Impression management, fabrication and myth creation in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving Goffman

This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees’ utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors’ shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the ‘performers’ (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.

Private climate change reporting: a discourse of risk and opportunity

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the nature of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, which takes place in one-on-one meetings between institutional investors and their investee companies. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from 20 UK investment institutions to derive data which was then coded and analysed, in order to derive a picture of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, using an interpretive methodological approach, in addition to explorative analysis using NVivo software. Findings – The authors find that private climate change reporting is dominated by a discourse of risk and risk management. This emerging risk discourse derives from institutional investors' belief that climate change represents a material risk, that it is the most salient sustainability issue, and that their clients require them to manage climate change-related risk within their portfolio investment. It is found that institutional investors are using the private reporting process to compensate for the acknowledged inadequacies of public climate change reporting. Contrary to evidence indicating corporate capture of public sustainability reporting, these findings suggest that the emerging private climate change reporting discourse is being captured by the institutional investment community. There is also evidence of an emerging discourse of opportunity in private climate change reporting as the institutional investors are increasingly aware of a range of ways in which climate change presents material opportunities for their investee companies to exploit. Lastly, the authors find an absence of any ethical discourse, such that private climate change reporting reinforces rather than challenges the “business case” status quo. Originality/value – Although there is a wealth of sustainability reporting research, there is no academic research on private climate change reporting. This paper attempts to fill this gap by providing rich interview evidence regarding the nature of the emerging private climate change reporting discourse.

International financial reporting standards (IFRS) as a change agent in Ukraine

This paper aims to examine the perception of key actors regarding the costs and benefits that result from adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Ukraine. Authors showed that IFRS implementation impacts on internal reporting quality, the relationship with customers, creditors and shareholders, the access to international markets and external financing. They also indicated that financial managers have serious concerns about implementation costs related to the introduction of IFRS. These costs relate to training, instruction on IFRS adoption and translation of current IFRS, changes in software systems, double purpose accounting and deadlines for IFRS adoption and consulting services.

The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: a field study approach

This study investigates the logics or values that shape the social and environmental reporting (SER) and SER assurance (SERA) process. The influence of logics is observed through a study of the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the materiality concept by accounting and non-accounting assurors and their assurance statements. We gathered qualitative data from interviews with both accounting and non-accounting assurors. We analysed the interplay between old and new logics that are shaping materiality as a reporting concept in SER. SER is a rich field in which to study the dynamics of change because it is a voluntary, unregulated, qualitative reporting arena. It has a broad, stakeholder audience, where accounting and non-accounting organisations are in competition. There are three key findings. First, the introduction of a new, stakeholder logic has significantly changed the meaning and role of materiality. Second, a more versatile, performative, social understanding of materiality was portrayed by assurors, with a forward-looking rather than a historic focus. Third, competing logics have encouraged different beliefs about materiality, and practices, to develop. This influenced the way assurors theorised the concept and interpreted outcomes. A patchwork of localised understandings of materiality is developing. Policy implications both in SERA and also in financial audit are explored.

The emergence of integrated private reporting

Purpose: Private social and environmental reporting (SER) has grown considerably in recent years, consistent with a rise in institutional investor engagement and dialogue with investee companies. We interpret the emergence of integrated private reporting through the lens of institutional logics. We frame the emergence of integrated private reporting as a merging of two hitherto separate and possibly rival institutional logics. Methodology/Approach: We interviewed 19 companies listed on the FTSE100 and 20 UK institutional investors. The interviews were semi-structured and analysed in an interpretive fashion. Findings and Implications: We provide evidence to suggest that private SER is beginning to merge with private financial reporting and that, as a result integrated private reporting is emerging. This trend is mirroring the international trend in public reporting toward an integrated approach. Specifically, we find that specialist social responsible investment managers are starting to attend private financial reporting meetings whilst mainstream fund managers are starting to attend private meetings on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Further, senior company directors are becoming increasingly conversant with ESG issues. We interpret our findings as two possible scenarios: (i) there is a genuine hybridisation occurring in UK institutional investment such that integrated private reporting is emerging, or; (ii) the financial logic is absorbing and effectively neutralising the responsible investment logic. Originality: This is the first research investigating the evolution of private integrated reporting.

The Article 51 reporting requirement for self-defense actions

This article examines one legal criterion for the exercise of the right of self-defense that has been significantly overlooked by commentators: the so-called “reporting requirement.” Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter provides, inter alia, that “[m]easures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.” Although the requirement to report all self-defense actions to the Council is clearly set out in Article 51, the Charter offers no further guidance with regard to this obligation. Reference to the practice of states since the UN’s inception in 1945 is therefore essential to understanding the scope and nature of the reporting requirement. As such, this article is underpinned by an extensive original dataset of reporting practice covering the period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2013. We know from Article 51 that states “shall” report, but do they, and—if so—in what manner? What are the various implications of reporting, of failing to report, and of the way in which states report? How are reports used, and by whom? Most importantly, this article questions the ultimate value of states reporting their self-defense actions to the Security Council in modern interstate relations.

Is it significant? Guidelines for reporting BCI performance

Recent growth in brain-computer interface (BCI) research has increased pressure to report improved performance. However, different research groups report performance in different ways. Hence, it is essential that evaluation procedures are valid and reported in sufficient detail. In this chapter we give an overview of available performance measures such as classification accuracy, cohen’s kappa, information transfer rate (ITR), and written symbol rate. We show how to distinguish results from chance level using confidence intervals for accuracy or kappa. Furthermore, we point out common pitfalls when moving from offline to online analysis and provide a guide on how to conduct statistical tests on (BCI) results.

An investigation of the shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 statement for the reporting of group sequential randomised controlled trials: a methodological systematic review

Background It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. Methods We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. Results Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. Discussion and Conclusions There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to seek to shed light on the practice of incomplete corporate disclosure of quantitative Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and investigates whether external stakeholder pressure influences the existence, and separately, the completeness of voluntary GHG emissions disclosures by 431 European companies. Design/methodology/approach – A classification of reporting completeness is developed with respect to the scope, type and reporting boundary of GHG emissions based on the guidelines of the GHG Protocol, Global Reporting Initiative and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Logistic regression analysis is applied to examine whether proxies for exposure to climate change concerns from different stakeholder groups influence the existence and/or completeness of quantitative GHG emissions disclosure. Findings – From 2005 to 2009, on average only 15 percent of companies that disclose GHG emissions report them in a manner that the authors consider complete. Results of regression analyses suggest that external stakeholder pressure is a determinant of the existence but not the completeness of emissions disclosure. Findings are consistent with stakeholder theory arguments that companies respond to external stakeholder pressure to report GHG emissions, but also with legitimacy theory claims that firms can use carbon disclosure, in this case the incomplete reporting of emissions, as a symbolic act to address legitimacy exposures. Practical implications – Bringing corporate GHG emissions disclosure in line with recommended guidelines will require either more direct stakeholder pressure or, perhaps, a mandated disclosure regime. In the meantime, users of the data will need to carefully consider the relevance of the reported data and develop the necessary competencies to detect and control for its incompleteness. A more troubling concern is that stakeholders may instead grow to accept less than complete disclosure. Originality/value – The paper represents the first large-scale empirical study into the completeness of companies’ disclosure of quantitative GHG emissions and is the first to analyze these disclosures in the context of stakeholder pressure and its relation to legitimation.