Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
This study examines the strategies companies have adopted in their CSR or non-financial re-
porting when responding to media criticism related to poor CSR performance. Seven compa-
nies operation internationally and which have been criticized for irresponsible behavior (like
environmental spills, child labor, poor working conditions, corruption, etc.) are identified. The
Wilson response model, "Philosophy of Social Responsiveness," which suggests four distinct
corporate responses to criticism (Reaction, Defense, Accommodation and Proaction), is ap-
plied. These four responses occupy a continuum with ‘low response’ on one end and
‘encompassing response’ on the other end. The findings reveal that, in contrast to the Wilson
model, which proposes various degrees of response engagement, companies adopted an either/
or response strategy (0-1). They either ignore the criticism (0) or, if they recognize the criti-
cism (1), they respond in all four of the categories suggested by Wilson. Six of the companies
chose the 1 approach. The remaining company chose the 0 response; ignoring the criticism.
The 0 response strategy is not presented as an option in the Wilson model, but it is clearly an
alternative that companies can take into consideration when evaluating and choosing strategies
for non-financial reporting.
Keywords: Criticism, CSR, media, non-financial reporting, responsiveness, scandal, Wilson
model
Are Non-Financial (CSR) Reports Trustworthy?
A Study of The Extent to Which Non-Financial
Reports Reflect the Media’ Perception of The
Company’s Behaviour
Caroline D Ditlev-Simonsen 1
BI Norwegian Business School, Department of Accounting – Auditing
Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway
Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting
ISSN 1978-0591 (Paper)
Vol. 8, No. 2 2014
Pp. 116-133
www.isea.icseard.uns.ac.id
1 Caroline Dale Ditlev-Simonsen, PhD, is a senior researcher at BI-Norwegian Business School and has
international and comprehensive business and organizational experience in the area of corporate social
responsibility, including Project Manager, World Industry Council for the Environment, New York; Ex-
ecutive Officer, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority; Advisor, Kværner ASA and Vice President,
Head of Community Contact, Storebrand ASA, one of Norway’s largest companies. From 2002-2008 she
was a board member of WWF-Norway (World Wide Fund for Nature). She is also an Co-Director at the
BI Centre for Corporate Responsibility www.bi.no/ccr.
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 117
Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is receiving increased attention. Today, compa-
nies are expected to take on responsibilities beyond regulatory compliance and posting
profits (Brammer and Pavelin 2004, Samuel and Ioanna 2007). How companies engage
the environment, human rights, ethics, corruption, employee rights, donations, volun-
teer work, contributions to the community and relationships with suppliers are typi-
cally viewed as components of CSR. There are many different definitions of CSR, but
a frequently used definition is that of the European Union (EU); a “concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental concern in their business operations and
in the interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.”(European Commission
2001)
CSR has received increased interest in media. Fig. 1 shows this growth by tracking the
use of “Corporate social responsibility” in the media from 1989-2012. It is evident that
interest in CSR grew dramatically at the turn of the century. The media coverage repre-
sented here includes both positive and negative coverage, though the coverage has
mostly been negative.
Alongside this increased media interest in CSR, we have the past 30 years seen a sharp
growth in so-called non-financial reporting. While fewer than 50 companies provided
non-financial reports in 1992, nearly 5,000 companies did so in 2010. Most of the
largest companies in the world (around 90% of the FT 500) report on CSR. In some
cases the reports are hundreds of pages long.
This paper will investigate the extent to which companies react to negative media cov-
erage, and how they react. The remaining pages are organized as follows. I will start
by providing an overview of prior research in this field. Following this, I will present
the theoretical perspective applied in the paper and explain the methodology and data
collection. The seven cases investigated will then be presented, and the findings con-
Figure 1. "Corporate Social Responsibility" mentioned in media 1989-2012,
Factiva search
118 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
veyed in a common framework. Finally I will discuss the findings and the conclusions
I’ve drawn.
Literature review
Given the increases in media attention and the volume of CSR reporting, it is not sur-
prising that considerable research has been directed toward understanding the CSR
phenomenon. A number of theories and approaches have been applied to address the
issue, but the results have varied and have been largely inconsistent. The study “What
Motivates Managers to Pursue Corporate [social] Responsibility?” (Ditlev-Simonsen
and Midttun 2011) compares the different theoretical approaches to understanding the
CSR phenomenon. What we know for certain is that, in addition to the increases in
media attention and corporate reporting in the field of CSR, new and CSR reporting
initiatives, both voluntary and mandatory, have emerged. An introduction to these will
help to shed light on the corporate framework for CSR reporting.
There have been a number of new voluntary international initiatives related to non-
financial reporting. The most significant of these are the UN Global Compact (UNGC)
(www.unglobalcompact.org), launched by Secretary General Kofi Annan in 1999, and
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (www.globalreporting.org), launched in 2002.
The UNGC outlines 10 principles of behavior in the fields of human rights, labor, en-
vironment and anti-corruption, while the GRI provides more than 80 indicators for
financial, environmental and social reporting. Other initiatives related to non-financial
reporting include the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, the OECD guidelines
for multinational corporations and the Carbon Disclosure Project.
In addition to voluntary initiatives, increasingly stringent requirements have been im-
posed from a government point of view with respect to non-financial reporting. In
Sweden, for example, state-owned companies have been required to adhere to the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) format since 2007. In the UK, according to the Com-
panies Act of 2006, companies listed on the stock exchange are required to include
information about environmental matters, employees, and social and community issues
in their annual reports. In Norway, companies are required to report on non-financial
matters related to the environment and social issues including gender equality, dis-
crimination and employment. In “The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustain-
ability Reporting,” Ioannou and Serafeims provide, through a country-level analysis, a
good overview of the development of CSR regulations related to international report-
ing since 1998 (Ioannou and Serafeim 2012). Their study concludes that, in some re-
lated areas, mandatory corporate sustainability reporting has improved corporate per-
formance. Other studies have found, though that an increase in CSR reporting does not
necessarily improve the responsibility performance of the company. Fry, for example,
found an inverse relationship between volume of reporting and CSR performance: the
more the company reported, the poorer its CSR performance (Fry and Hock 1976).
The study “From Corporate Social Responsibility Awareness to Action?” shows that a
focus on and increase in CSR reporting do not necessarily increase the company’s
CSR performance (Ditlev-Simonsen 2010).
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 119
So why publish non-financial reports that go beyond what is legally required? Again,
many approaches have been tried to answer this question. Applying organizational
sense making to CSR does to some extent capture this variety of theoretical ap-
proaches to CSR. The sense making approach recognizes that managers have, choose
and face alternative paths to CSR – and that the path the manager chooses impacts his
or her CSR outcome. Here, identity orientation, legitimacy, justification, and transpar-
ency are some of the possible reasons managers might choose the paths that they do
(Basu and Palazzo 2008).
One important reason, in addition to the facts that it is expected and that it signals
openness and presents the company as a responsible actor, is that investments in com-
panies are increasingly tied to ethical investment criteria, known as Socially Responsi-
ble Investment (SRI). Investors expect companies in which they invest to provide
documentation confirming that the companies comply with ethical requirements.
“Nearly one out of every eight dollar under professional management in the United
States today [] is involved in sustainable and responsible investing.” (US SIF 2012)
Between 2007 and 2010 social investing had a growth rate of over 13 percent.
What does this suggest about claims made in non-financial reports? Companies are not
required to have their non-financial reports verified, and technically they can write
anything they want in the reports. Intentions about proper behavior does not necessar-
ily imply proper behavior. While regular annual reports generally must be verified by
an auditor, this is not the case with non-financial reports (although there are a few
companies that voluntarily have the reports verified). Naturally, businesses do not
want to write anything negative about their activities. Therefore they focus on present-
ing themselves in a positive light. To what extent, then, can community (and inves-
tors) rely on what they read in these reports?
A review of various non-financial reports found very little mention of the dilemmas
that businesses face, and very little mention of CSR-related issues for which compa-
nies have been criticized in the media. From an academic perspective, two relevant
studies investigating the media impact on corporate CSR reporting have been con-
sulted. One of these investigated H&M and Nike CSR disclosures from 1987-2005
and found that the more negative media coverage the company received, the more
positively the companies reported their own CSR performance (Islam and Deegan
2010), The other reviewed the relationship between media coverage related to envi-
ronmental issues and annual report disclosure in nine energy and/or resource-intensive
industries from 1981-1994 (Brown and Deegan 1998). Both of these studies were
based on legitimacy theory and media-related theory, and both found that media atten-
tion on a CSR-related topic was significantly associated with increased corporate dis-
closure on the same topic.
In this study, we will approach the topic in differently inasmuch as we will focus on
specific events or scandals where particular companies were criticized for irresponsi-
ble behavior—i.e. not reporting using a timeline format but rather using a point-in-
time approach. Seven companies which are operating internationally and have been
120 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
criticized for irresponsible behavior (violation of human rights, pollution, poor work-
ing conditions, etc.) will be investigated. We will explore the extent to which the is-
sues for which these companies have been criticized have been represented and re-
flected in financial and non-financial reports representing the year of the most issue
hits in media. From a theoretical perspective, the study will place the sense making
and legitimacy approach to corporate disclosure in the framework of the five steps pre-
sented in Wilson & Carrolls’s “Philosophy of the Social Responsiveness” (Carroll
1979). The focus, therefore, will be on the company’s social responsiveness (CSR2),
which is not necessarily, as addressed previously, the same as the company’s degree of
responsibility (CSR1). Accordingly, we will not investigate the extent to which the
“media scandals” have led to actual changes in responsibility in the companies. Rather,
we will study how the companies have responded to the criticism through disclosure
using CSR or non-financial reporting.
The study has both academic and practical implications. On the academic side, it will
test Wilson & Carroll's "Philosophy of the Social Responsiveness" model. At the same
time, it will be useful for businesses (to evaluate different strategies and establish
benchmarks) and authorities (to the extent that non-financial reporting has any value as
long as they are not required to be verified).
Response Theory
Various methods are available for sorting and categorizing the ways in which busi-
nesses communicate. In his article ”A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Cor-
porate Performance” Carroll gives an overview that describes types of corporate per-
formance ranging from "do nothing" to "do much"(Carroll 1979). Carroll refers to Ian
Wilson's "Philosophy of Social Responsiveness" model, originally presented by Wil-
son in 1975 in the chapter "What one company is doing about today's demands on
business" in the book Changing business-society interrelationship (Wilson 1975).
Here, he claims that "questions of social responsibility are, therefore, no longer periph-
eral, but central to decisions about corporate planning and performance (ibid page 25).
(Given that this is very much in line with today’s views of managers in leading compa-
nies, one wonders whether Wilson was ahead of time in 1975, or if little has happened
in the CSR field since then). Wilson concludes that corporate social responsibility is,
in effect, "essentially and primarily a matter of ’social responsiveness’ " (ibid page
25). The importance of social responsiveness in the CSR setting is a key element of
this study, with a focus on CSR-related responses to media criticism in non-financial
reporting.
Wilson's model describes the continuity of response, and therefore fits well in this
study as a means to assess companies' responsiveness to criticisms of CSR reporting.
Other studies have also used this model to evaluate corporate social behavior
(Clarkson 1995) and one of the most popular books for teaching CSR and ethics at the
university level today, "Business Ethics" by Crane and Matten, uses the model when
describing CSR and strategy - corporate social responsiveness (Crane and Matten
2007). In his study of Nike’s responsiveness to critics in a given period of time, Zadek
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 121
(2004) found evidence of a similar, five-stage transformation process (Zadek 2004).
This frequently application of the model is a relevant argument for testing it in this
study.
The model is based on four types of responses to criticism. As neither Wilson or Car-
roll elaborate on the four strategies, a brief description of how they apply to response
to media criticism in corporate non-financial reporting is suggested in parentheses.
1. Reaction (the company reflects the media criticism in its non-financial report)
2. Defense (the company defends itself against the criticism in the non-financial
report)
3. Accomodation (the company acknowledges the criticism and reports that it
will improve its behavior)
4. Proaction (the company acknowledges the criticism and sets out to improve
its behavior beyond what is expected)
Figure 2 illustrates the degree of responsiveness. In this study, we categorized the
seven companies studied based on their response strategy according to this model. We
will provide practical examples of this categorization, and then consider whether Car-
roll and Wilson's model addresses the appropriate alternative response options,
through their non-financial reporting.
Figure 2. Carroll and Wilson’s Philosophy of Social Responsiveness model
Methodology
In a study such as this, it would be optimal to consider a multitude of companies and
compare the responses in various industries relative to nationality and size. This would
be an extensive undertaking and since there is currently relatively little knowledge in
this area it may be more appropriate to start by concentrating on a few companies to
122 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
test Carroll and Wilson’s model. This is why we chose the below described case study
method.
Case study method
The case study method can be useful when conducting qualitative research. There are a
variety of approaches in this method and a variety of ways to categorize the different
types of cases. Case study research is a good approach to testing, revising and building
theories. Such theory-building research can lead to new insights (Eisenhardt 1989),
which is the purpose of this study.
As the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies response to media criti-
cisms, it is natural to use multiple cases and apply a so-called comparative case ap-
proach. Since we will examine the question of whether Carroll and Wilson's model
covers alternative corporate responses to media criticism related to CSR, the study
may be described as presenting evolving theories (Andersen 2003). This type of re-
search design is based on a particular theory or concept, which is then developed or
fine tuned during the study. This can be accomplished by addressing how a theory is
applied to a particular area and testing whether this also applies to the cases under
study. Also, this approach can help to clarify and deepen an existing theory. Moving
from one to several cases allows us to generalize about a particular question based on
the findings.
Selection of cases
The goal of this study is to assess how companies respond to media criticism of CSR
in their non-financial reports. The first criterion in selecting companies, therefore, was
that they had been subject to CSR-related criticism. As many companies have been
criticized for unethical behavior, the selection of an "appropriate" subset of such com-
panies was a challenge. To this end, companies in bank and investment sector were
consulted. In January 2012 the Norwegian Financial Services Association held a meet-
ing with stakeholders (representing leading international financial institutions based in
Norway: DnBNor, Storebrand and KLP) to solicit feedback about possible case stud-
ies. Five of the companies suggested were used in the study: Statoil, Intex, Lundin,
Ericsson and Telenor. Two more companies – Vale and Alstrom – were then added to
represent a more international collection of case studies. Table 1 includes a list of the
companies as well as sector, country of origin, the issue the company has been criti-
cized for, the non-financial reporting form, and company size (number of employees
and sales).
The seven case companies in this study are located in different countries: Norway,
Sweden, Brazil and France. These countries have varying regulations pertaining to
mandatory non-financial reporting (Ioannou and Serafeim 2012). There is contradic-
tory findings concerning the extent to which such mandatory regulations related to
CSR reporting actually change corporate behavior (Ioannou and Serafeim 2012, Ditlev
-Simonsen 2012, Ditlev-Simonsen 2010). The “scandals” and media criticisms sur-
rounding the case companies go beyond the non-financial reporting regulations, and I
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 123
have therefore chosen not to address issues related to country wise reporting regula-
tions. I have, however, included in the table whether and when the companies have
signed up to the voluntary initiative UN Global Compact (UNGC). Again, it is not
clear to what extent such support actually changes a company’s responsibility behav-
ior. Unlike local regulations, though, the UNGC initiative is international. Thus it is
easier to compare from company to company than it is with national regulations.
Whereas the previously presented Brown & Deegan study investigated the response of
resource-intensive B2B industries to negative media coverage, and Islam & Deegan
investigated similar responses among companies that sell to end-users (H&M and
Nike), the present study includes both resource-intensive B2B industries (Statoil, In-
tex, Lundin, Vale and Alstom) and companies that sell to end users (Ericsson and
Telenor). Furthermore, also as previously mentioned, the study will identify the point
in time at which the company was most criticized in the media and review its disclo-
sure response to the criticism.
Table 1. Overview of companies studied
Company Statoil Intex Lundin
Petroleum Ericsson Telenor Vale Alstom
Sector
Oil & gas
producers
Mining Oil & gas
producers
Technology
hardware &
equipment
Mobile tele-
communi-
cations
Mining Industrial
Engineering
Country Norway Norway Sweden Sweden Norway Brazil France
Criticized
for
Negative
environ-
mental im-
pacts of tar
sand extrac-
tion
Nickel pro-
duction
destroying
ecosystems
and water
supplies in
the Philip-
pines
Possible in-
volvement in
war crimes in
Sudan
Hazardous
working and
environmental
conditions and
child labor at
sub-supplier in
Bangladesh
Hazardous
working and
environmental
conditions and
child labor at
sub-supplier in
Bangladesh
Inhuman
conditions
and reckless
exploitation
of nature in
connection
with hydro-
power
plants in the
Amazon
Multiple
cases of gross
corruption
over several
years in dif-
ferent coun-
tries
When 2007 2009 2003 2008 2008 2011 2011
Reporting
form
Separate non-
financial
report
Part of
annual
report
Annual report Corporate
responsibility
and Sustain-
ability Report
Part of annual
report
Sustainabili
ty report
Sustainable
development
and social
responsibility
report
No. Of
employees 30 344 ca 20 336 90 261 33 200 70 785 68 858
Turnover,
revenues or
net finan-
cial income
Revenues,
USD 87,646
million
(money.cnn.c
om)
Net financial
income
2010, USD
1 million
(intexresour
ces.net)
Turnover
2011/12, 982
633 000 EUR
(largestcomp
anies.com)
Revenues,
USD 87,646
million
(money.cnn.co
m)
Turnover,
2011/12
12 671 357 00
0 EUR
(largestcompa
nies.com)
Revenues,
USD
87,646
million
(money.cnn
.com)
Revenues,
USD 87,646
million
(money.cnn.c
om)
Supported
UNGC
since
2000 - 2010 2000 2001 - 2008
124 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
Evaluation method
A review of the seven companies was conducted based on the following procedure;
1. A presentation of the company. Source: the company’s own publicly available
review site
2. Data relating to industry, number of employees and turnover. Source: mainly
www.FT.com
3. Whether the company participated in the UN Global Compact and, if so, when
this happened. This information is included in order to demonstrate knowl-
edge of corporate voluntary initiatives in the area of CSR and to identify when
those companies confirmed their interest in the topic. Source:
www.globalcompact.org
4. A description of the issue the company has been criticized for: when the criti-
cism arose, what it covered and the result of the criticism. This description is
based on media coverage.
5. In many cases the "issue" continued for several years. To limit the study to the
year the “issue” received the most media coverage, we used Faktiva to provide
an overview of annual media coverage. The company name, location and sub-
ject matter of the criticism were used as search terms. For example, the Statoil
search used the terms "Statoil" and "Canada" and "oil sands." We selected and
focused on the year the issue received the most “hits” on Factiva. Source:
Factiva.com
6. When the year in which the issue had received the most hits on Factiva was
identified, the financial and or non-financial report for this year was investi-
gated. Source: the company's own reporting.
7. How the company addressed the criticisms in its reporting and how this re-
lated to Wilson and Carroll's model was studied. We developed a database for
this containing electronic copies of pages that describe how the company has
dealt with the issue criticized. This report is available from the author.
The above database is used to categorize responses according to the "Philosophy of
Social Responsiveness" model by Wilson and Carroll and to document this through
examples.
Result
In this section, we first describe what the company is criticized for and how it has re-
sponded to this criticism in its non-financial reporting. Thereafter we categorize their
response in accordance with the Wilson and Carroll model in the spectrum between
"do nothing" and "do much." It is important to note, however, that in this analysis that
we apply the companies’ self-descriptions. It is debatable whether such self-
descriptions are true; one can expect an unwarranted amount of self-praise. At the
same time, it is also possible that companies are doing more than what they describe,
that they are more socially responsible than may be gleaned from reading annual and
non-financial reports. This study therefore does not consider the degree of “truth” of
what is reported in the annual financial and non-financial reports, but only what the
company has written, that is, how the company presents itself.
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 125
It is important to note that the companies may have changed their reporting and re-
sponse strategies in the wake of the criticisms and the responses described, so that re-
porting after and prior to the one with most media hits may be based on a different
reporting strategy. This will not be covered here, because the scope of the study would
otherwise be too complex and answer a different research question.
Statoil
Criticized for negative environmental impacts of oil sand extraction.
A search for ”Statoil ” and ”Canada” and ”oil sands” in Factiva yielded the most hits
in 2007, which was 433 hits.
A search of the company’s non-financial report "Going North - Sustainable Develop-
ment 2007" yielded hits for "oil sands" on seven pages, but only four of these noted
something relevant about the oil sands-related criticism. The report confirms that there
has been considerable debate and criticism about the production and refinement of oil
sands – “Our acquisition of a large oil sand deposit further west in Canada has been
the subject of much debate and criticism, both in Norway and internationally” – and
Statoil defends the company’s response and work in this manner “We have started a
comprehensive project in which we will study all possible options for reducing or off-
setting carbon dioxide emissions" (p 15). In addition, the company has taken the initia-
tive to ensure that their operations are as environmentally friendly as possible:
"Extensive environmental monitoring is used to evaluate relevant impacts of discharge
of emissions, both through legally required surveys and through other initiatives such
as the global scientific and environmental ROV partnership overusing existing indus-
trial technology (Serpent)" and “We have also continued to pursue an extensive port-
folio of R&D projects for tailoring such response to Arctic regions” (p 28).
Statoil is thus open to the criticism it has received for its investment in the oil sands,
though it defends its actions and argues that it has behaved properly. With respect to
Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of Social Responsiveness" model, this reflects the
reaction, defense and accommodation strategies. Moreover, the company argues that it
has gone beyond the statutory requirements and notes specific examples as referred to
above. This reflects a proaction strategy as well.
Intex
Criticized for its nickel production destroying ecosystems and water supplies in the
Philippines.
A search for "Intex Resources" and "Mindoro" and "environment" in Factiva yielded
the most hits in 2009, which was 115 hits.
Intex has no separate non-financial report, but a search in the annual report for 2009
yielded hits on 14 pages, three of which were relevant to the Mindoro criticism case
(the remaining matches did not address the environmental or social impacts of the pro-
126 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
ject). In this non-financial section of the annual report, the company is very open about
the criticism it has received. "In 2009, the company has faced opposition from anti-
mining groups in the Philippines, Norway and internationally. This culminated with a
90-day suspension of the environmental permission ECC one month after the project
had received the permission” (the report is in Norwegian and has been translated).
Also, ”Opposition to the project has also led to the group Future in Our Hands submit-
ting a complaint to the Norwegian OECD Contact Point (NCP), a process that is ongo-
ing. The Board considers this complaint unfounded" (page 5). The company defends
itself: "The company has a comprehensive environmental program" (Page 7-2). Also,
"Intex Resources wants to help develop sustainable communities. The program for
good community activities for Mindoro Nickel includes five key areas: education and
scholarships, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and livelihood, initiative for ca-
pacity development and support for the local infrastructure" (page 7-3). The report
continues: "In the Mindoro Nickel project the company policy is to employ people
from the local population with equal pay for equal work. The company has always had
this policy, and was apparently the first company to introduce such a policy on the is-
land of Mindoro" (page 7-4).
The various parties' negative views on Intex’s behavior are clearly presented as the
company defends its actions and argues that it has behaved properly. With respect to
Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of Social Responsiveness" model, this reflects the
reaction, defense and accommodation strategies. Moreover, the company maintains
that it has gone beyond the statutory requirements and provides specific examples of
this. This reflects a proaction strategy.
Lundin Petroleum
Criticized for possible involvement in war crimes in Sudan.
A search for ”Lundin” and ”Sudan” and “war” in Factiva yielded the most hits in
2001, which was 147 hits.
Lundin’s 2001 annual report included 19 pages addressing Sudan. Seven of those
pages addressed the criticism leveled at the company. In the report, the company rec-
ognizes that its engagement in Sudan ”has also raised ethical issues, due to the ongoing
conflict in that country. The question being asked is whether oil fuels the war or sets
the conditions for peace by providing the country with the necessary means to lift itself
out of poverty. We believe the latter” (page 2-3). In addition, the company describes
its efforts to help the local population: ”To try to enhance the well-being of this com-
munity and raise its living standards, Lundin Petroleum has initiated a Community
Development and Humanitarian Assistance Program (CDHAP). After consulting with
local leaders and development experts, it devised the following projects aiming at
meeting some of the inhabitants’ basic needs” (page 14 -15). These initiatives include
infrastructure development, water supply, health treatment of 6000 patients, education
for over 500 pupils, capacity building and humanitarian assistance. Through CDHAP,
“Lundin Petroleum remains committed to finding ways to help the local community
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 127
achieve long-term economic self-sufficiency.” (page 14-15)
Lundin recognizes having being criticized for its operations in Sudan, defends its op-
erations and describes the ways in which the company has exceeded what is legally
required related to social behavior, by initiating the CDHAP. With respect to Carroll
and Wilson’s ”Philosophy of Social Responsiveness,” this reflects the reaction, de-
fense and accommodation strategies. Moreover, the company claims to have gone be-
yond the statutory requirements and mention specific examples of how it has imple-
mented voluntary measures to help the local community. This reflects a proaction
strategy.
Ericsson
Criticized for hazardous working conditions as well as child labor at a sub-supplier in
Bangladesh.
A search for ”Ericsson” and ”Bangladesh” and ”child” in Factiva yielded the most hits
in 2008, which was 10 hits.
In Ericsson's non-financial report entitled "Ericsson corporate responsibility and sus-
tainability report 2008," searches for “Bangladesh” yielded hits on six pages (a search
for “child labor” yielded 0 hits). Five of the pages contained information that was rele-
vant to the criticism. The company recognizes early in the report that it has done
something wrong "Our commitment to the UN Global Compact and human rights
includes reinforcing human rights along the supply chain. We became aware that some
of our suppliers in Bangladesh were not meeting our high social and environmental
standards. This experience served to sharpen top management focus on this issue, and
strengthened our approach to monitoring and engaging our supply chain on improve-
ments" (page 3). Headings such as "Engaging stakeholders" (page 11), "Learning from
Bangladesh" (page 14) and "New approach, changed mindset" (page 15) show that the
company acknowledges its mistakes and is making changes. According to the report,
Ericsson is now operating more "appropriately" through “Mitigating risk through au-
dits and training” (page 15-1).
Ericsson is open to the criticism they received for poor working conditions with its
suppliers, apologized and promised to address the issue, and thereby avoiding similar
problems in the future. With respect to Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of Social
Responsiveness" model, this reflects the reaction, defense and accommodation strate-
gies. Moreover, the company says that it has gone beyond the statutory requirements
and mentions specific examples of auditing and training fore example “Ericsson is a
founding member of GeSI, the Global e-Sustainability Initiative. A multi-stakeholder
organization. Its aim is to promote sustainability within our sector’s sphere…” (p. 15-
1). This reflects a proaction strategy.
128 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
Telenor
Criticized for hazardous working conditions as well as child labor at a sub-supplier in
Bangladesh.
A search for ”Telenor ” and ”Bangladesh” and ”child” in Factiva yielded the most hits
in 2008, which was 37 hits.
Telenor 2008 annual report offered limited coverage of CSR. A search for
”Bangladesh” in this report yielded results on 13 pages. Four of these pages dealt with
the issue of criticism in Bangladesh. The company is open and responsive to the criti-
cism: "In April 2008, Telenor became aware of unacceptable working conditions at
several suppliers to its subsidiary Grameenphone in Bangladesh. In response, Telenor
initiated a group-wide project to review and improve health, safety, security and envi-
ronmental standards across the supply chain" (Page 2). “Telenor has also initiated
awareness building programs with suppliers in order to increase awareness of HSSE
challenges” (p. 6). “We further strengthened our process for monitoring compliance
through both announced and unannounced supplier visits” (p. 7).
Like Ericsson, Telenor is open to the criticism pertaining to the poor working condi-
tions at its suppliers, apologizing and promising to address the issue, thus avoiding
similar problems in the future. With respect to Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of
Social Responsiveness" model, this reflects the reaction, defense and accommodations
strategies. Moreover, the company holds that it has exceeded the statutory require-
ments and mention specific examples of awareness building and of extensive control.
This reflects the proaction strategy.
Vale
Criticized for inhuman conditions and reckless exploitation of nature in connection
with hydropower plants in the Amazon.
A search for ”Vale” and ”Belo Monte” and ”environment” in Factiva yielded the most
hits in 2011, which was 20 hits. Search on ”Vale” and ”Belo Monte” and ”human
rights,” yielded nine hits the same year.
Vale offered a separate non-financial report, the 2011 Sustainability Report, and a
search for "Belo Monte" in this report yielded hits on four pages. The company writes
about its focus on sustainability, but also describes the criticism it has received and
acknowledges the need for improvement in this area: "Vale needs to assume its role as
a major player and be committed to supporting best practices to ensure that Belo
Monte is a sustainable project. What today is a cost can become, with excellent man-
agement, a positive return."This is a quote from Sergi Bessserman, a professor of eco-
nomics and ecology (page 8). "Vale is aware that the project [Belo Monte] has caused
adverse reactions with regard to its social and environmental impacts, and the well-
being of the indigenous communities in the region, during the construction and opera-
tional stages. Vale believes that the project will leave a positive legacy for the region.
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 129
Vale is acting proactively to implement best practices, particularly concerning issues
related to sustainability" (page 74). The company documents its focus on and recogni-
tion for sustainability, among others through examples like "At the start of 2012 Vale
was awarded the Sustainable Biofuels Award by World Biofuels Markets" (page 74).
Vale ads to the project by “Strengthening of the project’s public image and reputation
as a result of proactive action to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of
environmental attributes of the ecosystems in the region” (page 76).
Vale is thus open to criticism of its unsustainable behaviour in the Amazon. Even if
the response is not comprehensive, the company still promises improvement. With
respect to Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of Social Responsiveness" model, this
reflects reaction, defence and accommodations strategies. Moreover, the company
says that it has gone beyond the statutory requirements by proactive actions and men-
tions specific examples of this. This reflects a proaction strategy.
Alstom
Criticized for several cases of gross corruption over several years in different coun-
tries.
A search for ”Alstom” and ”corruption” in Factiva yielded the most hits in 2011,
which was 199 hits.
A search for “corruption” in Alstom’s separate non-financial report, Sustainable De-
velopment and Social Responsibility Report 2010/11, yielded hits on two pages. How-
ever, none of the results is related to allegations of corruption. Instead, the report de-
scribes the company’s good behavior, for example "All employees are free to trigger a
confidential alert if they suspect a violation of the rules with respect to securities, ac-
counting, competition or corruption prevention" (page 26). Searching for “bribe,” for
more detailed information related to the criticism the company received, did not yield
any hits.
Alstom does not acknowledge the criticism leveled at the company with respect to the
alleged corruption. With respect to Carroll and Wilson’s "Philosophy of Social Re-
sponsiveness" model, Alstrom cannot be placed in the model because it did not exhibit
reaction to the criticism by recognizing it. The company's response strategy in the an-
nual report is to ignore the criticism issue by not addressing it. Moreover, the company
claims to be a frontrunner in the anti-corruption work. “The Group is a member of the
United Nations Global Compact Working Group on Principle 10 and of Brazil’s Ethos
Institute, where it is a signatory of the anti-corruption” (page 26). The importance of
this strategy will be analyzed further in the Discussion section of the article.
Discussion and Conclusion
Based on a study of these seven companies that have been criticized for irresponsible
behavior, it appears that distinguishing between the different levels of response as sug-
130 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
gested by Wilson and Carroll’s model, is not the most useful approach to understand
and categorize corporate response to negative media coverage in financial and non-
financial reports.
The most appropriate way to categorize the responses is not to place it on a spectrum
from ”little response” to ”much response”, but rather to note whether the companies
chose to respond at all. Six of the seven companies (Statoil, Intex, Lundin, Ericsson,
Telenor and Vale) did respond to the criticism. They acknowledged the criticism
(react), immediately went on to explain why they had done what they had, and to some
extent defend and excuse their actions (defense), and then explained what they had
done to improve (accommodation) and how they had gone beyond what was required
to improve the situation and prevent similar misconduct in the future (proaction). The
extent of the review (the number of pages allocated) varied between the companies,
though this can be tied to the size of the report (financial and non-financial) in which it
appeared.
The most important related strategies is not how many pages are used to respond to the
criticism, but rather whether the criticism is acknowledged at all. One of the seven
companies, Alstom, chose a different response than did the companies noted above.
This company choose not to acknowledge the criticism in its non-financial report.
Alstom does not mention the fact that it has been criticized, but rather focuses on the
positive aspects of its work related to social responsibility. To some extent, this sup-
ports Brown & Deegan’s and Islam & Deegan’s findings, that negative media cover-
age results in positive non-financial disclosure from the company (Islam and Deegan
2010, Brown and Deegan 1998). However, contrary to these studies, which followed
the companies over time, the present study only investigated the company’s response
the year of most negative coverage.
Alstom reacted differently than the other six companies in that the company did not
recognize or address the CSR performance criticism. Still, it can be argued that this
supports the sense making model described by Basu & Palazzo: Alstom’s management
might not identify itself as a socially responsible company, but rather as an investor-
responsible company – as long as the negative media coverage did not impact its share
price, it did not need to respond (Basu and Palazzo 2008). The same is true for legiti-
macy: if the key stakeholders are the shareholders, focusing on other stakeholders (like
society in general or critical NGOs) might not seem as relevant. To answer these ques-
tions, further studies are needed to follow up Alstom’s management strategy related to
the media criticism. It might well be, though, that the company did not have a specific
strategy related to the criticism; it may have simply ignored it. Previous studies have
shown that CSR engagement and disclosure can be very person-related (Ditlev-
Simonsen 2010, 2009). It is very possible that in the next year, or in the previous year,
the company’s CSR disclosure was different and the criticism was recognized and re-
sponded to.
From a corporate perspective, it is interesting to note that it is possible to ignore the
criticism in the annual report and proceed as if it never occurred. There are several
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 131
possible reasons a company might choose such a strategy. Not least, it is "easier" – or
more convenient. The company will not have to engage in the area and will avoid
negative consequences of admitting to inappropriate behavior. At least in the short
term, it does not appear as if the company has "lost" anything in choosing this strat-
egy.
From an academic perspective, it is interesting to note that Carroll and Wilson's phi-
losophy of Social Responsiveness model is not as relevant in categorizing corporate
strategies to meet societal criticism to which they are exposed. It is generally the case
that, after the company has acknowledged the criticism (react), it proceeds immedi-
ately to the defense, accommodation and proaction stages. The degree and focus of
each of these is related to the nature of the criticism, and of the behavior that led to the
criticism. For Telenor and Ericsson, for whom working conditions at suppliers were
below the quality the company wanted, it was acceptable to admit they had made a
mistake and to claim that will not happen again. Statoil, Intex, Lundin and Vale how-
ever, must focus more on defending its operations as the company plans to continue
with its operation. All of these responses, however, could support Basu & Palazzo’s
cognitive identity and legitimacy approach of sense making, with a linguistic balance
of the justification and transparency approach, which might be linked to management
strategy or to the person in charge of developing the non-financial disclosure (Basu
and Palazzo 2008, Ditlev-Simonsen 2010)
Even faced with very different criticism, the companies that responded immediately,
adopting all four strategies proposed by Carroll and Wilson. These findings support
the argument that if a company reacts to criticism, it immediately have to go all the
way applying a combination of these four strategies simultaneously (react, defense,
accomodation or proaction). There is alternatively a different approach; null response,
that is, not acknowledge the criticism of in non-financial reporting. Thus, from a theo-
retical perspective, this study has followed the Process of Building Theory from Case
Study Research (Eisenhardt 1989), contributing to extending the Carroll and Wilson
model to reflect new dimensions with an either or response: Either ignore criticism or
fulfill the four strategies simultaneously. This theory extension also supports the sense
making theory and extends the variety of responses that can make sense for compa-
nies. Further research could help to shed light on why companies might choose this
strategy and what the effect of this might be, compared to those companies that chose
to react and respond to criticism in their non-financial reporting.
This study suggest that if a company decided to recognize the criticism, it has to go
“all the way” (react, defense, accommodation and proaction), but it is also possible to
entirely ignore the criticism and not mentioning at all. It is also possible, like Alstom,
to portray itself as a deeply engaged in an area where it has been criticized without
recognizing the criticism. Maybe then, another way of categorizing response to media
criticism is to reflect how “deep” into regret and remorse the company goes. Like
Ericsson and Telenor, which can “afford” to be humble and poor working conditions
were perceived as an “error”, other companies as Statoil, Intex, Lundin and Vale want
132 C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133
to continue to performing the operation they have been criticized for, and therefore
have to apply a different strategy for response, not as “deep” on regret and remorse.
Acknowledgment: I want to extend my gratitude to research assistant Elisabeth Støve
who has conducted the Factiva and corporate report search. The study is partly sup-
ported by grant from Fondet til fremme av bank- og finansstudier (The Norwegian
foundation in support of bank and finance studies)
References
Andersen, Svein S. 2003. Case-studier og generalisering. 2. opplag ed. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.
Basu, Kunal, and Guido Palazzo. 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility: A process
model of sensemaking." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 1.,
pp. 122-136.
Brammer, Stephen, and Stephen Pavelin. 2004. "Voluntary social disclosures by large
UK companies." Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 13, No. 2/3., pp.
86-99.
Brown, Noel, and Craig Deegan. 1998. "The public disclosure of environmental per-
formance information -- a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legiti-
macy theory." Accounting & Business Research (Wolters Kluwer UK), Vol.
29, No. 1., pp. 21-41.
Carroll, Archie B. 1979. "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Per-
formance." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4., pp. 497-505.
Clarkson, Max E. 1995. "A Stakeholder Frramwork for Analyzing and Evaluating Cor-
porate Social Performance."Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No.
1., pp. 92-117.
Crane, Andrew, and Dirk Matten. 2007. Business ethics, second edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline. 2012. "Tomme fraser om likestilling og miljø." Kapital no.
4:108-109.
Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline D. 2009. "Fordrer det noe spesielt å lede en
samfunnsansvarlig bedrift " Magma, Vol. 2, pp. 22-33.
Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline D. 2010. "From corporate social responsibility awareness
to action?" Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3., pp 452-468.
Ditlev-Simonsen, Caroline D., and Atle Midttun. 2011. "What motivates managers to
pursue corporate responsibility? a survey among key stakeholders." Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, Vol. 18, No. 1.,
pp. 25-38.
C. D. Ditlev-Simonsen/ Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 2 (2014) 116-133 133
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. "Building theories from case study research." Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4., pp. 532-550.
European Commission. 2001. “Promoting a European Framework for Corporate So-
cial Responsibility” In http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/csr/index_en.htm.
Fry, Fred L., and Robert J. Hock. 1976. "Who Claims Corporate Responsibility? The
Biggest and the Worst." Business & Society Review (00453609) Vol. 18,
p.62
Ioannou, I, and G Serafeim. 2012. The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sus-
tainability Reporting. In Harvard Business School Working Paper 11-100.
Islam, Muhammad Azizul, and Craig Deegan. 2010. "Media pressures and corporate
disclosure of social responsibility performance information: a study of two
global clothing and sports retail companies." Accounting & Business Re-
search (Wolters Kluwer UK), Vol. 40, No. 2., pp. 131-148.
Samuel, O. Idowu, and Papasolomou Ioanna. 2007. "Are the corporate social responsi-
bility matters based on good intentions or false pretences? An empirical
study of the motivations behind the issuing of CSR reports by UK compa-
nies." Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board
Performance, Vol. 7, No. 2., pp. 136-147.
US SIF. “Sustainable and Responsible Investing Facts 2012” http://ussif.org/
resources/sriguide/srifacts.cfm. [cited 04.01.2012]
Wilson, Ian H. 1975. What one company is doing about today's demands on business.
Edited by George A Steiner, Changing business-society interrlationship. Los
Angeles: Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
Zadek, Simon. 2004. "The Path to Corporate Responsibility." Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 82, No.12., pp. 125-132.
