Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP's and IKEA's social reports

Discourse and Communication

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 55-81

  Fuoli, Matteo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Appraisal; corporate identity; corporate social reports; corporate social responsibility; corpus based approaches to evaluation; discourse analysis; evaluation; legitimacy theory; stance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857821966     PISSN: 17504813     EISSN: 17504821     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1750481311427788     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Adams C,Harte G.The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British banks' and retail companies' corporate annual reports.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1998;23 (8): 781-812.
2. Arnold P.The state and political theory in corporate social disclosure research: A response to Guthrie and Parker.Advances in Public Interest Accounting. 1990;3 (2): 177-181.
3. Artstein R,Poesio M.Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics.Computational Linguistics. 2008;34 (4): 555-596.
4. Bakhtin MThe Dialogical Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1981:.
5. Bebbington J,Larrinaga C,Moneva J.Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2008;21 (3): 337-361.
6. Bednarek MEvaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd; 2006:.
7. Biber D,Finegan E.Adverbial stance types in English.Discourse Processes. 1988;11 (1): 1-34.
8. Biber D,Finegan E.Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 1989;9 (1): 93-124.
9. Biber D,Johansson S,Leech G,Conrad S,Finegan E,Quirk RLongman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999:.
10. Brown N,Deegan C.The public disclosure of environmental performance information: A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory.Accounting and Business Research. 1998;29 (1): 21-41.
11. Buhr N.Environmental performance, legislation and annual report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1998;11 (2): 163-190.
12. Buhr N and Reiter S (2006) Ideology, the environment and one world view: A discourse analysis of Noranda's environmental and sustainable development reports. In: Freedman M and Jaggi B (eds) Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 3. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1-48.
13. Campbell D,Craven B,Shrives P.Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: A comment on perception and legitimacy.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2003;16 (4): 558-581.
14. Carroll A,Shabana K.The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice.International Journal of Management Reviews. 2010;12 (1): 85-105.
15. Chafe W and Nichols J (eds) (1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
16. Chafe W (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: Chafe W and Nichols J (eds) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 261-272.
17. Cohen J.A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20 (1): 37-46.
18. Conrad S and Biber D (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Hunston S and Thompson G (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56-73.
19. Deegan C.Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures - a theoretical foundation.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2002;15 (3): 282-311.
20. Deegan C,Gordon B.A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations.Accounting and Business Research. 1996;26:187-199.
21. Deegan C,Rankin M.Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the environmental protection authority.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1996;9 (2): 50-67.
22. Deegan C,Rankin M,Tobin J.An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: A test of legitimacy theory.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2002;15 (3): 312-343.
23. Deegan C,Rankin M,Voght P.Firms' disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence.Accounting Forum. 2000;24 (1): 101-130.
24. Dowling J,Pfeffer J.Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior.Pacific Sociological Review. 1975;18 (1): 122-136.
25. Eggins SAn Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2004:.
26. Eggins S,Slade DAnalysing Casual Conversation. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd; 2005:.
27. Fairclough NDiscourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1992:.
28. Fairclough NAnalysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge; 2003:.
29. Gray R.The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society: Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2002;27 (7): 687-708.
30. Gray R,Javad M,Power D,Sinclair C.Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: A research note and extension.Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 2001;28 (3-4): 327-356.
31. Gray R,Kouhy R,Lavers S.Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1995;8 (2): 47-77.
32. Gray R,Owen D,Adams CAccounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. London: Prentice Hall; 1996:.
33. Halliday MLanguage as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold; 1978:.
34. Halliday MAn Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold; 1994:.
35. Hood S (2004) Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. PhD thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney. Available at: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/hoodS-phd links.htm (accessed 18 May 2011).
36. Hoye LAdverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman; 1997:.
37. Hunston S (1993) Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In: Ghadessy M (ed.) Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter Publishers, 57-73.
38. Hunston S (1994) Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In: Coulthard M (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, 191-218.
39. Hunston S (2004) Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In: Partington A, Morley J and Haarman L (eds) Corpora and Discourse. New York: Peter Lang, 157-188.
40. Hunston S,Thompson GEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:.
41. Hyland K.Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.Applied Linguistics. 1996;17 (4): 433-454.
42. KPMG (2008) International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Available at: http://www.kpmg.com/ (accessed 14 January 2011).
43. Krippendorff KContent Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2004:.
44. Laine M.Meanings of the term 'sustainable development' in Finnish corporate disclosures.Accounting Forum. 2005;29 (4): 395-413.
45. Laine M.Towards sustaining the status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987-2005.European Accounting Review. 2010;19 (2): 247-274.
46. Landis J,Koch G.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977;33 (1): 159-174.
47. Lischinsky A.The struggle over sustainability: A corpus approach to managerial conceptions of sustainable development. Proceedings of the Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across the Disciplines Conference; 2010Łódź, Poland; 2010.
48. Livesey S.The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable development.Management Communication Quarterly. 2002;15 (3): 313-349.
49. Livesey S,Kearins K.Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by the Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell.Organization & Environment. 2002;15 (3): 233-258.
50. Martin J.Reading positions/positioning readers: Judgment in English.Prospect. 1995;10 (2): 27-37.
51. Martin J (2000) Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In: Hunston S and Thompson G (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142-176.
52. Martin J,White PThe Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005:.
53. Milne M,Kearins K,Walton S.Playing with magic lanterns: The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development and corporate triple bottom line reporting. Proceedings of 4 APIRA Conference; 2005Singapore; 2005.
54. Milne M,Tregidga H,Walton S.Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2009;22 (8): 1211-1257.
55. Neu D,Warsame H,Pedwell K.Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1998;23 (3): 265-282.
56. O'Donovan G.Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2002;15 (3): 344-371.
57. Page R.An analysis of appraisal in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style.Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 2003;23 (2): 211-237.
58. Palmer FMood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001:.
59. Patten D.Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1992;17 (5): 471-475.
60. Roberts R.Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1992;17 (6): 595-612.
61. Shocker A,Sethi S.An approach to incorporating societal preferences in developing corporate social action.California Management Review. 1973;15 (4): 97-105.
62. Skulstad A (2008) Creating a green image in the public sphere: Corporate environmental reports in a genre perspective. In: Wodak R and Koller V (eds) Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 181-201.
63. Suchman M.Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.The Academy of Management Review. 1995;20 (3): 571-610.
64. Thomson I (2007) Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In: Unerman J, Bebbington J and O'Dwyer B (eds) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability. New York: Routledge, 19-37.
65. Tilling M,Tilt C.The edge of legitimacy: Voluntary social and environmental reporting in Rothmans' 1956-1999 annual reports.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2010;23 (1): 55-81.
66. Tinker T,Neimark M,Lehman C.Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: Political quietism in corporate social reporting.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1991;4 (2): 28-54.
67. Ullmann A.Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms.The Academy of Management Review. 1985;10 (3): 540-557.
68. WhiteP (2001) An introductory tour through Appraisal theory (word processor version). Available at: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal (accessed 18 May 2011).
69. White P.Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 2003;23 (2): 259-284.