《The driving forces behind sustainability reporting in Spain a qualitative analysis of Spanish reporting entities.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The driving forces behind sustainability reporting in Spain a qualitative analysis of Spanish reporting entities.doc（33页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN SPAIN: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPANISH REPORTING ENTITIESJavier HusillosUniversidad Pblica de NavarraMara J. AlvarezUniversidad Carlos III de MadridManuel FernndezUniversidad de BurgosCarlos LarrinagaUniversidad de BurgosTHE DRIVING FORCES BEHI
2、ND SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN SPAIN: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPANISH REPORTING ENTITIESABSTRACTIn the corporate social reporting research field there is a bias towards the analysis of the external (rather than internal) factors and there is a lack of studies on how corporate social reporting and
3、accountability processes unfold within organizations. This has brought some scholars to call for more in-depth studies and engagements with organizations to enrich the understanding of these processes (see Adams, 2002; Gray, 2002). The main objective of this work is to analyse the driving forces beh
4、ind sustainability reporting in the Spanish context. To achieve this aim, 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior managers, analysing, simultaneously, the internal and external factors which influenced the elaboration of the sustainability reports in their organizations. This qualit
5、ative approach and the analysis of factors located at different levels of analysis (institutional, organizational and individual level) allowed us to: develop, according to the managers view (from inside), a map of the main drivers (internal and external) which are behind social reporting and accoun
6、tability processes; reveal the relations between drivers that are situated at different levels of analysis; and suggest areas of future research.1. INTRODUCTIONAdams (2002) maintains that the principal theories put forward in the past to explain social and environmental disclosures (SED) do not have
7、 sufficient explanatory power to capture the complexity of this phenomenon. Authors such as Campbell and others (2003) or Tilling (2004) assert that Legitimacy Theory (LT), the principal theoretical framework used in the study of SED made by firms, is in a state of theoretical underdevelopment. Gray
8、 (2002a) asserts that social accounting is still under-theorised (p. 699) and calls for it to be enriched through further in-depth studies about how social accounting evolves within organizations.Some of these significant criticisms directed at this area of research are justified by the fact that ov
9、er the past 20 years SED has principally been analysed through the study of its relationship with specific external factors using quantitative methodologies. Stakeholder pressures (Ullman, 1985; Roberts, 1992; Tilt, 1994), the influence of the media (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Deegan and others, 2002),
10、 the economic-political-social framework in which the firms operate (Tinker and Neimark, 1987; Gray and other, 1995b) or the occurrence of events that have cast doubt on the legitimacy of some firms (Patten, 1992; Deegan and others, 2000), are some of the more frequently investigated variables that
11、are used to explain the phenomenon of SED. The traditional approach to social reporting phenomenon has not carried on a suitable analysis of the social accounting internal process. Internal factors like the views, attitudes, perceptions and values of the actors who drive the reporting process from i
12、nside the firms or the firms resources and capabilities have not been appropiatelly introduced in the SED analysis. On the other hand, the excessive use of quantitative tools does not seem a suitable way to “capture” how social accounting involves within organization. As a consequence of this bias i
13、n the literature towards the study of factors that are external to the organisation and the use of methods that fail to involve those actors, within firms take part in preparing the information, there has been a proliferation over recent years of works that, through the use of qualitative methods, s
14、eek to enrich the knowledge acquired on SED by studying its preparation within the firm. Among those studies, which seek to overcome the previously mentioned shortcomings, works may be found that have confirmed (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006) or broadened (see ODonovan, 2002) the explanatory power of t
15、he standard theoretical arguments around SED. However, other researchers have highlighted the inability of the theories that have achieved a degree of hegemony in the field over recent years to satisfactorily explain SED, pointing to the simplicity of their arguments (ODwyer, 2002) and their limited
16、 explanatory powers (Adams, 2002). The present work falls within this new line of research and its objective is to conduct a broader study of those factors that might be exercising a significance influence over the characteristics of SED in a sample of Spanish firms. The results will be compared wit
17、h the evidence taken from the previous literature and fresh lines of research will be identified. To achieve the objectives of this research, the process of drawing up sustainability reports (SR) within the framework of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) will be explored through semi-structured i
18、nterviews with managers of 20 Spanish firms. Unlike previous works that, using qualitative methods, have centred their research on one level of analysis, that is, on either internal (Adams, 2002) or on external factors (ODonovan, 1999, 2002 ODwyer, 2002), this present investigation will simultaneous
19、ly study, at different levels of analysis, those factors that influence the process of drawing up social and environmental disclosures. The simultaneous study at different levels of analysis enables us to achieve the three principal objectives of this research: to establish a map of the most influen
20、tial factors in the process from the interviewees point of view; to point out the possible interrelated links between factors situated at different levels of analysis; and, to underline possible future lines of research. Finally, it has tried also to look for links among the main results of the pres
21、ent work and the commitment (in opinion of the authors) of the SED: building a society in general and an economic system in particular more democratic and egalitarian.The firms studied are heterogeneous in nature: large multinationals, very small firms, consumers and workers cooperatives, savings ba
22、nks, employee-owned firms, and public sector firms. Finally, it would be worthwhile highlighting that the sample is taken from the Spanish context which is especially significant at a global level, as Spain is the country which boasts the highest number of reports in accordance with GRI, ahead of co
23、untries with long traditions in this field such as the United States, or the United Kingdom.In the following section, this research will be placed in context through a revision of the previous literature centred principally on a description of the most recently published research work concerning the
24、 subject under study. Following that, the design and implementation of the research will be described. Finally, the results drawn from the conversations held with the various Spanish directors are analysed, and the work concludes with a summary of the principal conclusions.2. LITERATURE REVIEWTradit
25、ionally, the majority of studies that have approached the analysis of SED made by firms have done so from a distance. They have neither directly witnessed its drafting process, nor obtained information from the actors participating in its development (although some significant exceptions exist, such
26、 as for example Gray and others, 1995a; Buhr, 1998; Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001 or Larrinaga-Gonzalez and others, 2001). As a consequence, over the past 15 years in the field of social and environmental accounting in general, and in particular, in the analysis of the variables that expla
27、in SED, a bias has developed towards the analysis of external factors (such as stakeholder pressure, news that appears in the media, the occurrence of natural disasters, the cultural characteristics of the country in which the firms operate or the dynamic of the capitalist system itself) and the use
28、 of particularly quantitative methodologies (for example content analysis methodology used on a mass scale). Some examples of works which although they have contributed very significantly to explaining the phenomenon of SED suffer from this biased approach are: Adams and others (1995,1998); Brown an
29、d Deegan, (1998); Campbell, (2003); Campbell and others (2003); Deegan and Gordon, (1996); Deegan, Rankin and Tobin, (2002); Deegan, Rankin and Voght (2000); Gray and others, (1995b); Guthrie and Parker, (1989); Larrinaga-Gonzalez and others, (2002); Neu and others, (1998); Patten, (1992,1995,2000);
30、 Tinker and Neimark, (1987); and Tinker and others, (1991). Faced with these limitations in the previous literature, there has been a proliferation over recent years of works based on qualitative methodologies, principally case studies and semi-structured interviews, which, by looking at the opinion
31、s and perceptions of business managers, analyse the internal and external factors that endow SED with a raison dtre (see Adams, 2002; Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; ODwyer, 2003, 2005; ODonovan 1999, 2002). This new approach to SED sometimes brings questions in its wake and at other times the confirmat
32、ion or elaboration of the arguments widely accepted up until the present in the literature. The work arising from this new current of research is divided for the purpose of this research into two groups: those studies that have analysed the traditional external factors by applying qualitative method
33、s; and others that through these qualitative methodologies analyse the internal factors that have been systematically ignored in the past.2.1. QUALITATIVE METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL FACTORSDespite the previous literature seeming to agree on highlighting the existence of a close relationshi
34、p between the pressure exerted by some stakeholders on organisations and SED (see Ullman, 1985; Roberts, 1992; Tilt, 1994 or more recently Magness, 2006), Deegan and Blomquist (2006) affirm that this generalised assumption had not even been directly contrasted with the vision of numerous people resp
35、onsible for producing the information. Deegan and Blomquist (2006) contribute to bridging this gap by interviewing the managers of six mining firms, discovering in the process that the pressure brought to bear by Wold Wild Fund had in fact impacted significantly on the patterns of environmental disc
36、losures made by these firms. Moreover, although most of the previous studies coincide in pointing out that the main motivation behind SED is the firms desire to legitimise its existence within society, once again, this new assumption had not been contrasted with the perceptions of the principal prot
37、agonists, those responsible for producing the information. This striking shortcoming in the previous literature has attracted the attention of various authors who upon examining it have arrived at contradictory results.ODwyer (2002), after interviewing 29 directors of 27 Irish firms, contrary to the
38、 results found in the previous literature, concludes that even some of firms had report social information they did not believe that the social disclosures in the financial reports were really effective at legitimising the behaviour of the firms for which they worked. In doing so, ODwyer (2002) cast
39、s doubt on the explanatory power of the most important theory in this field of research: Legitimacy Theory. In this sense, ODwyer assert that:“Elements of the narrative presented also challenge the seemingly pervasive explanatory power of legitimacy theory with respect to CSD corporate social disclo
40、sure proposed by prior research” (p.408) On the contrary, ODonovan (2002), in a quasi-experiment carried out through the analysis of 6 interviews with managers in three large Australian firms belonging to “sensitive” sectors, seems able to sophisticate the postulates of the LT and affirms that its a
41、pplication and predictive power have been extended. ODonovan (2002), who refers to the past contribution of the literature, conducts the study at another level of analysis, which is the perception of the managers, and through the use of a qualitative methodology brings theoretical improvements to LT
42、 taken from the theoretical concept of “micro-legitimacy” (see Neu and others, 1998). In a so simplistic way, previous literature had focused their attention mainly on analyse (from outside) the attempt of firms to repair their legitimacy status in presence of an important environmental event. There
43、fore, most of the preceding works had researched the behaviour of the firms from a reactive point of view. ODonovan (2002) sophisticated this approach unpacking the organizational legitimacy construct. He analysed, from the managers perceptions, the internal process carried out by firms to select di
44、fferent strategies in function of the firms purpose (gain, maintain or repair their legitimacy) and the significance of the environmental event/issue (high or medium). 2.2. QUALITATIVE METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL FACTORS The added value of the evidence stemming from the use of qualitative m
45、ethodologies, in addition to confirming or refuting some of the principal theoretical assumptions in the field has shed light on important internal factors that are difficult to slot into the current theories that hold sway in this field. ODwyer (2005) witnessed, from within an international aid age
46、ncy with its headquarters in Ireland, how social accounting was implemented into the organisation. He conducted in-depth interviews with the main actors, analysed internal memoranda and lived through its implementation at first hand. ODwyer, 2005 brings to light the internal tensions and contradicti
47、ons arising from the implementation process, which hindered the achievement of real changes, due principally to the existence of power asymmetries within the organisation.“The core of the case illuminates a systematic process of stakeholder silencing by a powerful APSO board whose agenda for the pro
48、cess differed significantly from those of its promoters. This prevented the process empowering key stakeholders to institute substantive organisational change” (ODwyer, 2005:13)Adams (2002), on the other hand, while recognising the need to include the traditional external factors that influence SED
49、in her analysis, and after interviewing managers of three English and four German firms, casts doubt on the effectiveness of the most important theories in this field (Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Political Economy Theory). She discovered that factors related to the social reporting processes as much as the attitudes held by the agents that are not considered in the latter theories, could be influencing the quantity and qua
