在有争议的行业报道有争议的问题

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Donna Marshall, Jakob Rehme, Aideen O'Dochartaigh, Stephen Kelly, Roshan Boojihawon, Daniel Chicksand
{"title":"在有争议的行业报道有争议的问题","authors":"Donna Marshall, Jakob Rehme, Aideen O'Dochartaigh, Stephen Kelly, Roshan Boojihawon, Daniel Chicksand","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This article explores how companies in multiple controversial industries report their controversial issues. For the first time, the authors use a new conceptualization of controversial industries, focused on harm and solutions, to investigate the reports of 28 companies in seven controversial industries: Agricultural Chemicals, Alcohol, Armaments, Coal, Gambling, Oil and Tobacco. Design/methodology/approach The authors thematically analyzed company reports to determine if companies in controversial industries discuss their controversial issues in their reporting, if and how they communicate the harm caused by their products or services, and what solutions they provide. Findings From this study data the authors introduce a new legitimacy reporting method in the controversial industries literature: the solutions companies offer for the harm caused by their products and services. The authors find three solution reporting methods: no solution, misleading solution and less-harmful solution. The authors also develop a new typology of reporting strategies used by companies in controversial industries based on how they report their key controversial issue and the harm caused by their products or services, and the solutions they offer. The authors identify seven reporting strategies: Ignore, Deny, Decoy, Dazzle, Distort, Deflect and Adapt. Research limitations/implications Further research can test the typology and identify strategies used by companies in different institutional or regulatory settings, across different controversial industries or in larger populations. Practical implications Investors, consumers, managers, activists and other stakeholders of controversial companies can use this typology to identify the strategies that companies use to report controversial issues. They can assess if reports admit to the controversial issue and the harm caused by a company's products and services and if they provide solutions to that harm. Originality/value This paper develops a new typology of reporting strategies by companies in controversial industries and adds to the theory and discourse on social and environmental reporting (SER) as well as the literature on controversial industries.","PeriodicalId":48311,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"16 19","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting controversial issues in controversial industries\",\"authors\":\"Donna Marshall, Jakob Rehme, Aideen O'Dochartaigh, Stephen Kelly, Roshan Boojihawon, Daniel Chicksand\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose This article explores how companies in multiple controversial industries report their controversial issues. For the first time, the authors use a new conceptualization of controversial industries, focused on harm and solutions, to investigate the reports of 28 companies in seven controversial industries: Agricultural Chemicals, Alcohol, Armaments, Coal, Gambling, Oil and Tobacco. Design/methodology/approach The authors thematically analyzed company reports to determine if companies in controversial industries discuss their controversial issues in their reporting, if and how they communicate the harm caused by their products or services, and what solutions they provide. Findings From this study data the authors introduce a new legitimacy reporting method in the controversial industries literature: the solutions companies offer for the harm caused by their products and services. The authors find three solution reporting methods: no solution, misleading solution and less-harmful solution. The authors also develop a new typology of reporting strategies used by companies in controversial industries based on how they report their key controversial issue and the harm caused by their products or services, and the solutions they offer. The authors identify seven reporting strategies: Ignore, Deny, Decoy, Dazzle, Distort, Deflect and Adapt. Research limitations/implications Further research can test the typology and identify strategies used by companies in different institutional or regulatory settings, across different controversial industries or in larger populations. Practical implications Investors, consumers, managers, activists and other stakeholders of controversial companies can use this typology to identify the strategies that companies use to report controversial issues. They can assess if reports admit to the controversial issue and the harm caused by a company's products and services and if they provide solutions to that harm. Originality/value This paper develops a new typology of reporting strategies by companies in controversial industries and adds to the theory and discourse on social and environmental reporting (SER) as well as the literature on controversial industries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"volume\":\"16 19\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4684\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2020-4684","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了多个争议行业的公司如何报告他们的争议问题。作者首次使用了一个新的争议行业概念,重点关注危害和解决方案,调查了7个争议行业的28家公司的报告:农业化学品,酒精,军备,煤炭,赌博,石油和烟草。作者对公司报告进行了主题分析,以确定有争议行业的公司是否在报告中讨论了他们有争议的问题,他们是否以及如何传达他们的产品或服务造成的危害,以及他们提供了什么解决方案。从这项研究的数据中,作者在有争议的行业文献中引入了一种新的合法性报告方法:公司为其产品和服务造成的伤害提供的解决方案。提出了三种解决方案报告方法:无解决方案、误导解决方案和危害较小的解决方案。作者还开发了一种新的报告策略类型,用于有争议行业的公司,基于他们如何报告他们的关键争议问题和他们的产品或服务造成的危害,以及他们提供的解决方案。作者确定了七种报道策略:忽视、否认、诱骗、迷惑、扭曲、偏转和适应。进一步的研究可以测试这种类型,并确定公司在不同的制度或监管环境、不同的有争议的行业或更大的人群中使用的策略。实际意义有争议公司的投资者、消费者、管理者、活动家和其他利益相关者可以使用这种类型来确定公司用于报告有争议问题的策略。他们可以评估报告是否承认有争议的问题和公司的产品和服务造成的伤害,以及他们是否提供了解决这种伤害的办法。原创性/价值本文发展了一种新的报告策略类型,并增加了社会和环境报告(SER)的理论和话语以及争议行业的文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reporting controversial issues in controversial industries
Purpose This article explores how companies in multiple controversial industries report their controversial issues. For the first time, the authors use a new conceptualization of controversial industries, focused on harm and solutions, to investigate the reports of 28 companies in seven controversial industries: Agricultural Chemicals, Alcohol, Armaments, Coal, Gambling, Oil and Tobacco. Design/methodology/approach The authors thematically analyzed company reports to determine if companies in controversial industries discuss their controversial issues in their reporting, if and how they communicate the harm caused by their products or services, and what solutions they provide. Findings From this study data the authors introduce a new legitimacy reporting method in the controversial industries literature: the solutions companies offer for the harm caused by their products and services. The authors find three solution reporting methods: no solution, misleading solution and less-harmful solution. The authors also develop a new typology of reporting strategies used by companies in controversial industries based on how they report their key controversial issue and the harm caused by their products or services, and the solutions they offer. The authors identify seven reporting strategies: Ignore, Deny, Decoy, Dazzle, Distort, Deflect and Adapt. Research limitations/implications Further research can test the typology and identify strategies used by companies in different institutional or regulatory settings, across different controversial industries or in larger populations. Practical implications Investors, consumers, managers, activists and other stakeholders of controversial companies can use this typology to identify the strategies that companies use to report controversial issues. They can assess if reports admit to the controversial issue and the harm caused by a company's products and services and if they provide solutions to that harm. Originality/value This paper develops a new typology of reporting strategies by companies in controversial industries and adds to the theory and discourse on social and environmental reporting (SER) as well as the literature on controversial industries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Dedicated to the advancement of accounting knowledge, the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal publishes high quality manuscripts concerning the interaction between accounting/auditing and their socio-economic and political environments, encouraging critical analysis of policy and practice in these areas. The journal also seeks to encourage debate about the philosophies and traditions which underpin the accounting profession, the implications of new policy alternatives and the impact of accountancy on the socio-economic and political environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信