assist them in becoming ‘more sustainable’). This theme
and its presentation signi?es the greatest effect on the
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 489
organizational reports in relation to their structure and
content. Case studies and stakeholder attestations are a
common device. Some reports, such as Port of Tauranga’s
2009 report, appear nearly as much about the stories and
views of employees and customers as they are about the
organization’s own performance and impacts. While orga-
nizational centrality is not challenged here, the organiza-
tional boundaries are once again broadened. The
sustainable organization becomes positioned as a ‘good’
organization seeking others to work with and, given the
positive nature of the stories presented, successful at doing
so.
This third identity in relation to organizations and sus-
tainable development represents a further maturing of the
constitution of sustainable development, but also arguably
a weakening, and a further convolution of sustainable
development with Corporate Social Responsibility and Cor-
porate Citizenship. Such an identity more clearly aligns
with the economically rational organizational identity evi-
dent in the positive accounting and organizational studies
literature yet seeming to adopt environmental and social
sensibilities, to the extent that they are strategically
aligned with the economic viability and ?nancial success
of the organization. It asserts far less problematically than
before that an organization can be both run ef?ciently and
productively as well as being ‘responsible’. Indeed, this is
what being a sustainable organization appears to have
come to ‘mean’, and perhaps represents a more authentic
construction of the identity of a ‘sustainable organization’.
In his analysis of the hegemonic discourse of social and
environmental reporting, Spence (2007, p. 865) notes that
business discourse ‘‘does not ignore or refute the demands
and the criticisms made of it by marginal social move-
ments. Rather, these demands are brought into business
discourse insofar as they can be made to cohere with busi-
ness’s fundamental aims of pro?t and growth’’. This iden-
tity reveals how business discourse, through this
manifestation of the sustainable organization nodal point,
has aligned aspects of the discourse of sustainable devel-
opment with discourses of pro?t and success.
‘Becoming’ sustainable
The above discussion has analyzed how the nodal point
‘sustainable organizations’ has been ?lled with content
over time and its effects through the consideration of three
distinct and evolving identities that emerged from an anal-
ysis of the texts. It shows the ‘rise and fall’ of an explicitly
constructed organizational identity based on proclaimed
knowledge of and leadership in sustainable development.
It also shows the rise and importance of sustainability
and stand-alone reporting as the means by which to artic-
ulate such an identity. And it also shows that the three
identities that emerge and evolve are inextricably bound
up in the economic, political, organizational and reporting
contexts in which they emerge. Arguably, these changing
and evolving identities form part of the means by which
organizations seek to maintain legitimacy and power and
in?uence (hegemony) in broader debates over economic
and social and environmental priorities. Yet, when consid-
ering the hegemonic potential of such organizational
discourse and related identity it is also important to con-
sider the concept of closure. As Spence (2007) notes, and
as discussed above, while meaning can never fully be ?xed
certain discourses can come to dominate others and be-
come the main guide for action. The ability to engage in
such dialogues, and more importantly to gain legitimacy
within such discussions and the ability to be ‘heard’, we
suggest, can be linked to the organizational identities con-
structed in relation to sustainable development analyzed
in this paper.
Unlike organizational references to ‘the meaning’ of the
concept of sustainable development which are relatively
commonplace in the reports, statements which provide a
clear de?nition of the nodal point ‘sustainable organiza-
tions’ are largely absent. Indeed, only one concise state-
ment within the texts was identi?ed, and that itself is
not a particularly clear or direct statement since it is
couched as aspirational.
We endorse the triple bottom line perspective that for
an organisation to be sustainable it must be ?nancially
secure, must minimise its negative environmental
impacts and must act in conformity with societal expec-
tations (Metrowater, 2001, p. 1).
The absence of statements stating what constitutes a
‘sustainable organization’ could be interpreted as repre-
senting uncertainty around the concept. Alternatively, it
could indicate that the organizations analyzed here have
not reached a position where they have conceptualized
what it means to be sustainable, they do not directly align
their current identity with that of a sustainable organiza-
tion, or that strategically, they avoid such precise expres-
sion. Regardless, the openness of the construction is
likely to assist in achieving social consent as, while con-
taining some particular themes, the construction of the
sustainable development concept within this organiza-
tional context analyzed remains vague and universal.
Rather than identifying what ‘sustainable organizations’
mean or are, the texts focus on becoming (Tsoukas & Chia,
2002) sustainable, or what is required in order to be sus-
tainable. Most notably, the need to be ?nancially sound
or pro?table is by far the most common reported charac-
teristic of ‘sustainable organizations’ in the texts analyzed.
To be sustainable a business must be ?nancially sound
and able to provide the means for its future growth
(TrustPower, 2001, p. 11).
Ultimately, through the avoidance of de?nitive and
holistic statements articulating what sustainable organiza-
tions are, instead using a series of themes which are im-
bued with mostly positive characteristics, the nodal point
of the sustainable organization is partially ?lled with con-
tent while leaving the meaning open enough to allow
space for, and be unchallenging of growth and pro?tability.
Fundamental challenges posed by some variants of sus-
tainable development are left unacknowledged in the con-
struction of the ‘sustainable organization’ identity, such as,
for example, meeting the needs of the world’s poor, or any-
thing particularly explicit about providing for future gener-
ations (WCED, 1987). Yet through the lack of closure to the
concept and no clear de?nitive articulation as to what a
490 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
sustainable organization is (or is not), these absences or si-
lences are also not completely excluded. The incomplete
nature of the identity construction helps to gain consent
(since it remains open enough to include multiple posi-
tions) as well as potentially helps to ward off critique.
However, since the nodal point is not closed, and cannot
ever be fully ?xed, continued (re)presentation of the iden-
tity is required. And this perhaps signals a further positive
attribute to it remaining free from tight speci?cation. It
creates a form of strategic ambiguity that permits its rear-
ticulation as times and contexts change, and a new version
of the sustainable organization identity is required to meet
new hegemonic threats and maintain legitimacy and sur-
vive. Questions remain such as ‘how will the sustainable
organization identity evolve into the future?’, and ‘what
is the best way to engage in order to in?uence future iden-
tity constructions so that they are more socially and envi-
ronmentally emancipatory?’. Further research in this area
is therefore needed. Some potential directions for future
research are outlined below.
Concluding comments and further research
This paper contributes to the literature which analyzes
the discourse of sustainable development within corporate
reports and the organizational context more broadly. It
draws on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory as a means
to understand the ?uid and changing nature of identity
construction and consider identity renegotiation and
(re)articulation in order to resist threats and maintain
hegemony. In our analysis of how organizations have con-
structed an identity in relation to sustainable develop-
ment, three evolving identities over time have been
identi?ed from the organizational discourse within corpo-
rate reports, which are themselves considered to be a prod-
uct of the hegemonic threat of sustainable development.
We believe an understanding of the way in which orga-
nizations are positioned within the discursive debate on
sustainable development has been overlooked in past re-
search and is useful to further our understanding of sus-
tainable development within the organizational context,
and the ancillary role of sustainability reporting. Such an
understanding is also important if we wish to critically re-
sist (Gaf?kin, 2009) the organizational discourse and real-
ize the emancipatory potential of the social and
environmental accounting project. Resistance is likely to
require not only challenging what is said, but also who is
saying it, and the identities that they adhere to.
An understanding of constructed identity is important
given that the potential effect of these representations
and the identities that they constitute is the establishment
of a powerful ‘right to speak’ and be heard within the sus-
tainable development debate. Considering reporting as a
strategic, symbolic and legitimizing device, we ?nd that
organizations are positioned from early on as natural and
legitimate actors to take care of society and the environ-
ment. Through the constitution of organizations as central,
society and the environment are positioned as subordinate,
rather than fundamental to the opus of business. This posi-
tioning of organizations and the evolving nature of the
sustainable organization identity, we argue, work to
engender a ‘‘trust us’’ attitude, and perhaps wrongfully
encourage what is referred to by Spence (2009), and
acknowledged in our introduction, as faith in the corpora-
tion as an emancipatory change agent.
The representations of ‘sustainable organizations’ found
here might lead some, including powerful institutional ac-
tors like governments, to assume all is well, that organiza-
tions are, or at least are becoming, reformed ‘sustainable’
actors, when the change they posit may be largely rhetor-
ical. An obvious danger is that while organizations are able
to convey an adaptable and ‘changed’ identity to meet the
demands of a changed social and political context, and
thereby maintain legitimacy and avoid more stringent reg-
ulatory reform, the nature of that ‘change’ is not suf?cient
to provide for social and environmental betterment in the
absence of such regulatory reform. These identity con-
structions may serve to reinforce the organizational posi-
tion, and in the process the organizational position
obfuscates apparent transparency and accountability
(Hopwood, 2009; Messner, 2009). Further incisive insights
into these representations could help resist and counter
the organizational discourse on sustainable development.
For example, positions of trust and transparency estab-
lished in the texts have been challenged by shadow and si-
lent reports (see, for example, ASH, Christian Aid & Friends
of the Earth, 2005; Friends of the Earth, 2011) and other
academic work that exposes inaccuracies (Jowit, 2011).
There are several areas for future research that arise
from this study which could advance the broader aim of
the social and environmental accounting project. Whether
the representations of ‘sustainable organizations’ noted
here are the same in organizational and non-organizational
texts beyond the organizational report, and beyond the re-
ports and context analyzed here, requires investigation.
We also see value in case studies which further investigate
the construction of sustainable organizational identities
and their effects. In addition to studies of organizational
presence or in?uence in relevant policy debates and out-
comes as noted above, ethnographies where researchers
are located within the organization and view a range of
constitutive communication practices such as signs, sym-
bols actual practices and practice rationales, would give
unique insight into how sustainable organizations are con-
structed and the effects over time. By focusing on corpo-
rate reports, this paper has analyzed a relatively discrete
archive of texts where resistance or con?ict is largely ab-
sent. Studies of such debates where resistance and con?ict
are evident would be advantageous in further exploring
constructions of organizational identity in relation to sus-
tainable development.
In addition, and where we believe these ?ndings could
be extended to have the greatest impact, is the opportunity
to create constructive engagements with organizations and
other interested individuals or groups. Providing antago-
nisms (e.g. critically engaging with organizations over their
constitution of what a ‘sustainable organization’ is) as well
as providing and engaging in discussions (e.g. at public for-
ums, through establishment of, or contribution to, web-
sites engaging in these issues, or feeding ?ndings back to
individuals or groups who attempt to counter or resist
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 491
organizations) could all formpart of a larger research agen-
da which engages with, counters, and seeks to move be-
yond the hegemonic position of organizations in
sustainable development debates. Our own activity here
has been limited to invited critique of one signi?cant re-
porter, assisting another, and public addresses and engage-
ment in judging both sustainable business and
sustainability reporting awards. Here we seek to go beyond
rhetoric to ?nd evidence of substantive change and
encourage others to do so in a bid to extend the impact
of academic work. Recognizing the constructed identities,
including their subtleties, changes over time and hege-
monic characteristics, we believe, is a useful platform for
prompting a wide range of engagement by academics.
We also believe engagement and informed resistance are
also essential if scholars are to help realize the emancipa-
tory potential of social and environmental accounting.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the
2008 Academy of Management Meeting, Anaheim, and
the Accounting and Commercial Law Seminar Series at Vic-
toria University, Wellington. We would like to thank refer-
ees and participants from these events. We would also like
to thank the Editor and two anonymous journal referees
for their helpful and constructive comments. This work
was funded through the Royal Society of New Zealand’s
Marsden Fund, Grant No. 02-UOO-120 New Zealand Busi-
ness and Sustainability: Critically Analysing Discourse
and Practice.
References
Aritz, J., & Walker, C. (Eds.). (2012). Discourse perspectives on organizational
communication. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
ASH, Christian Aid & Friends of the Earth (2005). BAT in its own words.
.
Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I., (1996). Business conceptions of sustainability
and implications for accountancy, London: Chartered Association of
Certi?ed Accountants.
Brown, A. (2001). Organization studies and identity: Towards a research
agenda. Human Relations, 54(1), 113–121.
Brown, A. (2003). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report.
Organization Studies, 25(1), 95–112.
Brown, A., & Humphreys, M. (2006). Organizational identity and place: A
discursive exploration of hegemony and resistance. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(2), 231–257.
Bruno, K., & Karliner, J. (2002). Earthsummit.biz: The corporate takeover of
sustainable development. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.
Buhr, N., & Rieter, S. (2006). Ideology, the environment and one
worldview: A discourse analysis of Noranda’s environmental and
sustainable development reports. Advances in Environmental
Accounting and Management, 3, 1–48.
Carroll, A. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and
Society Review, 100(101), 1–7.
Castro, C. J. (2004). Sustainable development: Mainstream and critical
perspectives. Organization and Environment, 17(2), 195–225.
Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple
identities. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages
between internal and external communication. In F. Jablin & L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cheney, G. (1992). The corporate person (re)presents itself. In E. Toth & R.
Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clarke, C. A., Brown, A. D., & Hope Hailey, V. (2009). Working identities?
Antagonistic discursive resources and managerial identity. Human
Relations, 62(3), 323–352.
Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and
organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1),
91–112.
Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication,
organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the
special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.
Dewar, K. (1999). Sustainable management – Enacting the RMA. In N.
Monin, J. Monin, & R. Walker (Eds.), Narratives of business and society:
Differing New Zealand voices (pp. 265–277). Auckland: Longman.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism
and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eden, S. (1994). Using sustainable development: The business case. Global
Environmental Change, 4(2), 160–167.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational
communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st
century business. Oxford: Capstone.
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the
institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science,
21(5), 1092–1107.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic textual analysis
within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217.
Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening.
Organization Studies, 17(3), 478–500.
Foucault, M. (1977/1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/
knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977
(pp. 78–108). Sussex: Harvester Press.
Friends of the Earth (2011). Erratum to the Annual Report. .
Fuoli, M. (2012). Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of
appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse and
Communication, 6(1), 55–81.
Gaf?kin, M. (2009). Twenty-one years of critical resistance – Almost: A
re?ection. Accounting Forum, 33, 268–273.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). (2000). Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Grant, D., Iedema, R., & Oswick, C. (2009). Discourse and critical
management studies. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, & H. Willmott
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2001). Organizational discourse: Key
contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 31(3), 5–24.
Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental, and sustainability reporting and
organizational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation?
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for
sustainability. . . and how would we know? An exploration of
narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Gray, R., Dillard, J., & Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting research as if the
world matters. Public Management Review, 11(5), 545–573.
Greer, J., & Bruno, K. (1996). Greenwash: The reality behind corporate
environmentalism. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.
Grundy, K. (2000). Purpose and principles: Interpreting section 5 of the
Resource Management Act. In P. Memon & H. Perkins (Eds.),
Environmental planning and management in New Zealand
(pp. 64–73). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International
Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3), 25–47.
Hardy, C. (2011). How institutions communicate; or how does
communication institutionalize? Management Communication
Quarterly, 25(1), 191–199.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in
the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20(1), 1–24.
Heikkurinen, P., & Ketola, T. (2012). Corporate responsibility and identity:
From a stakeholder to an awareness approach. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 21, 326–337.
Holland, L., & Foo, Y. B. (2003). Differences in environmental reporting
practices in the UK and the US: The legal and regulatory context.
British Accounting Review, 35, 1–18.
Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 433–439.
492 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and
political analysis. In D. Howarth, A. Norval, & Y. Stavrakakis (Eds.),
Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies, and social
change. Manchester: Manchester University.
Ihlen, O., & Roper, J. (2011). Corporate reports on sustainability and
sustainable development: ‘We have arrived’. Sustainable development.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.524.
International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC). (2011). Towards
integrated reporting: Communicating value in the 21st Century, .
Jackson, T., & Dixon, J. (2007). The New Zealand Resource Management
Act: an exercise in delivering sustainable development through an
ecological modernisation agenda. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 34, 107–120.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and
method. London: Sage.
Jowit, J. (2011). Howlers and omissions exposed in world of corporate
social responsibility. The Guardian, 24 November. .
KPMG (2002). KPMG International survey of corporate sustainability
reporting 2002. The Netherlands: KPMG Global Sustainability Services.
Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony: the role of universality in the
constitution of political logics. In J. Butler, E. Laclau, & S. Zizek (Eds.),
Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the
left. London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (1996). Universalism, particularism and the question of identity.
In E. Laclau (Ed.), Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a
radical democratic politics. London: Verso (W Moore & P Cammack,
Trans.).
Laclau, E. (1993). Power and representation. In M. Poster (Ed.), Politics,
theory and contemporary culture. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’ in
Finnish corporate disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 395–413.
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A
longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of a
leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054.
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.
Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing texts in context: Current practices
and new protocols for Critical Discourse Analysis in organization
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1194–1212.
Levy, D. (1997). Environmental management as political sustainability.
Organization and Environment, 10(2), 126–147.
Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. (2010). The contested politics of
corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative.
Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.
Levy, D., & Egan, D. (2003). A neo-gramscian approach to corporate
political strategy: Con?ict and accommodation in the climate change
negotiations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 803–829.
Lindblom, C. (1993). The implications of organizational legitimacy for
corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the
Critical Perspectives in Accounting Conference, New York.
Livesey, S. (1999). McDonald’s and the Environmental Defence Fund: A
case study of a green alliance. The Journal of Business Communication,
36(1), 5–39.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell,
Brent Spar, and Nigeria. The Journal of Business Communication, 38(1),
58–91.
Livesey, S. (2002a). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell
commits to sustainable development. Management Communication
Quarterly, 15(3), 313–349.
Livesey, S. (2002b). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse
analytic approaches to ExxonMobil’s corporate public discourse. The
Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117–148.
Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A
study of sustainability reports by The Body Shop and Royal Dutch/
Shell. Organization and Environment, 15(3), 233–258.
Martin, J. (2002). The political logic of discourse: A neo-Gramscian view.
History of European Ideas, 28, 21–31.
Mayhew, N. (1997). Fading to grey: The use and abuse of corporate
executives’ ‘representational power’. In R. Welford (Ed.), Hijacking
environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development
(pp. 63–95). London: Earthscan.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). The limits to growth: The
30-year update. White River Junction, USA: Chelsea Green.
Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 34, 918–938.
Metrowater (2001). Annual Report 2001, www.metrowater.co.nz.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-
being: Current state and trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.
Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2012). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line,
the Global Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting.
Journal of Business Ethics.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1543-8.
Milne, M. J. (2007). Downsizing Reg (Me and You)! Addressing the ‘real’
sustainability agenda at work and home. In R. H. Gray & J. J. Guthrie
(Eds.), Social accounting, mega accounting and beyond: Festschrift in
honour of Martin (Reg) Mathews. St Andrews: CSEAR.
Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in
wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental
sustainability. Organization, 13(6), 801–839.
Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not actions!: The
ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1211–1257.
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.
NZBCSD (New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development).
(2002). Business Guide to Sustainable Development Reporting. October
2002, Auckland: NZBCSD.
NZBCSD (New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development).
(2004). The journey: The ?rst ?ve years. Auckland: NZBCSD.
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? A personal re?ection on the
current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
21(2), 240–267.
Owen, D., Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: cosmetic
irrelevance or radical agenda for change? Asia-Paci?c Journal of
Accounting, 4(2), 175–198.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (1997). Managing multiple identities: Discourse,
legitimacy and resources in the UK refugee system. Organization, 4(2),
159–185.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of
social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Prasad, P., & Elmes, M. (2005). In the name of the practical: Unearthing
the hegemony of pragmatics in the discourse of environmental
management. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 845–867.
Putnam, L., & Nicotera, A. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization:
The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.
Resource Management Act. (1991). Wellington: New Zealand.
Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. W. (2011). The social construction of global
corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports for automotive
corporations. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 123–133.
Sillince, J., & Brown, A. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and
legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(2),
1829–1856.
Siltaoja, M. (2009). On the discursive construction of a socially
responsible organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25,
191–202.
Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic
discourse. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6),
855–882.
Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: A
Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 205–227.
Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A
perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 12, 71–86.
Sustainable Business Network (2011). .
[Accessed 11.12.11].
Telecom (2009). Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited Annual
Report,http://investor.telecom.co.nz/phoenix.zhtml?c=91956&p=
irol-reportsannualhist.
Tinker, T., & Neimark, M. (1987). The struggle over meaning in accounting
and corporate research. A comparative evaluation of conservative and
critical historiography. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 1(1),
55–74.
Tor?ng, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek.
Oxford: Blackwell.
H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494 493
Treasury. (2010). New Zealand economic and ?nancial overview 2010.
[Accessed 03.11.11].
Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. (2006). From sustainable management to
sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New
Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15, 219–241.
TrustPower (1998). Annual Report 1998,http://annualreport.trustpower.
co.nz/.
TrustPower (2001). 2001 Annual Report,http://annualreport.trustpower.
co.nz/.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking
organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.
UNEP (2012). Keeping track of our changing environment – from Rio to
Rio +20 (1992–2012). [Accessed 30.05.12].
UNEP/SustainAbility (2002). Trust Us: The Global Reporters 2002 Survey
of Corporate Sustainability, London.
Unerman, J. (2000). Re?ections on quanti?cation in corporate social
reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 123(5), 667–680.
Walker, B., Barret, S., Polasky, S., Galaz, V., Folke, C., et al. (2009). Looming
global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science, 325,
1345–1346.
Warehouse (2001). Triple Bottom Line Report 2001, http://
www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/content/homepage/investors/company-
reports/archived-company-reports.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2005).
Beyond reporting: Creating business value and accountability.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2006a).
Catalyzing change: A short history of the WBCSD.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2006b).
The business of health: The health of business. (produced in
association with the International Business Leaders Forum).
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2007a).
Doing business with the world: The new role of corporate leadership
in global development.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2009a).
Water for business: Initiatives guiding sustainable water
management in the private sector.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2009b).
Water, energy and climate.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2011).
WBCSD guide to corporate ecosystem valuation.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987).
Our common future (the Brundtland report). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Whiteman, G. (2010). Corporate greening falls short. Nature, 273,
149–150.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2012, May). Planetary boundaries:
ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. In Paper presented
at 4th annual conference of the Alliance for Research into Corporate
Sustainability, Yale, New Haven.
Worldwatch Institute (2008). State of the world 2008: Innovations for a
sustainable economy. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Worldwatch Institute (2011). State of the world 2011: Innovations that
nourish the planet. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Worldwatch Institute (2013). State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still
possible? Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
WWF. (2010). Living planet report 2010. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
[Accessed 03.02.10].
WWF (2012). Living planet report 2012: Biodiversity, biocapacity and better
choices. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
494 H. Tregidga et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (2014) 477–494
doc_692327405.pdf