Impression management, myth creation and fabrication 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.

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.

Living up to the value agenda: the empirical realities of through-life value creation in construction

Current research agendas are increasingly encouraging the construction industry to operate on the basis of 'added value'. Such debates echo the established concept of 'high value manufacturing' and associated trends towards servitization. Within construction, the so-called 'value agenda' draws heavily from the notion of integrated solutions. This is held to be especially appropriate in the context of PFI projects. Also relevant is the concept of service-led projects whereby the project rationale is driven by the client's objectives for delivering an enhanced service to its own customers. Such ideas are contextualized by a consideration of broader trends of privatization and outsourcing within and across the construction industry's client base. The current emphasis on integrated solutions reflects long-term trends within privatized client organizations towards the outsourcing of asset management capabilities. However, such trends are by no means uniform or consistent. An in-depth case study of three operating divisions within a major construction company illustrates that firms are unlikely to reorientate their business in response to the 'value agenda'. In the case of PFI, the tendency has been to establish specialist units for the purposes of winning work. Meanwhile, institutionally embedded operating routines within the rest of the business remain broadly unaffected.

Habitat re-creation and restoration at the landscape scale: woodlands in Wales

The aim of this three year project funded by the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is to develop techniques firstly, to refine and update existing targets for habitat restoration and re-creation at the landscape scale and secondly, to develop a GIS-based model for the implementation of those targets at the local scale. Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is being used to map Landscape Types across the whole of Wales as the first stage towards setting strategic habitat targets. The GIS habitat model uses data from the digital Phase I Habitat Survey for Wales to determine the suitability of individual sites for restoration to specific habitat types, including broadleaf woodland. The long-term aim is to develop a system that strengthens the character of Welsh landscapes and provides real biodiversity benefits based upon realistic targets given limited resources for habitat restoration and re-creation.

The economic dimensions of integrating flood management and agri-environment through washland creation: a case from Somerset, England

In many river floodplains in the UK, there has been a long history of flood defence, land reclamation and water regime management for farming. In recent years, however, changing European and national policies with respect to farming, environment and flood management are encouraging a re-appraisal of land use in rural areas. In particular, there is scope to develop, through the use of appropriate promotional mechanisms, washland areas, which will simultaneously accommodate winter inundation, support extensive farming methods, deliver environmental benefits, and do this in a way which can underpin the rural economy. This paper explores the likely economic impacts of the development of flood storage and washland creation. In doing so, consideration is given to feasibility of this type of development, the environmental implications for a variety of habitats and species, and the financial and institutional mechanisms required to achieve implementation. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of grazing management on beetle and plant assemblages during the re-creation of a flood-plain meadow

Flood-plain meadows (Alopecurus-Sanguisorba grassland) are a floristically rich community of conservation importance throughout Europe. Declines in their distribution due in part to modern farming practices mean they now cover less than 1500 ha in the UK. To investigate the effect of grazing regime during the re-creation of this grassland type, target plant species were sown onto ex-arable land during 1985. Traditional management, based on a July hay cut followed by aftermath grazing was subsequently instigated, and the site was divided into replicated grazing regimes of cattle, sheep and an un-grazed control. Plant and beetle assemblages were sampled and compared to those of target flood-plain meadows and improved grassland communities. Within the re-creation treatments the absence of aftermath grazing reduced beetle abundances and species richness. Assemblages of plants were closest to that of the target flood-plain meadow under sheep grazing, although this differed little from cattle grazing. Beetle species assemblages and functional group structure were, however, closest to the target grassland under cattle grazing. For all taxa the greatest resilience to succession to the target flood-plain meadow occurred when grazing was not part of the management prescription. Although successful re-creation had not been achieved for either the plants or beetles, cutting followed by aftermath cattle grazing has provided the best management to date. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Borg's rating of perceived exertion scales: do the verbal anchors mean the same for different clinical groups?

Objective: To examine the interpretation of the verbal anchors used in the Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales in different clinical groups and a healthy control group. Design: Prospective experimental study. Setting: Rehabilitation center. Participants: Nineteen subjects with brain injury, 16 with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and 20 healthy controls. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Subjects used a visual analog scale (VAS) to rate their interpretation of the verbal anchors from the Borg RPE 6-20 and the newer 10-point category ratio scale. Results: All groups placed the verbal anchors in the order that they occur on the scales. There were significant within-group differences (P > .05) between VAS scores for 4 verbal anchors in the control group, 8 in the CLBP group, and 2 in the brain injury group. There was no significant difference in rating of each verbal anchor between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: All subjects rated the verbal anchors in the order they occur on the scales, but there was less agreement in rating of each verbal anchor among subjects in the brain injury group. Clinicians should consider the possibility of small discrepancies in the meaning of the verbal anchors to subjects, particularly those recovering from brain injury, when they evaluate exercise perceptions.