Advanced Accounting Social Responsibility Case

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass

Leanne Morrison1 • Trevor Wilmshurst1 • Sonia Shimeld1

Received: 4 June 2015 / Accepted: 21 March 2016 / Published online: 7 April 2016

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This paper adopts the lens of environmental

ethics to explore whether there is a disparity between the

ethical approaches of a company in comparison to those

expressed by stakeholders in relation to environmental

issues, specifically those communicated through the cor-

porate environmental report. Discourse analysis is adopted

to explore the environmental section of the sustainability

reports of the case study company as compared to the

responses of a sample of the company’s stakeholders, using

the lens of three branches of environmental ethics: utili-

tarianism, deontology and virtue ethics. Results indicate

that the ethical approaches expressed in the case study

company’s environmental reports were grounded in utili-

tarianism and deontology, in contrast to a virtue ethics

approach expressed by external stakeholders. The disparity

widened as the relationship between the company and the

stakeholder became less direct. This disparity signals a

failure to meet one of the primary purposes for preparing

sustainability reports: to engage with stakeholders. As such

this research contributes to the literature by identifying a

disparity in the how this information is communicated

compared with how it is perceived by stakeholders. This

has important implications for the success of current

stakeholder engagement practices.

Keywords Environmental ethics � Environmental reporting � Expectations gap � Deep ecology � Deontology � Discourse analysis � Stakeholder engagement � Sustainability � Utilitarianism � Virtue ethics

Introduction

The lens of environmental ethics is adopted in this study to

assess whether there is incongruence between the ethical

views of management and stakeholders with regard to the

reporting of environmental information as part of sustain-

ability reporting. Rather than exploring what information is

reported this way, this paper explores how it is communi-

cated. While it has been argued that stakeholder engage-

ment is an integral motivation for management to report on

sustainability issues (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014), many

stakeholders would argue that organisations do not mean-

ingfully engage with them through this medium (Adams

2004; Crane et al. 2008; Joseph 2012). Ethics explores the

various ways in which ethical decisions can be considered.

By exploring the ethical perspectives of stakeholders in

comparison to those expressed in the report, an important

aspect of corporate communication is brought to light for

critique.

A disparity of ethical approaches represents a discon-

nection between the company and its stakeholders akin to

speaking different dialects of the same language. Conse-

quently, such a disparity challenges the adequacy of the

reporting process as a medium of stakeholder engagement.

Various inconsistencies between organisational reporting

and stakeholder perceptions have been explored in

accounting literature, with inferences that such a gap would

impair an organisation’s level of accountability (Adams

2004) and undermine stakeholder trust (Dando and Swift

& Leanne Morrison [email protected]

Trevor Wilmshurst

[email protected]

Sonia Shimeld

[email protected]

1 Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of

Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 150:903–918

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3136-4

2003). This literature gives rise to a broader understanding

of how stakeholders construct their perceptions about

corporate environmental impact (Rodrigue 2014). Building

from the disparities recognised by others, this research

explores whether there is a discrepancy between the ethical

approaches presented in the environmental section of the

sustainability report, and those adopted by stakeholders.

Discrepancies of this nature represent a gap in communi-

cation; signalling a failure to meet one of the primary

purposes of sustainability reporting (O’Riordan and Fair-

brass 2014).

The discrepancy sought in this research differs from

what is generally understood to be an ‘expectations gap’ in

the extant literature, in that the authors are not questioning

the validity, truth or accuracy of information provided in

the environmental report (Deegan and Rankin 1999).

Instead, this study identifies a gap between the narrative

provided by the company in its environmental reports, and

stakeholder perceptions of the company’s environmental

impacts. This presents a more holistic analysis than merely

focusing on the information which has been provided by

the company.

Haque et al. (2016) note that there is a paucity in

expectations gap research in the environmental accounting

literature. A key contribution of this paper is that the

authors do not seek to find a gap in what stakeholders

expect to be reported (as in Haque et al. (2016), Deegan

and Rankin (1999) and Sikka et al. (1998)), but rather a

discrepancy between how stakeholders understand these

issues and how the organisation is communicating that

information. This raises an important concern: if there is a

difference in understanding between how stakeholders and

corporations perceive the natural environment, there is a

potential disruption to the communication process, despite

the intentions of both parties.

In exploring the ethical approaches expressed in the

environmental report compared with those of stakeholders,

three core branches of environmental ethics are employed:

utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics. Determining

which of the ethical approaches were implicitly adopted

provided a means with which to establish whether the case

study company was communicating its environmental

information from an ethical standpoint which corresponded

with stakeholders’ perceptions. For instance, if the envi-

ronmental reports and stakeholders implicitly adopt the

same ethical approaches, this would imply that there is no

disparity. Conversely, if divergent ethical approaches are

adopted in the environmental report as compared with

stakeholder approaches, this represents a rift in the stake-

holder engagement process of the company. The ethical

approaches are considered in light of Broadbent (1998),

who pointed out that the masculine, or ‘hard’ logic used in

accounting texts tends to silence other perspectives. To

counter this silencing, Broadbent invited more ‘soft’ logic,

in the form of subjectivity into the processes by which

corporations give their account.

In order to apply this ethical lens, the environmental

sections of the case study’s sustainability reports, as well as

transcripts of interviews with diverse stakeholders who

have a variety of positions and attitudes in relation to the

case study company were analysed using discourse analy-

sis. Discursive practices provide a medium to demonstrate

the underlying environmental ethical approach adopted to

perceive and interact with the environment. In adopting

this methodology, this research questions whether the

company reports information in a way to which the

stakeholder can relate; is the stakeholder engagement

process meeting its objective?

This research contributes to the body of knowledge by

illuminating the different approaches to environmental

issues taken by the corporation in comparison to its key

stakeholders. This research introduces a conceptual

framework established in the environmental ethics litera-

ture (Elliot 2001; Sandler 2010; Curry 2006) into the

accounting and environmental reporting literature, and

expands on a method that has been underutilised in this

field (Tregidga et al. 2007). An exploration of this kind

provides new ways to highlight potential problems in

engaging stakeholders through the disclosure of environ-

mental information. This research will provide additional

insights which will assist in improving the understanding of

stakeholder engagement in the reporting process through

corporate environmental disclosure.

Background

Sustainability reporting and interest in stakeholder

engagement has intensified over time (Kolk 2003). Prior to

and into the early 1990s, reporting on social, environmental

and economic matters was undertaken through the annual

report. The extent of reporting in each category other than

that required by legislation and various regulations (largely

financial and economic in nature) was variable (Deegan

and Gordon 1996). In the early 1990s, the first stand-alone

environmental reports were produced, initially by compa-

nies that could be identified as environmentally sensitive,

typically those in the mining and petroleum sectors (Dee-

gan and Gordon 1996). Over time, this type of largely

voluntary reporting has become commonplace, appearing

both in annual reports and in separate social and environ-

mental reports (Adams 2004), in effect becoming an

important part of the ‘account’ given by corporations to

their stakeholders. As social expectations have changed,

the communication of this information has developed into

reporting through stand-alone reports variously titled—

904 L. Morrison et al.

123

‘sustainability’, ‘triple bottom line’, ‘integrated’, ‘envi-

ronmental and social’—in addition to the annual report.

Many companies currently report online through company

websites (Adams and Frost 2006). In academic accounting

research, this development has led to the exploration of the

preparation and content, motivations, effectiveness, inten-

tion and outcomes of these publicly available reports and

the nature of stakeholder engagement (Owen 2008); how-

ever, limited attention has been given to the philosophical

and ethical meanings underpinning organisational com-

munication and accountability, particularly through the

lens of qualitative and interpretive methods (Tregidga et al.

2012).

The exploration of the ethical frameworks upon which

environmental reporting is based accepts that such report-

ing is constructed through layers of history and convention.

Ethical thought evolves as social life changes, and as such

is inseparable from its social and historical contexts

(MacIntyre 1998). Ethics, as a social construction, can be

thought of as what is most acceptable within certain social

situations, at particular points in time. As such it is irre-

vocably reflected in the actions and discursive practices of

that society, including in conventions such as those

reflected in accounting and reporting practices.

Accountants participate in this act of social construction

in part by maintaining the illusion of objectivity in

undertaking accounting practice based on ‘objective crite-

ria’ identified in the rules, regulations and standards gov-

erning accounting practice and compliance reporting

(Walters-York 1996). In this way, accountants are not only

following a preconceived reality, but also perpetuating (and

changing) it through their participation (Hines 1988;

Young 2015). Recognising the socially constructed nature

of accounting allows for the deconstruction of its façade

and the possibility of alternative approaches to be incor-

porated within its structure, and in particular within

accounting for the environment.

Broadbent (1998) and others (Arrington and Francis

1993; Oakes and Hammond 1995; Young 2015) have

argued that traditional accounting is constructed to favour a

certain type of rationality and subordinates alternative

perspectives. They argue that this highlights the need to

incorporate a diversity of views into accounting. By

allowing other voices to be heard and included in the

accounting conversation, it is argued that the dominance of

a singular narrative is then dismantled, allowing for a more

inclusive, relational approach, in order to develop mean-

ingful engagement with stakeholders.

The bias towards a masculine rationality that Hines

(1992), Broadbent (1998) and others argue against can be

traced back to the philosophies of Descartes, who, in the

seventeenth century developed an approach which rein-

forced the perceived superiority of reason. Descartes

(1996) philosophically severed the relationship between

the human experience and the environment, and in this

way, established a hierarchy between reason and physi-

cality, otherwise known as the Cartesian split, which still

profoundly influences Western thought today. The persis-

tence of Cartesian thought can be demonstrated by the

common perception in Western culture that humans are

separate and superior to the environment. This perception

is reflected in accounting practices which treat many

environmental issues as externalities, and not an integral

part of the human, or organisational experience.

The Cartesian split, the universal masculine (Hines

1992) and the patriarchal approach to accounting logic

(Broadbent 1998) reflect the same issue from different

angles—that a social reality has been built which favours

the masculine, the dominant, the hierarchy of humans over

the natural environment and the homogeneity of perspec-

tives. Where are values such as connectedness, alterity, 1

care, relationality, emotion and intuition? An exploration

of environmental ethics reveals the limitations of tradi-

tional approaches to the environment, approaches that it

has been argued, have brought about the current environ-

mental crises (Abram 1996; Hawken 1993; Hadot 2006;

Merchant 1989). Is there a way for alternative voices to be

heard in accounting and reporting for the environment? A

multitude of dialogues need to be heard in order to reach

the understanding suggested by Broadbent (1998), allow-

ing these voices to contribute to the narrative of account-

ing. If traditional approaches towards the environment have

contributed to current environmental crises, perhaps lis-

tening to alternative approaches offers a way to change

focus and create environmental reporting practices that

meaningfully engage with stakeholders.

Utilising these themes, this paper introduces a philo-

sophical perspective through the application of environ-

mental ethics. Contemporary environmental ethics has

evolved into three branches which represent three distinct

approaches to the environment: utilitarianism, deontology

and virtue ethics (Brennan and Lo 2011; Whetstone 2001).

While these three branches of Western ethical systems

were founded on the ethical dilemmas of human-to-human

interactions, each can be considered in the context of the

human relationship with nature, reflecting the increasing

social interest in recognising the value of the natural

environment. The ontology of each of these approaches

dictates that environmental issues, as well as the environ-

ment itself, can be understood from distinct perspectives,

deconstructing environmental issues from a hegemony of

1 Alterity refers to the quality of difference, or otherness. It is a

concept frequently drawn from a feminist thought as an alternative to

homogeny and universalism, concepts associated with a patriarchal

perspective.

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 905

123

discourse into a rich and diverse multiplicity. Detecting a

difference between the ethical approaches adopted in the

environmental report, as compared to the ethical approa-

ches of stakeholders would imply a disparity or rift in the

stakeholder engagement process. While all of these

approaches offer their unique perspective, and are often

used collectively, each system has limitations within dif-

ferent environmental contexts (Elliot 2001; Sylvan 1998;

Curry 2006) and will be considered in turn.

Utilitarianism as an Environmental Ethic

Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism first articu-

lated by Bentham in the 19th century. In developing util-

itarianism, Bentham (1907) attempted to pin-point what

made an action ‘‘good’’ or otherwise—the essence of an

ethical decision. He concluded that a ‘‘good’’ action would

either reduce suffering or increase pleasure. From this

foundation he constructed an ethical framework which

attempted to gauge the total suffering in comparison to the

total pleasure that resulted from an action. The ethical

decision then rested only on this answer, and disregarded

other contextual issues.

From Bentham’s foundational utilitarianism, Singer

(1990) expanded the net of ethical consideration to

encompass other sentient creatures in addition to humans,

based on their ability to experience suffering and pleasure.

While Singer’s expansion of utilitarianism allowed for the

consideration of animals other than humans, the utilitarian

model does not allow for the direct ethical consideration of

non-sentient systems such as ecosystems. Any non-sentient

entities are thus only considered by way of the effect their

harm or wellbeing would have on sentient agents. As such,

while Singer successfully argued for the expansion of

moral consideration, the mechanisms within this model fail

to directly consider aspects of the environment which do

not experience sentience. This presents what many con-

sider a weakness as an environmental ethical framework:

its incapacity to consider the intrinsic values of non-sen-

tient entities separate from human interests (Elliot 2001;

Sylvan 1998; Plumwood 1995).

In light of Broadbent’s (1998) argument that accounting

texts express a masculine logic, utilitarianism may be

considered as an approach which reinforces the dominance

of a masculine rationality (Plumwood 1991). Plumwood

(1991) has argued that this kind of rationality is one which

has been inimical to the natural environment. Considering

this critique alongside Broadbent’s (1998) argument that

using a masculine logic in accounting texts silences alter-

native perspectives, the utilitarian approach appears less

relevant in communicating environmental issues. Another

argument demonstrating utilitarianism’s limitations as an

environmental ethic is the view that our current environ-

mental crisis is the result of the aggregation of a myriad of

unintended consequences (Sandler 2010). Since many of

our actions have unforeseen consequences, the attempt to

base an ethical framework on only foreseen consequences

seems unrealistic and unable to capture many of the

unanticipated results of our actions, particularly in relation

to the natural environment. For these reasons, utilitarianism

is often rejected as a comprehensive environmental ethic

(Elliot 2001).

Nonetheless, utilitarianism is not altogether ineffectual,

and still offers a way to consider particular ethical deci-

sions which have an environmental impact. Utilitarianism

is often used in business and government decisions, where

the relative costs and benefits are instrumental in evaluat-

ing an outcome. It is similarly useful for considerations of a

particular species’ wellbeing, although as discussed, is not

as useful for broader issues such as the direct consideration

of aspects of the environment which do not experience

what is traditionally considered sentience, such as smaller

ecosystems, or the biosphere as a whole. For this reason,

utilitarianism’s relative simplicity offers a somewhat useful

tool to be used in collaboration with other methods of

ethical decision making (Elliot 2001). Accordingly, while

this approach may be convenient in some isolated situa-

tions, it does not provide a useful framework for broader

environmental issues.

Deontology as an Environmental Ethic

Like utilitarianism, deontology appears to offer a method

of ethical decision making which is easily converted to

many different ethical dilemmas. Under a deontological

approach, if an action is truly ethical, it not only can, but

must be repeated universally in all similar situations—what

Kant described as a categorical imperative (Larry and

Moore 2008). Like Bentham, Kant (2001) attempted to

reduce moral decisions down to their core principle, in

order to discover the fundamental significance of ethics. In

doing so, he removed contextual motivations such as self-

interest and the preference towards those we know, since

these factors create variations which cannot be univer-

salised. What Kant was left with was what he considered

the essence of morality, which he claimed could be used in

any ethical decision, building the foundation for a set of

rules applicable to all ethical problems.

Although Kant (2001) himself did not mention the

environment directly in his work, his foundational philos-

ophy centred around the concept that only rational beings

are to be treated as ends, and all else can be ethically

treated as a means to this end. Consequently, any being

considered non-rational under Kant’s understanding, for

906 L. Morrison et al.

123

example a rainforest, a natural waterway or an Australian

fur-seal may ethically be used as a means; the only

restriction deontology offers would be the effect this has on

a rational being. Under Kantianism, this is understood to be

a purely human domain. As such, like utilitarianism,

deontology is unlikely to offer a comprehensive framework

for environmental ethics.

Deontology’s shortcomings as a complete environmental

ethical framework are reiterated by Plumwood (1991), who

critiqued its tendency to perpetuate the dominance of reason

at the expense of the natural values. Broadbent (1998)

similarly draws from Hines (1992) to describe the mascu-

line rationality that permeates and structures accounting

texts. The relationship with masculine rationality and

deontology has been made most notably by Gilligan (1982),

who highlighted the problems in perceiving deontology and

Kantian ethics as evidence of higher order ethical reason-

ing, when it exhibits a fundamental bias towards a mascu-

line method of reasoning, silencing feminine perspectives,

referred to by Broadbent (1998) as ‘soft’ values.

Concepts such as duty and obligation, however, are still

useful instruments for environmental ethics. Like utilitari-

anism, deontology is a practical tool for some issues within

environmental ethics (such as adhering to environmental

regulations), yet still lacks the internal mechanisms to

account for the diversity of moral considerations in the

context of the environment. A robust environmental ethics

framework cannot therefore be constructed with an exclu-

sively, or even predominantly deontological approach.

Virtue Ethics as an Environmental Ethic

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, locates the ethical decision

within the subject, and allows for a subjective evaluation of

ethical decisions. The central concern of virtue ethics is the

development of virtuous characteristics. From this position,

virtue ethicists assert that ‘good’ or ‘ethical’ choices will

naturally be made by a person with virtuous characteristics

(Curry 2006). First articulated by Aristotle, virtue ethics has

developed and branched out into a myriad of approaches

which are less concerned with the reduction of moral

motivations, instead focusing on the context within which

the decision is being made (Kenny 2010; McPherson 2013).

While its beginnings were primarily anthropocentric, much

like utilitarianism and deontology, the foundations of virtue

ethics lay not with the attempt to reduce ethics down to its

bare essence, but to consider ethical decisions in context

(O’Neill 2001). These foundations have allowed virtue

ethics to evolve past a concern with exclusively human

wellbeing to encompass the wellbeing of the natural envi-

ronment, as demonstrated by the deep ecology movement

(Fox 2000; Hull 2005) and ecofeminism (Elliot 2001). Like

earlier conceptions of this ethical approach, these two

contemporary variations of virtue ethics focus on the

character of the agent (Fox 2000), rather than particular

duties (as in deontology) or outcomes (as in utilitarianism

and other consequentialist approaches).

While deep ecology and ecofeminism share some sim-

ilarities, they are differentiated in their approaches to the

human relationship within the environment. Deep ecology

is outlined by Mathews (1991) through contrasting the

West’s mechanical perception of the environment with an

alternative paradigm based on the concept of matter as a

dynamic continuum, which corresponds to perceiving the

environment as a series of interdependent dynamic sys-

tems. The deep ecology perspective interprets these inter-

related systems as ‘selves’ and as such redefines and

expands the traditional concept of a self to include not just

the individual human, but other mutually sustaining

organisms within shared systems. Mathews (2001, p. 220)

explicates the concept of beings within systems.

…the attributes of any given individual would be a function of the wider system or field to which it

belonged. Privileged attributes, such as the mind,

could thus not be regarded as the exclusive province

of particular individuals, such as human beings, but

must rather be seen as suffusing nature at large. In

this way, by making the system itself the locus of all

attributes, the justification for ranking some individ-

uals over others, on account of their ‘‘higher’’ attri-

butes, is eliminated…

The implications of such an ecocentric perspective,

include the deconstruction of an anthropocentric hierarchy

of values which valorise human wellbeing at the expense of

the wellbeing of other entities, and the cultivation of a

deeper relationship with the world around us (Fox 2000;

Naess 1973). From this position, it becomes possible to

give ethical consideration to ecological systems them-

selves, and to morally consider the wellbeing of these

systems; a consideration not compatible with either the

utilitarian or deontological approaches, which can only

consider the sentient or rational members of ecosystems.

Ecofeminism is explained by Plumwood (1995) to be

differentiated from deep ecology through its retention of an

alterity between selves. Rather than redefining the self as a

homogenous whole, ecofeminism honours the differences

and therefore the relationships between things. Through

this focus on plurality, ecofeminism allows the ethical

decision to emerge from the context, rather than as an

externally imposed universal rule or calculation. Both deep

ecology and ecofeminism emphasise the role of care and

relationality, two aspects which transpire from the self and

differ in contexts, an approach inherited from Aristotle’s

original conception of virtue ethics.

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 907

123

Relationality, interconnectedness and contextual think-

ing allow virtue ethics to encompass environmental issues

with a degree of flexibility unavailable through the appli-

cation of utilitarianism or deontology. Through acknowl-

edging our personal relationship, and our role within the

environment, virtue ethics builds on a foundation which

recognises the intrinsic value of nature, and our profound

reliance on its wellbeing. These values represent what

Broadbent (1998) describes as ‘soft’ values—those

silenced by accounting’s bias towards ‘hard’ or masculine

logic.

Despite this natural fit with environmental ethics, virtue

ethics offers a challenge in its application at an organisa-

tional level (McPherson 2013). Its relative subjectivity and

contextual approach make it more complex to employ and

justify in organisational decision making and reporting

than deontology, which naturally allows for the univer-

salisation of standards, and utilitarianism, which offers a

comparison which can be applied to many situations

uniformly.

In exploring the philosophical underpinnings of corpo-

rate environmental disclosure, these three ethical frame-

works, although at times overlapping, and not exhaustive,

provide a basis for evaluating the approaches used by

stakeholders in comparison to those used by the organisa-

tion. They present a tool with which to critique and question

the organisational approach to disclosing environmental

information to stakeholders.

Method

A case study approach utilising mixed methods was

adopted to explore the ethical underpinnings of environ-

mental disclosures within the selected case study’s annual

report (2010) and sustainability reports (2011, 2012).

Where complex issues are involved (Yin 2009) and the

company has unique features (Cresswell 2013), a single

case study approach is suited to an exploration where a

deeper level of understanding is required. This approach

involved a discourse analysis of the written word and nine

interviews of a mix of company stakeholders which

allowed for the exploration of the philosophical underpin-

nings of reporting by comparing what was reported with

the identified information needs of the stakeholders.

The case study company 2 is unique in that it has been

recognised for the quality of its sustainability reporting, has

attained best practice certification, is recognised as one of the

top companies in its field, is one of the largest companies

within its industry; and has signed a charter committing to

sustainable practices. Despite these achievements in sus-

tainability reporting, specifically environmental reporting,

the company remains the object of some controversy

regarding its perceived environmental impacts, with many

viewing the company as the perpetrator of substantial envi-

ronmental harm.

Data were collected through the ‘Chairperson’s and

CEO’s Report’ in the case study company’s 2010 annual

report (the first time it publicly disclosed environmental

information in its report), and the environment section of

its sustainability reports prepared in 2011 and 2012. In

addition to these data, nine stakeholders were interviewed,

chosen with the expectation that they would have divergent

views of the case study company’s environmental man-

agement and reporting practices. These ranged from

stakeholders who appeared to hold a negative view of the

case study company’s environmental performance, to those

who believed that it was performing well in regards to its

environmental impact. Stakeholders were also chosen who

were expected to have different levels of knowledge

regarding the case study company’s environment reports,

ranging from those who had never read the environment

section of the sustainability reports, to those who had an in-

depth knowledge of the reports.

In order to achieve some level of complexity and depth

in interviews with these stakeholders, a semi-structured

interviewing style was employed. In this way, interviewees

were free to raise topics which reflected their perspectives

of environmental management within the case study com-

pany as well as environmental issues more generally

(Erikson and Kovalainen 2008). During the hour-long

interviews, participants were asked a series of uniform

questions, distilling their views about the case study

company’s environmental impacts and reporting, as well as

the participants’ personal environmental views more gen-

erally. These questions were designed to open the con-

versation and allow participants to extend the conversation

and digress as befitting their views and responses. The

outcome of this process was rich and in-depth data which

communicated information regarding the ethical perspec-

tives of participants in relation to the case study company,

its environmental reports and the natural environment in

general.

Since the ethical perspectives of both the case study

company and its stakeholders were not expected to be

communicated explicitly, a method of analysis which

focused on implied meaning and qualitative understanding

was considered appropriate. Discourse analysis is particu-

larly useful in this context as discourse constructs meaning

by making sense of events from a specific perspective, and

its analysis deconstructs and illuminates the implicit

meanings contained within discursive practices (Hardy

2 The name of the company and any other identifying features have

been removed in order to adhere to the guidance provided by the

Tasmanian Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee.

908 L. Morrison et al.

123

2001). Such analysis acknowledges that discourse is used

to communicate not only the explicit object of communi-

cation, but also its embedded ideologies (Heracleous

2004). Hence discourse analysis was used to interpret the

data in this study.

In order to analyse the discourse involved, the differing

approaches offered by the interviewees as well as the

written environmental sections within the case study

company’s annual reports were deconstructed into the three

philosophical approaches to environmental ethics (utili-

tarianism, deontology and virtue ethics). These three

approaches are considered important normative ethical

frameworks from which to consider environmental ethics,

(Elliot 2001) and as such form an appropriate conceptual

framework for this research. While it is acknowledged that

ethical approaches may not consistently fit neatly into pre-

conceived classifications, discourse analysis methods are

flexible enough to allow for these natural variations (Wo-

dak and Meyer 2009). Following Butteriss et al. (2001) and

Dryzek (2013), beliefs and assumptions underpinning an

object of discourse are more clearly extrapolated through

the application of discourse groupings. Discourse group-

ings allow parts of text to be classified according to various

themes which assist the recognition of diverse ethical

approaches. The discourse groupings and the method with

which they were applied to the text within this research

project were verified by two independent philosophy aca-

demics during the process of the research project. As such,

this project applied discourse groupings to the case study to

illuminate approaches founded in the three traditional

environmental ethical systems as follows.

Discourse Groupings for Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is founded on the concept of balancing

positive and negative outcomes in a somewhat calculative

formula. These outcomes are measured using a scale of

happiness and suffering; experiences that are limited to

sentient beings (Singer 1990). The utilitarian approach

aligns closely with concepts underpinning traditional

financial accounting and reporting. Due to utilitarianism’s

focus on foreseeable consequences, this ethical framework

encourages a narrow field of consideration (Sandler 2010).

In light of these key aspects, subgroupings based on

‘Balancing’, a ‘Narrow Focus’ and ‘Sentience’ were

developed, as shown in Table 1, and discussed below.

The comparison between happiness and suffering

established by Bentham (1907) can be translated into a

balancing of negative and positive outcomes, as in the

cluster of subgroupings which are distinguished by their

focus on balancing, as in ‘‘UB1: Balancing’’. This focus on

comparing outcomes is further applied in the subgrouping

‘‘UB2: Comparing’’, in which comparisons between eco-

nomic outcomes and environmental impact represent an

aspect of utilitarian discourse. In contrast, discourse cate-

gorised as ‘‘UB2X: Opposing UB2’’ demonstrates cyni-

cism about the comparison of economic and environmental

costs. While this type of discourse expresses dissatisfaction

with UB2 type discussions, it is still framing the argument

in utilitarian discourse which focuses on the balancing of

outcomes as a method of ethical decision making.

Utilitarianism encourages a narrow field of considera-

tion, since it is not possible to continue to calculate the

consequences of an action beyond a fairly immediate circle

of events. As such, a cluster of the utilitarian discourse

groupings is categorised under the term ‘‘Narrow Focus’’,

and is demonstrated by focusing on considerations which

are limited both in time and area, as in the subgroupings

‘‘UN1: Site-specific effects’’ and ‘‘UN2: Short term con-

siderations’’. An example of a site-specific focus, in this

case study, is the belief that the environmental impact is

restricted to the site of the production facility sites.

This narrowing tendency in utilitarianism is also

observed in the discourse by demonstration of simple cal-

culations or a numerical focus, as in the subgrouping

‘‘UN3: Simplified solutions’’. An example of a numerical

focus is the ‘fish in, fish out’ ratio, which calculates the

weight of fish used in feeding the stock, compared to the

weight of fish meat produced as a result. Similarly, a

utilitarian approach can be observed when a particular

species is discussed in favour of the consideration of the

Table 1 Utilitarian discourse groupings

Balancing Narrow focus Sentience

UB1 ‘‘Balancing’’: Balancing negative and

positive outcomes

UN1 ‘‘Site-specific’’: Site-specific focus US1 ‘‘Sustainability’’

UB2 ‘‘Comparing’’: Comparing economic

outcomes with environmental impact

UN2 ‘‘Short term’’: Short-term

considerations

US2 ‘‘Sentience’’: Specific sentient

beings (e.g. humans, mammals)

UB2X ‘‘Opposing UB2’’: Arguing against, or

being cynical about UB2

UN3 ‘‘Simplified solutions’’: Simplified

solutions, quantitative approach

UN4 ‘‘Particular species’’: A particular

species

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 909

123

whole ecosystem within which the individual species

resides, and on which its wellbeing depends. Hence, ‘‘UN4:

Particular Species’’ forms the final subgrouping within the

‘‘Narrow Focus’’ cluster of the utilitarian discourse

grouping.

The third cluster of utilitarian discourse groupings is

based on the concept of sentience. As demonstrated by

Singer (1990), sentience can be understood as the ability to

experience suffering or pleasure, and although the concept

is biased towards anthropocentric values, is no longer

considered to be an exclusively human trait.

The definition of sustainable development offered in the

Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) forms the basis of much

of the organisational understanding of the term sustain-

ability. This definition focuses on the fulfilment of

anthropocentric needs; both present and future, demon-

strating a bias towards human interests. Since these human

interests represent what Bentham (1907) originally incor-

porated in his field of utilitarian consideration, the term

‘sustainability’ is also considered to be representative of a

utilitarian perspective in the ‘‘US1: Sustainability’’ sub-

grouping, unless the context of the dialogue implies

otherwise. Stakeholders’ use of this term supported this

interpretation.

Utilitarianism is founded on a calculation which evalu-

ates the perceived maximisation of happiness, or minimi-

sation of suffering which results from a decision. The

nature of this calculation implies that only beings capable

of experiencing happiness are accounted for in utilitarian-

ism, therefore a focus on the experiences of sentient ani-

mals will demonstrate a utilitarian approach through the

subgrouping labelled ‘‘US2: Sentience’’.

Discourse Grouping for Deontology

The second ethical framework used as the basis of a dis-

course grouping is deontology. Table 2 sets out the dis-

course groupings used to identify a deontological approach

in the data.

Deontology focuses on ethical decisions which are

repeatable in all similar circumstances. This approach is

reflected in laws and regulations which are applied uni-

formly to a broad horizon of situations. Consequently, any

reference to Environmental Protection Agency regulations,

or other guidelines and standards set by bodies in either a

mandatory or voluntary capacity represent an ethical stance

founded in a deontological view, and are classified as part

of the ‘‘DU1: Rules and regulations’’ subgrouping.

Similarly, any cynicism expressed about these issues is

classified as ‘‘DU1X: Opposing DU1’’. While this may

seem counterintuitive, using deontological arguments,

whether for or against, is one way of expressing a deon-

tological perspective. It demonstrates that the view is being

perceived through a deontological lens, however negative.

For the same reasons, references to actions which must

always or never occur, or simply as the right or wrong thing

to do, without reference to a wider context, are considered

deontological. In this vein, other ethical ‘instructions’ such

as ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’, are

considered deontological in nature, and form part of the

‘‘DU2: Instructions’’ subgrouping. Discussion of actions

which exceed the requirements of regulations and laws are

classified as ‘‘DU3: Above and beyond’’. These four sub-

groupings are distinguished by the theme of ‘‘Universal

Rules’’.

Similarly, references to ethical decisions that are based

on social contractarian views are also considered deonto-

logical, and form the cluster of deontological subgroupings

that relate to ‘‘Socially Implied Rules’’, since the essence

of the social contract is that members of a society collec-

tively agree to follow the implicit and explicit rules of that

society (D’Agostino et al. 2012). The social contract tra-

dition will be distinguished by statements referring to

social acceptability (‘‘DS1: Socially acceptable’’), social

license (‘‘DS2: Social contract’’) and social expectations

(‘‘DS3: Social expectations’’).

Discourse Groupings for Virtue Ethics

The third ethical framework explored through these dis-

course groupings is virtue ethics. Table 3 shows the dis-

course groupings used to illustrate a virtue ethics approach.

Table 2 Deontological discourse groupings

Universal rules Socially implied rules

DU1 ‘‘Rules and regulations’’ DS1 ‘‘Socially acceptable’’: Socially

acceptable actions

DU1X ‘‘Opposing DU1’’: Arguing against, or cynical about DU1 DS2 ‘‘Social contract’’

DU2 ‘‘Instructions’’: ‘‘the right thing to do’’, ‘‘do unto others’’ and

similar instructions

DS3 ‘‘Social expectations’’

DU3 ‘‘Above and beyond’’: Going above and beyond regulations

910 L. Morrison et al.

123

Aristotle’s virtue ethics focused on a personal sense of

‘living a good life’, which was not directly related to

universal or externally imposed ethical imperative, but

instead focused on personal characteristics, or virtues

which influence a person’s ethical decisions. As such,

comments focused on a personal way of living which are

mentioned in relation to the environment are considered to

be representative of the ‘‘VEE1: Personal’’ virtue ethics

subgrouping. Since Aristotle’s perception of virtue ethics

was based on contextual versions of ‘a good life’, any

discussion of solutions emerging from the context is con-

sidered to represent the ‘‘VEE2: Context’’ subgrouping.

These two subgroupings make up the ‘‘Emerging from the

self’’ theme of virtue ethics discourse groupings. Contem-

porary versions of virtue ethics such as deep ecology and

ecofeminism, which have extended Aristotle’s original

articulation, were also applied in the formulation of dis-

course themes in order to aid interpretation of the

discourse.

A subtle distinction between deep ecology and

ecofeminism lies with ecofeminism’s focus on relation-

ships between distinct beings (Warren 2001). As such,

discussion of relationships between the self and the par-

ticularities of the environment or between the various

aspects of nature were also used as indications of the

‘‘VER1: Relational’’ subgrouping. This perspective is also

observed as attention to upstream and downstream con-

siderations (‘‘VER2: Upstream and downstream’’). Since

the deep ecology view is characterised by a holistic and

interconnected perspective (Mathews 1991), discussion of

these aspects will also form a part of the ‘‘VER3: Inter-

connectedness’’ subgrouping. These three subgroupings

inform the ‘‘Relational Focus’’ theme of virtue ethics dis-

course groupings.

The virtue ethics perspective was also signified by

mention of indicators whose condition is reflected in a

wider context, ecosystems and both temporally and

chronologically wider systems (‘‘VEH1: Wide outlook’’),

and perspectives which consider the ‘big picture’ (‘‘VEH2:

Big picture’’). These two subgroupings form the ‘‘Holistic

Perspective’’ category within the virtue ethics discourse

groupings. Using a holistic perspective is characteristic of a

deep ecology approach, and therefore considered a part of

the virtue ethics discourse theme. For example, any men-

tion of environmental impact on marine ecosystems, cli-

mate change or the relationships between systems or

impacts would be considered demonstrations of a deep

ecology, or holistic perspective.

The context of the discourse is very important and has to

be taken into account when distinguishing between the

ethical approaches within the discourse groupings (Jager

and Maier 2009). Therefore, positioning of the phrase,

surrounding phrases, tone of voice and related comments

are all taken into consideration. For example water quality

is mentioned regularly in the case study company’s envi-

ronmental disclosures, and was originally considered as

relating to wider regional effects, and consequently

grouped as ‘‘VEH1: Wide outlooks’’, but while inter-

viewing a stakeholder internal to the case study company,

it was discovered that water quality was considered a site-

specific matter by the company. Consequently, references

to water quality found in the case study company’s envi-

ronmental disclosures were grouped as ‘‘UN1: Site-specific

focus’’, and therefore considered a reflection of a utilitarian

approach. This narrow perspective of water quality was

demonstrated by the case study company in its environ-

mental reports. In contrast, stakeholders generally framed

concerns about water quality in a wider, more intercon-

nected approach. In this way, the context surrounding

phrases helped to deepen an understanding of the partici-

pants’ intent, and as such, aided in distinguishing the

subgrouping to which phrases are attributed.

Discussion

An important aspect of an organisation’s relationship with

its stakeholders is the correspondence of values, as repre-

sented through the accounts provided by the organisation,

and subsequent stakeholder perceptions (Adams 2004;

Rodrigue 2014). To make an assessment of whether the

lens of environmental ethics is able to enhance our

understanding of the stakeholder engagement process,

identifying the values expressed in the environment section

of the case study company’s sustainability reports, as well

as those expressed in stakeholder interviews, highlights the

Table 3 Virtue ethics discourse groupings

Emerging from the self Relational focus Holistic perspective

VEE1 ‘‘Personal’’: Personal or

heartfelt motivations

VER1 ‘‘Relational’’: Relational perspective VEH1 ‘‘Wide outlook’’: Wide outlooks, both

chronologically and geographically

VEE2 ‘‘Context’’: Solutions emerging

from the context

VER2 ‘‘Upstream and Downstream’’: Upstream

and downstream considerations

VEH2 ‘‘Big Picture’’: Big picture thinking

VER3 ‘‘Interconnectedness’’

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 911

123

degree of correspondence between those values. The

intention of this study was to explore whether a disparity

exists between how the company reports its environmental

information and the way in which stakeholders perceive

this information. As such, when the data were analysed in

light of the three traditional environmental ethical frame-

works, various patterns began to emerge, as discussed in

the following sections.

The Case Study Company’s Environment Reports

By examining the case study company’s public environ-

mental reporting through the lens of discourse analysis, a

bias towards reporting environmental issues in deontolog-

ical and utilitarian terms is evident. At multiple points

within all of the reports, environmental issues are intro-

duced by establishing that the company had complied with

the appropriate regulations, followed by statements that

social or other expectations exceed regulatory standards;

these statements reflect a deontological approach, for

example, in the quote below, taken from the case study

company’s 2012 sustainability report, which represents the

‘‘DU1: Rules and Regulations’’ through discussion of

government protocols; ‘‘DU3: Above and Beyond’’,

through the mention of the company’s protocols which

exceed government regulations; ‘‘DS1: Socially accept-

able’’ by referring to stakeholders’ expectations; also

‘‘US2: Sentience’’ by the consideration of a particular

species which is considered sentient:

Our sustainability advisory committee and other

stakeholders have clearly communicated to us that

the continued humane destruction of [species of

wildlife] 3 in accordance with government proto-

cols is not viewed as a sustainable or an accept-

able management practice. In response to this

feedback, from August, 2011, [the case study com-

pany] has ceased the use of all/any destruction

protocols for wildlife in all its operations.

By mention of their farming license (‘‘DU1: Rules and

regulations’’), and using the phrase ‘‘simply the right thing

to do’’ (‘‘DU2: Instructions’’), the following quote reflects

a method of approaching environmental issues based on

standards that could be applied universally, demonstrating

a deontological approach. This quote also demonstrates a

utilitarian perspective, through the mention of farming

sites, which as discussed earlier, represent a site specific

approach (‘‘UN1: Site-specific’’):

Managing the water quality and benthic health

around our farms is not only a condition of our … farming license but it’s simply the right thing to do,

and it’s key to our fish performance and quality. [The

case study company] is committed to sound envi-

ronmental practices at our… sites and we are cur- rently working to better understand the hydrodynamic

profiles of our sites, and the organic inputs from our

farming operations.

Through analysing the case study company’s environ-

mental reports in this way, a conspicuous pattern became

apparent. While all three ethical approaches were in evi-

dence to varying degrees in the case study company’s

environmental reports, all three examples of the case study

company’s environmental reports demonstrated a clear bias

towards reporting these issues in deontological and utili-

tarian terms.

The ethical approaches demonstrated by interviewees

were found to be closely related to their relationship with

the case study company. For this reason, interviewees have

been categorised into three groups which reflect their

relationship to the company: ‘Internal Stakeholders’, ‘As-

sociated Stakeholders’ and ‘Independent Stakeholders’.

Internal Stakeholders

The internal stakeholder was a member of the case study

company’s management. The underlying pattern of the

internal stakeholder’s approach to environmental ethics

was similar to that of the company’s environmental dis-

closures. Reflecting on the company’s environmental

management and subsequent disclosure, their view was

framed in a predominantly deontological and utilitarian

approach, as in the following quote which represents the

‘‘UN1: Site-specific focus’’ subcategory.

Stakeholder 1: ‘‘So there are site specific nutrient

impacts but I don’t really have a personal problem

with that because I know that when those sites are

fallowed they return to…so I don’t have an issue about that’’.

Colouring this approach to environmental issues,

including the company’s environmental interactions, was a

virtue ethics-based perspective, which was not evident in

the environmental disclosures that formed a part of its

sustainability report. All three of the following quotes

demonstrate the ‘‘VEE1: Personal’’ discourse grouping,

while the third is an example of the ‘‘VEE2: Context’’

subcategory, all three of which are part of the overarching

virtue ethics discourse grouping.

Stakeholder 1: ‘‘So there is this really complex

interplay between all of those three elements of

3 The name of the specific species of wildlife referred to in the case

study company’s environmental report has been removed to protect

the identity of the company.

912 L. Morrison et al.

123

business and I wouldn’t work with [the case study

company] if I didn’t think… I am a very emotional person as you may have gathered, and I can feel this

particular company making a big difference in cor-

porate Australia’’.

Stakeholder 1: ‘‘…and it was very much from the heart, you know, we were all appalled that this had

occurred and immediately after we did this, this and

this to stop it from ever happening again’’.

Stakeholder 1: ‘‘It’s a real learning as we go about

what we are doing, and we don’t always get it

right…but there is a real heart desire to always keep improving’’.

This virtue ethics perspective was highlighted during the

interview when the internal stakeholder was questioned

about their personal environmental concerns. Like most of

the interviewees, climate change was a primary concern,

the relational and interconnected nature of which was

reinforced through their explanation of how salt, temper-

ature, polar ice caps and flow of the currents were all

interdependent and how in turn, the current state of the

environment was dependent on this process. This response

demonstrates the ‘‘VER1: Relational perspective’’,

‘‘VER3: Interconnectedness’’ and ‘‘VEH1: Wide outlook’’

subcategories of the virtue ethics discourse grouping:

Stakeholder 1: ‘‘…an understanding of how the oceans work and what drives the currents…and nutrient and temperature profiles of the currents and

what the world’s fisheries depend on and what the

world’s ecosystems depend on and if something

were to happen to one of those currents then the

whole thing could just be completely rooted. And it

is kind of…that’s a bit scary. You know, you could literally wake up and there’s soup on your doorstep,

jellyfish soup…one of the major drivers of the world’s currents is the freezing of the ice caps,

when the water freezes it excludes salt and salt is

heavy and so the water…there are currents that flow…the world’s oceans are just like these massive currents, kind of like some flow here, some flow

there, but the driver, the primary driver is the

freezing and the melting of the ice caps…’’

The pattern of approaching personal environmental

concerns with a virtue ethics view was shared between all

three groups of stakeholders. However, this approach was

notably contrasted with an unmistakable deontological and

utilitarian approach when discussing the case study com-

pany’s environmental management and reporting. This

variation in approach may be explained by the internal

stakeholder’s understanding of the regulatory framework

within which the case study company operates. The theme

of approaching the company’s environmental management

and reporting in deontological and utilitarian terms was

repeated in the interviews with external stakeholders who

viewed the company from a cooperative perspective due to

their close professional relationship to the organisation—

and are thus classed as ‘Associated stakeholders’ for the

purpose of this paper.

Associated Stakeholders

Of the interviewees, four held positions external to the

company, but fulfilled roles which worked in close asso-

ciation with it. For instance, one worked for a body which

represented the industry of which the case study company

was a member, one performed environmental monitoring

and research for the company on a contractual basis,

another held a role in a body which endorsed the com-

pany’s sustainability report, and one worked for the envi-

ronment department of a local government body. 4

Although these stakeholders were external, given the

context of the community within which the case study

company operates, and the level of cooperation between

these bodies their work was seen to be aligned with the

goals of the company to different extents, and as such were

considered to fulfil the role of Associated Stakeholders for

the purpose of this study.

In interviewing this group of stakeholders, another dis-

tinct pattern became apparent. While discussing the envi-

ronmental section of the company’s sustainability report,

these stakeholders predominantly spoke in deontological

terms. For instance, when questioned about the case study

company’s environmental impact, these stakeholders

answered with responses that correspond with the ‘‘DU1:

Rules and regulations’’ subcategory of the deontology

discourse grouping:

Stakeholder 2: ‘‘Obviously they’re not going to be

allowed to continue their operations if they’re having

a large negative impact on the environment around

their farms. They’re certainly controlled under tight

regulation and tight requirements…’’

This group of stakeholders also relied heavily on utili-

tarian approaches to justify actions which had a damaging

environmental impact, in these cases corresponding with

4 In the context of this case study organisation, the local government

is considered to work in alignment with the case study organisation.

The case study company operates in an area with high unemployment

rates and low levels of development; therefore the local government

body is very supportive of industry which can improve the financial

prosperity of the local community.

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 913

123

the ‘‘UB1: Balancing’’ subcategory of the utilitarian dis-

course grouping:

Stakeholder 4: ‘‘There would be some degree of

negative impact and it is just a matter of quantifying

and balancing that out sustainably’’.

When the interview questions led the stakeholders to

consider their personal perspectives on environmental

issues, their approach changed from the predominantly

deontological and utilitarian view to a virtue ethics

approach. For instance when asked to identify environ-

mental issues which were important to them personally,

most responded with concerns about climate change. Cli-

mate change itself is an issue which encompasses wide

outlooks both chronologically and geographically and

focuses on the relational aspects of effects. This issue is

framed in a virtue ethics approach, and represents the

‘‘VEH1: Wide outlooks’’ and the ‘‘VER: Interconnected-

ness’’ subcategories of the virtue ethics discourse grouping,

as in the following quote:

Stakeholder 4: ‘‘Well climate change is massive.

Not that you would know it from the last election. But

we are already seeing impacts…we’ve got significant coastal erosion already. So we are doing a lot of

research into that. And, yeah, the impacts of all

aspects of climate change are going to be huge and

they are going to be huge to [the case study company]

I think too. Changing water temperatures and

things like this. They are already finding changes to

toxic algal blooms, the frequency of those….I think climate change is going to be a huge impact’’.

The only Associated Stakeholder who did not directly

mention climate change also framed her perspective in

virtue ethics terms by highlighting the interconnected

nature of environmental issues, an approach which corre-

sponds with the ‘‘VER3: Interconnectedness’’ subgrouping

of the virtue ethics discourse grouping:

Stakeholder 5: ‘‘…I suppose the one that does kick off with me is the fact that we have this quite strong

understanding of the …industry, but it’s all the changes that are happening around it and how that

is, and I’m getting, I suppose, more to that sense of how

the environment impacts on the …industry, which then impacts on the …industry impacts, if that makes sense? Because if you look at things like the amount of ur-

banisation around a lot of the areas which used to be

relatively remote from people. The land clearing,

vineyards going in, orchards going in, changes in

the forestry practices, will make huge differences to

land runoff and catchment inputs, we’re talking

about major, ripping water out of the system for the

irrigation of the midlands, this huge difference to

environmental flows into the system’’.

In summary, the perspectives of this group of stake-

holders were restricted to a primarily deontological

approach in relation to the case study company and their

environmental reporting practices, supported by utilitarian

justifications. This bias towards deontology may be

explained by these stakeholders’ internal perspective which

allowed them some understanding of the regulatory envi-

ronment within which the company operates. When these

stakeholders were focused on their own views on envi-

ronmental issues, the ethical approach was framed in a

virtue ethics perspective. This pattern was also reflected by

the internal stakeholder’s approach, and contrasts to the

Independent Stakeholders’ approaches.

Independent Stakeholders

Four interviewees were considered external and independent

to the case study company as they were not performing any

roles in conjunction with the company, nor did any of their

work involve projects done on behalf of, or for the company.

The positions of these stakeholders in relation to the com-

pany varied from working on behalf of environmental groups

whose work was impacted by the company’s environmental

management, to a member of the local community whose

lifestyle and living environment was impacted by the com-

pany’s operations. The perspectives of these stakeholders

differed from the previous category in that they were not

privy to the detail, nor could they influence the company’s

environmental actions as directly as those with an Internal, or

Associated Stakeholders’ perspective.

In contrast to the first two categories of interviewees,

stakeholders in this group predominantly spoke of the

environment in virtue ethics terms, regardless of whether

they were discussing the case study company and its

reports or their own personal concerns. The following

quotes represent the ‘‘VEE1: Personal’’, the ‘‘VER1:

Relational’’, ‘‘VER2: Upstream and downstream’’ and

‘‘VER3: Interconnectedness’’ subcategories, through con-

siderations of relationships between personal choices and

the wider effects of those choices for the environment and

for other members of the global society. The second quote

represents these virtue ethics discourse groupings through

its understanding of the wider effects of nutrient overload:

Stakeholder 9: ‘‘That you are conscious when you

eat something or when you drive somewhere or when

you create a footprint or when you buy something

new, that you think about how it’s made, where it’s

made, by whom it’s made, how old they were—

Nike for instance. In relation to …farms how much

914 L. Morrison et al.

123

water was used in its production, how much are

people getting paid—is it a fair quid for the job? The

long term waste management for that industry, the

levels of the mercury or pollution that are

increasing in the production of that industry …are the sorts of things I think about’’.

Stakeholder 6: ‘‘…but in terms of the baseline data, in order to assess the impact on the threatened species

you needed more data in relation to

water…movement of water and sediment in the harbour, because that would obviously impact on

nutrients, nutrient load, how the nutrient loads

from the …farms were actually dispersing or whether they were remaining in the harbour and the

impact that that in fact has on that species’’.

By couching their responses in predominantly virtue

ethics terms, this group of stakeholders demonstrated that

they engaged in environmental issues, including the case

study company’s impacts, with a perspective which differed

from the approach with which the company communicates

its environmental information. These findings indicate that

there is a gap between the values expressed in the case study

company’s environmental disclosure and the values of its

Independent Stakeholders, a finding which corresponds with

the gaps articulated by Adams (2004) and Rodrigue (2014).

Differing Perspectives: A Stakeholder Engagement Issue

There was a convincing lack of congruence evident

between the environmental ethics expressed in the case

study company’s environment report and that of its

stakeholders. As the stakeholders’ relationship with the

company became less direct this disparity widened. This

pattern is illustrated in Fig. 1, below. Since it is these

professionally distant stakeholders with whom the com-

pany attempts to engage through its environment and sus-

tainability reporting, the gap found in this research is of

critical significance for the case study company.

Each separate piece of discourse analysed demonstrated

all three ethical approaches to varying degrees; however, a

distinct underlying pattern favouring deontological and

utilitarian approaches was exhibited in each of the case

study company’s environmental reports. This approach was

echoed in the interviews of the Internal Stakeholders and

the Associated Stakeholders group. This was evident when

discussing the company’s environmental management and

subsequent environmental reports. The favouring of these

two ethical approaches can be explained by the relative

ease with which they are applied in a business setting.

Alternatively, it is argued that these approaches construct

defensive organisational boundaries, reducing the scope of

environmental responsibility and therefore reporting.

In contrast to the deontological and utilitarian approa-

ches that were expressed in the company’s environmental

reports and by Associated Stakeholders when discussing

the case study company, all three groups of stakeholders

implied a virtue ethics approach when discussing their

personal views about the environment. This response was

amplified by the common concern regarding the changing

climate, and the interconnected nature of such a process.

Independent Stakeholders adopted a virtue ethics

approach throughout the interviews, regardless of whether

these participants were discussing the case study company

and its environmental reporting or environmental issues

more generally. These stakeholders offered a broader, more

Virtue EthicsDeontology U�litarianism

Company Reports

Internal Stakeholders

Associated Stakeholders

Independent Stakeholders

Gap in stakeholder engagement

Fig. 1 Spectrum of stakeholders’ ethical appraoches in relation to environmental reports

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 915

123

relational and heartfelt response towards environmental

issues in general, whether in relation to the case study

company and its environmental reports or to other issues.

Their responses demonstrate that their primary approach

towards environmental issues is from a virtue ethics

perspective.

One of the key factors in stakeholder engagement is

communication (O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014). Commu-

nication requires a shared understanding (Wittgenstein

2010), which can be expanded to include the concept of a

shared ethical approach. Accordingly, the ethical gap

established by this research is significant in understanding

the underlying discursive approaches involved in organi-

sational environmental reporting. If such reports require a

common approach to effectively communicate with

stakeholders, this paper has provided an explanation for the

disparity between the case study company’s reporting and

stakeholder perceptions; a disparity which directly dimin-

ishes effective stakeholder engagement, and may be further

established through more extensive case study research.

Conclusion

This study has contributed to the accounting literature by

responding to Tregidga et al.’s (2012) appeal for qualitative

and interpretive analyses of meaning and accountability in

organisational reporting and communication; and Gray’s

(2010) call for further critiques of the dominant narrative of

the organisational sustainability agenda. It has done so

through deconstructing the approaches used in environ-

mental reporting, and illuminating the disparity between

the dominant organisational approach used by the case

study company, and the approaches of stakeholders who

are affected by the firm’s environmental interactions. This

disparity has been outlined by the application of a con-

ceptual framework firmly established in the environmental

ethics literature (Elliot 2001; Sandler 2010; Curry 2006)

which had not previously been applied in the context of

accounting and environmental reporting. By examining

these approaches in this way, alternative views have been

highlighted and the dominant narrative provided in the

report questioned.

Likewise, by considering alternative ethical approaches

to environmental issues, the socially constructed nature of

environmental reports has been illuminated. This strategy

corresponds with Broadbent (1998), O’Dwyer and Owen

(2005), Gray (2010) and Hines (1992), who drew attention

to the dominant narrative used by organisations and

accounting which silences alternative views. The integra-

tion of subjectivity and a feminist perspective suggested by

Broadbent (1998) in particular has informed this analysis,

which has in turn highlighted the valorisation of masculine

logic through a bias towards deontological and utilitarian

ethical approaches in the environmental report. This

research highlighted alternative ways to approach these

issues that have the potential to improve engagement with

stakeholders and increase a sense of accountability.

Recognising that a gap exists between the company’s

environmental reporting and its stakeholders’ understanding

of environmental issues provides a powerful means with

which to improve the level of engagement that these reports

are intended to achieve. This gap differs from the traditional

‘expectations gaps’ which have identified gaps between the

information provided in corporate reports and the informa-

tion which stakeholders seek. Rather, the gap identified in

this paper is a disparity between how stakeholders perceive

environmental issues, and the way these issues are commu-

nicated by management through corporate environmental

reporting. Recognising this disparity is an important contri-

bution of this research. Negotiating more meaningful com-

munication between a corporation and its stakeholders

through an opening of the conversation to include alternative

perspectives aligns with Broadbent’s (1998) call for a

broadening of participation in accounting texts such as the

corporate environmental report. It is important that stake-

holders are able to engage with environmental reports in a

way that corresponds with their understanding of environ-

mental issues. A failure to achieve this will mean the mes-

sage is not getting across and the stakeholders’ perception of

the firm may be adverse, possibly quite incorrectly.

The disparity found in this research challenges the

adequacy of the reporting process as a medium of com-

munication and stakeholder engagement. It also provides a

means to strengthen the corporations’ relationship with

stakeholders through enhancing the level of communica-

tion, so that companies might deliver environmental

information in a way with which stakeholders can identify.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of

the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964

Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical

standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study.

References

Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: perception and

language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage

Books.

Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-

performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing and Account-

ability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

916 L. Morrison et al.

123

Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2006). Accessibility and functionality

of the corporate web site: implications for sustainability

reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4),

275–287.

Arrington, E. C., & Francis, J. R. (1993). Accounting as a human

practice: The appeal of other voices. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 18(2–3), 105–106.

Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of morals and

legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brennan, A., & Lo, Y. (2011). Environmental ethics. Retrieved

November, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-

environmental/.

Broadbent, J. (1998). The gendered nature of ‘‘Accounting Logic’’:

Pointers to an accounting that encompasses multiple values.

Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9(3), 267–297.

Butteriss, C., Wolfenden, J. A. J., & Goodridge, A. P. (2001).

Discourse analysis: a technique to assist conflict management in

environmental policy development. Australian Journal of Envi-

ronmental Management, 8(1), 48–58.

Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Ecological citizenship and

the corporation: Politicizing the new corporate environmental-

ism. Organization and Environment, 21(4), 371–389.

Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Curry, P. (2006). Ecological ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

D’Agostino, F., Gaus, G., & Thraser, J. (2012). Contemporary

approaches to the social contract. Retrieved October, 2013, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/.

Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance minding

the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3),

195–200.

Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). a study of the environmental

disclosure practices of australian corporations. Accounting and

Business Research (Wolters Kluwer UK), 26(3), 187–199.

Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1999). The environmental reporting

expectations gap: Australian evidence. The British Accounting

Review, 31(3), 313–346.

Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy. Retrieved 2013,

from http://www.wright.edu/*charles.taylor/descartes/mede.html. Dryzek, J. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses

(3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elliot, R. (2001). Normative Ethics. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A

companion to environmental philosophy (pp. 177–191). Malden:

Blackwell Publishers.

Erikson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business

research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Fox, W. (2000). Deep ecology and virtue ethics. Philosophy Now,

26(April/May), 21–23.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting

for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organi-

zations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

Hadot, P. (2006). The veil of Isis: An essay on the history of the idea

of nature (M. Chase, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press.

Haque, S., Deegan, C., & Inglis, R. (2016). Demand for, and

impediments to, the disclosure of information about climate

change-related corporate governance practices. Accounting and

Business Research, 1–45.

Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International

Studies of Management and Organization, 31(3), 25–47.

Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of

sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness.

Heracleous, L. (2004). Interpretivist approaches to organizational

discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam

(Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational discourse. Beverley

Hills: Sage Publications.

Hines, R. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we

construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3),

251–261.

Hines, R. (1992). Accounting: Filling the negative space. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 17(3–4), 313–341.

Hull, R. (2005). All about EVE: A report on environmental virtue

ethics today. Ethics and the Environment, 10(1), 89–110.

Jager, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects

of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and discourse analysis.

In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse

analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Joseph, G. (2012). Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for

sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,

23(2), 93–106.

Kant, I. (2001). Rational beings alone have moral worth. In L. Pojman

(Ed.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application

(3rd ed., pp. 31–32). ISA: Wadsworth.

Kenny, A. (2010). A new history of Western Philosophy. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune

Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5),

279–291.

Larry, A., & Moore, M. (2008). Deontology. Retrieved 2012, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ethicsdeontolo

gical/.

MacIntyre, A. C. (1998). A short history of ethics: A history of moral

philosophy from the homeric age to the 20th century (2nd ed.).

London: Routledge.

Mathews, F. (1991). The ecological self. Great Britain: Routledge.

Mathews, F. (2001). Deep ecology. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A

companion to environmental philosophy (pp. 218–232). Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

McPherson, D. (2013). Vocational virtue ethics: Prospects for a virtue

ethic approach to business. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2),

283–296.

Merchant, C. (1989). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the

scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.

Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology

movement. A summary*. Inquiry, 16(1–4), 95–100.

Oakes, L. S., & Hammond, T. A. (1995). Biting the epistemological

hand: Feminist perspectives on science and their implications for

accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6(1),

49–75.

O’Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practice in

environmental, social and sustainability reporting: A critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205–229.

O’Neill, J. (2001). Meta-Ethics. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A companion to

environmental philosophy (pp. 163–176). Malden: Blackwell.

O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing CSR stakeholder

engagement: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Business

Ethics, 125(1), 121–145.

Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time?: A personal reflection

on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and

environmental accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and

Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–267.

Plumwood, V. (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environ-

mental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6(1),

3–27.

Plumwood, V. (1995). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environ-

mental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. In R. Elliot

(Ed.), Environmental ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass 917

123

Rodrigue, M. (2014). Contrasting realities: corporate environmental

disclosure and stakeholder-released information. Accounting,

Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(1), 119–149.

Sandler, R. (2010). Ethical theory and the problem of inconsequen-

tialism: Why environmental ethicists should be virtue-oriented

ethicists. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

23(1–2), 167–183.

Sikka, P., Puxty, A., Willmott, H., & Cooper, C. (1998). The

impossibility of eliminating the expectations gap: Some theory

and evidence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9(3), 299–330.

Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of

animals. New York: Avon Books.

Sylvan, R. (1998). Is there a need for a new, an environmental, ethic?

In M. Zimmerman (Ed.), Environmental philosophy: From

animal rights to radical ecology (2nd ed., pp. 17–25). New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2007). Organisational

legitimany and social and environmental reporting research: The

potential of discourse analysis. In Paper Presented at the Asia-

Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference,

Auckland.

Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Lehman, G. (2012). Analyzing the

quality, meaning and accountability of organizational reporting

and communication: Directions for future research. Accounting

Forum, 36(3), 223–230.

Walters-York, L. M. (1996). Metaphor in accounting discourse.

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(5), 45–70.

Warren, K. J. (2001). The power and promise of ecological feminism.

In L. Pojman (Ed.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory

and application (pp. 189–198). Boston: Wadsworth.

WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 101–114.

Wittgenstein, L. (2010). Philosophical investigations (G. Anscombe,

P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans., 4 ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods for critical discourse

analysis. London: Sage.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Young, J. (2015). (En) gendering sustainability. Critical Perspectives

on Accounting, 26, 67–75.

918 L. Morrison et al.

123