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.

The ebbing hegemon? An evolutionary perspective on the emergence of holistic governance and the efficient role of Institutional Investors in Environmental, Social and Governance issues (ESG)

This paper seeks to chronicle the roots of corporate governance form its narrow shareholder perspective to the current bourgeoning stakeholder approach while giving cognizance to institutional investors and their effective role in ESG in light of the King Report III of South Africa. It is aimed at a critical review of the extant literature from the shareholder Cadbury epoch to the present day King Report novelty. We aim to: (i) offer an analytical state of corporate governance in the Anglo-Saxon world, Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Far East Asia and Africa; and (ii) illuminate the lead role the king Report of South Africa is playing as the bellwether of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance as well as guiding the role of institutional investors in ESG.

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.

Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context

1. Agri-environment schemes remain a controversial approach to reversing biodiversity losses, partly because the drivers of variation in outcomes are poorly understood. In particular, there is a lack of studies that consider both social and ecological factors. 2. We analysed variation across 48 farms in the quality and biodiversity outcomes of agri-environmental habitats designed to provide pollen and nectar for bumblebees and butterflies or winter seed for birds. We used interviews and ecological surveys to gather data on farmer experience and understanding of agri-environment schemes, and local and landscape environmental factors. 3. Multimodel inference indicated social factors had a strong impact on outcomes and that farmer experiential learning was a key process. The quality of the created habitat was affected positively by the farmer’s previous experience in environmental management. The farmer’s confidence in their ability to carry out the required management was negatively related to the provision of floral resources. Farmers with more wildlife-friendly motivations tended to produce more floral resources, but fewer seed resources. 4. Bird, bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity responses were strongly affected by the quantity of seed or floral resources. Shelter enhanced biodiversity directly, increased floral resources and decreased seed yield. Seasonal weather patterns had large effects on both measures. Surprisingly, larger species pools and amounts of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape had negative effects on biodiversity, which may indicate use by fauna of alternative foraging resources. 5. Synthesis and application. This is the first study to show a direct role of farmer social variables on the success of agri-environment schemes in supporting farmland biodiversity. It suggests that farmers are not simply implementing agri-environment options, but are learning and improving outcomes by doing so. Better engagement with farmers and working with farmers who have a history of environmental management may therefore enhance success. The importance of a number of environmental factors may explain why agri-environment outcomes are variable, and suggests some – such as the weather – cannot be controlled. Others, such as shelter, could be incorporated into agri-environment prescriptions. The role of landscape factors remains complex and currently eludes simple conclusions about large-scale targeting of schemes.