Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures: Volume 4

Sustainability is a word that is included often in the current lexicon. In the academic world, the American Accounting Association devoted a plenary session to sustainability accounting in its 2009 annual meeting and the theme of the 2009 Academy of Management meeting was also on green management and sustainability. Many MBA programs have developed a special track focusing on sustainability, which suggests that there is some demand for the graduates of programs specializing in environmental issues. Is this all a fad and just rhetoric or will this emphasis on sustainability lead to discussions, plans, and programs that will be helpful in saving the planet?

This chapter is a speculative examination of the way in which theory is used in the social accounting literature. It is intended as an initial guide for those approaching the area for the first time; it is intended as a map for those in the field who would like to adopt a bigger picture for their work and it is intended as a wake-up call to those of us stuck in unconscious ruts. The chapter's departure point is the recognition that social accounting requires a reasonably sophisticated awareness of theory – not least because the subject matter itself is so contentious and conditional. The chapter's ambitions are to encourage a more evaluative and policy-based approach to the subject matter of social accounting; to offer a pedagogic basis to help others make some sense of theory in social accounting and to seek to empower and liberate social accounting scholars by assisting the range of their theorising. Social accounting scholars tend to approach the area with concerns and desires for liberation and possibility. Theory can help articulate those concerns and can support and encourage that desire. Above all, the chapter is explicitly partial, speculative and tentative, and it is not a formal or informed attempt to produce a theory of theories in social accounting. To articulate a range of the possible theories, we offer a simple heuristic through which we may navigate our way through the soup of concepts and perceptions that can blend into a potential infinity of ways of looking and seeing. We hope to encourage diversity and speculation rather than narrowness and alleged certainty.

An environmental accident at a Placer Dome mine triggered a contagion effect across the Canadian mining industry. The decline in equity prices was moderated by prior disclosure of a high-level commitment to environmental management. Investors appear to interpret this information as a signal of expertise in the management of environmental risks and costs. The same companies are positioned to make the most credible financial disclosures about environmental management, and yet the evidence suggests that financial disclosures themselves have a negative impact on company value. There may be a miscommunication between investors and analysts on the one hand and mining company executives on the other, which could explain why mining company managers report their companies’ shares are undervalued.

In this chapter, we investigate whether the first-time issuance of a standalone corporate sustainability report led to changes in reputation as measured by Fortune Most Admired scores. Based on a sample of 59 U.S. companies issuing their first standalone sustainability report over the period from 2001 to 2007, and controlling for the financial “halo effect” reported by Brown and Perry (1994), we find, on average no significant changes in reputational scores. However, cross sectional analysis shows that issuing companies from socially exposed industries experienced decreases in scores. Further, report quality, at least at the extremes appears to be positively related to changes in perceived reputation. These results are consistent with Godfrey's (2005) arguments with respect to corporate reputation.

Conceptually, management control of an organization requires managers to link decision making to strategic objectives and to link performance outcomes to the implementation of these decisions. However, it is often difficult to determine what management decision processes and actions are most effective in translating strategic objectives into achieved performance. Using data from a cross-section of industrial firms that have an explicit interest in environmental management, we present and test a model of environmental management control and performance that evaluates the associations between specific managerial actions, environmental proactivity, and environmental performance. Our results demonstrate a positive relationship between five specific management control actions and environmental proactivity, which is in turn positively associated with environmental performance. This study helps to define the concept of proactive environmental management through the identification of discrete managerial actions that link to proactivity and environmental performance outcomes.

This chapter evaluates whether disclosures on global warming by companies from the European Union are more extensive than disclosures by Japanese and Canadian firms. The study is based on disclosures made on websites, annual reports, social, environmental and sustainability reports and on a questionnaire developed by the Carbon Disclosure Project by 282 of the largest firms from these countries. Content analysis is utilized to asses their disclosures. The results indicate that the EU firms make significantly less global warming disclosures than firms from Japan or Canada. We also find no relation between the changes in carbon emissions and global warming disclosures indicating that these disclosures do not truly reflect emission performance. These findings suggest that the EU requirements of reducing GHG pollution have not improved GHG disclosures. Regulatory disclosure requirements may be the answer to improve disclosures.

This investigation/report/reflection was motivated largely by the occasion of the first Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) “Summer School” in North America.¹ But its roots reach down as well to other recent reflection/investigation pieces, in particular, Mathews (1997), Gray (2002, 2006), and Deegan and Soltys (2007). The last of these authors note (p. 82) that CSEAR Summer Schools were initiated in Australasia, at least partly as a means to spur interest and activity in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research. So, too, was the first North American CSEAR Summer School.² We believe, therefore, that it is worthwhile to attempt in some way to identify where SEA currently stands as a field of interest within the broader academic accounting domain in Canada and the United States.³ As well, however, we believe this is a meaningful time for integrating our views on the future of our chosen academic sub-discipline with those of Gray (2002), Deegan and Soltys (2007), and others. Thus, as the title suggests, we seek to identify (1) who the SEA researchers in North America are; (2) the degree to which North American–based accounting research journals publish SEA-related research; and (3) where we, the SEA sub-discipline within North America, might be headed. We begin with the who.