the ponderous evolution of corporate environmental reporting in ireland. recent evidence from...

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementCorp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 10, 91–100 (2003)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/csr.33

THE PONDEROUS EVOLUTIONOF CORPORATEENVIRONMENTAL REPORTINGIN IRELAND. RECENTEVIDENCE FROM PUBLICLYLISTED COMPANIES

Brendan O’Dwyer*

Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin, Ireland

Ireland’s recent rapid economic growthhas exacerbated pressure on theenvironment, leading to increased scrutinyof corporate environmental impacts. Inorder to assess whether external corporateenvironmental reporting (CER) hasevolved in conjunction with this increasedscrutiny, this paper reports on the resultsof a comprehensive analysis of CERpractice among all Irish listed companies.The findings are interpreted using the lensof legitimacy theory. The results indicatethat, apart from companies whose coreactivities have an easily observableenvironmental impact, there is littleextensive CER undertaken, in terms ofeither its quantity or quality. Despiteevidence of increasing trends indisclosure, in most instances disclosingcompanies remain at the very early stagesin their consideration of CER. It is arguedthat this negligible disclosure potentially

* Correspondence to: Brendan O’Dwyer, Michael SmurfitGraduate School of Business, University College Dublin,Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

represents a minimalistic response topressure from stakeholders whose powerto threaten organizations’ legitimacy islimited. Copyright 2003 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 24 September 2002Revised 28 November 2002Accepted 5 December 2002

INTRODUCTION

The international environmental protec-tion movement has been of substantialbenefit to Ireland’s environment to date,

in that it appeared just in time to allow thecountry to avoid some of the worst excesses ofits European neighbours (Yearley, 1995). How-ever, Ireland’s rapid economic growth in thepast decade has accelerated the pressure onthe environment. Throughout the course ofthe 1990s, the volume of industrial productionhas more than doubled and the country’s totalprimary energy requirement has increased bymore than a third (EPA, 2000). Furthermore,Ireland’s economic surge, although now damp-ening somewhat, has occurred at a time when

B. O’DWYER

European Union (EU) and other internationalenvironmental controls are becoming morerigorous, thereby greatly amplifying the chal-lenges facing public authorities and strategiceconomic sectors (EPA, 2000).

This paper reports on recent evidence ofexternal corporate environmental reporting(CER) by Irish listed companies and reflectson this evidence using the lens of legitimacytheory. The paper reviews CER practice ata time when environmental impacts fromall sectors of Irish society are coming underincreased scrutiny (EPA, 2000; Kelly andMoles, 2000) particularly with the publicationin late 2000 of the Irish government’s NationalClimate Change Strategy (McDonald, 2000).Furthermore, despite widespread research intothe extent of CER in western Europe andfurther afield, there is little evidence of theextent of its practice in the Republic ofIreland1 (O’Dwyer and Gray, 1998). In line withmost prior international research, the focusis primarily on CER in the corporate annualreport (Adams and Harte, 1998), although anassessment of the level of reporting in stand-alone publicly available environmental reports,where available, is also undertaken. For thepurposes of the paper, CER is taken to involve

. . . the process of communicating externallythe environmental effects of organizations’economic actions through the corporateannual report or a separate stand-alonepublicly available environmental report.

This form of reporting encompasses, inter alia,disclosures relating to environmental policies,impacts, processes and audits. It can alsoinclude environment-related expenditures, theenvironmental benefits of products and detailsregarding sustainable operations.

The paper is structured as follows. Thefollowing section considers prior evidence ofCER practice in Ireland. It also outlines onepotential theory, legitimacy theory, which has

1 Referred to as ‘Ireland’ from here on inwards.

been widely used to attempt to explain themotives for CER practice both generally and inthe specific Irish context. The research methodemployed in the study is then delineated.This is succeeded with a presentation of themain findings. These outline details of theincidence and volume of CER generally as wellas providing an analysis of CER according toindustry sector and company size. The resultsare compared with evidence of CER derivedfrom the only other comprehensive study ofCER in Ireland (which covered the period from1991 to 1995). A discussion of the results thenensues, and this is informed by reference tolegitimacy theory explanations of the motivesfor CER. Finally, some conclusions on thefindings and discussion are offered.

PRIOR RESEARCH ON CORPORATEENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING INIRELAND

The most recent in-depth study of CER prac-tices in Ireland was a five year longitudinalstudy (1991–1995) undertaken by O’Dwyerand Gray (1998). The authors found that,among the largest Irish listed companies, CERthrough the corporate annual report laggedsignificantly behind levels in much of westernEurope. There was also no evidence of the sep-arate production of stand-alone publicly avail-able environmental reports. Over the five-yearperiod examined (1991–1995), the maximumproportion of companies undertaking environ-mental disclosures in any one year was 26%(see Table 1).2

While there were some notable exceptionsto the overall trends, there was an absence ofconsistency among companies who engaged inCER. For example, a number of companies out-lined environmental policies in one year but

2 The sectors included in the study were as follows: explo-ration/extractive; manufacturing/processing; financial andother; retail and leisure; printing and food and drink. The top50 companies listed on the Irish Stock Exchange at 31 December1995 were selected for the study.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 10, 91–100 (2003)

92

CER IN IRELAND

Table 1. Average volume and incidence of CER amongthe top 50 Irish listed companies 1991–1995.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Average volume 0.18 0.21 1.41 1.10 0.27(% disclosing) (26) (16) (22) (22) (20)

Source: O’Dwyer (unpublished PhD thesis).

failed to do so in subsequent years, therebyproviding no indication as to how policy objec-tives, where disclosed, had been achieved (orotherwise). Furthermore, only five companiesundertook environmental disclosures in all fiveyears of the study. The results of this studyclearly indicate that in the first half of the 1990sCER in Ireland was very much in its infancy.

Potential motivations for CER – legitimacy theory

Organizational legitimacy theory is based, inmany respects, on the concept of a socialcontract (Gray et al., 1988) between businessand the wider society, whereby ‘business [isdeemed to] agree to perform various sociallydesired actions in return for approval of itsobjectives, other rewards and its ultimate sur-vival’ (Guthrie and Parker, 1989, p. 344). Orga-nizational legitimacy can be conceptualized asboth a process and a state (Deephouse, 1996). Forexample, if there is an actual or potential dispar-ity between organizational and social values,organizational legitimacy will be endangeredand a legitimacy ‘gap’ may develop (Sethi,1979). Organizations may then undertake var-ious actions as part of a legitimation process(Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) aimed at establish-ing congruence between their values and thoseof the wider society in order to achieve the stateor condition of organizational legitimacy (Grayet al., 1996). Legitimacy management dependsheavily on communication between the organi-zation and its various ‘relevant’ publics (Such-man, 1995). In this vein, CER is deemed to con-stitute a form of reaction to factors/pressuresin a company’s environment (from, say, localcommunities or pressure groups) in which theorganization seeks either passive acquiescence

or active support for its operations (Suchman,1995). It has therefore been suggested thatvoluntary CER can help towards repairing,attaining or maintaining organizational legit-imacy (Ader, 1995). Many studies have foundsome support for its explanatory power onthis basis (see, for example, Deegan et al., 2000;O’ Donovan, 1999).

In the Irish context, O’Dwyer (2002) useda legitimacy theory framework in order tointerpret the motives for CER practice and non-practice among 29 senior executives in Irishlisted companies. The perspectives suggestedthat companies, particularly those in environ-mentally sensitive sectors, initially engagedin some form of CER as a form of reactionto localized external pressures perceived asthreatening their legitimacy. However, manyexecutives perceived this disclosure as leadingto increased pressures, due partly to culturalsuspicion of their companies’ motives. Conse-quently, these companies subsequently ceasedreporting as they perceived that their legiti-macy was actually further threatened throughresponding to pressure and engaging in CER.O’Dwyer (2002) concluded that while, for theseexecutives, engaging in CER may have beeninitially motivated by legitimacy concerns, itwas ultimately deemed unlikely to lead tothe successful attainment of a legitimacy state.Hence, many companies neglected to engageconsistently in CER due to a perceived neg-ative and suspicious reaction among variousreport readers. This paper, using additionalevidence of CER practice in Ireland subse-quent to these interviews, reflects further onthis potential explanation for CER practice (andnon-practice) among Irish listed companies.

RESEARCH METHOD

The content analysis method was used toascertain the level of CER by each com-pany in its most recently issued corporateannual report and/or stand-alone publiclyavailable environmental report (if published)


93

B. O’DWYER

(see Abbott and Monsen, 1979; Krippendorff,1980). It made use of an established andcomprehensive research instrument developedby researchers at the Centre for Social andEnvironmental Accounting Research (CSEAR)at the University of Glasgow (Gray et al.,1995a, 1995b). This instrument was initiallyamended to accord with the Irish context inthe O’ Dwyer–Gray (1998) study and was fur-ther revised for use in the current study. Theinstrument categorizes CER into six major cat-egories of disclosure: (i) environmental pol-icy; (ii) environmental products and processrelated; (iii) environmental audit; (iv) sustain-ability; (v) finance related environmental dis-closures and (vi) miscellaneous ‘other’.3 Thefocus on reporting in the corporate annualreport is in line with prior CER research. Whileit is recognized that this choice ignores otherforms of communication, the choice of theannual report is primarily due to its poten-tial influence (Adams and Harte, 1998) givenits widespread use, acceptance and recognitionby investors, creditors, employees, pressuregroups and government (Buhr, 1998; InvestorsRelations Business, 2000).

Listed companies were sampled from theIrish Stock Exchange (ISEQ) index of listedcompanies included in the official list ofcompanies quoted on the Irish Stock Exchangeas at 24 November 2000. In addition toISEQ index companies, companies listed onthe explorations securities market were alsoincluded in the sample, none of which wereincluded in the ISEQ index on this date. Themost recently issued corporate annual reportsof these companies at the end of November2000 were analysed. All companies were alsocontacted and requested to provide their stand-alone publicly available environmental report(if published) for analysis. The total samplecame to 83 companies.

3 The instrument also facilitates the analysis of the nature ofdisclosure undertaken. In this vein, disclosure was classifiedinto one of three categories: (i) monetary; (ii) quantitative and(iii) declarative (narrative).

CER PRACTICE AMONG IRISHLISTED COMPANIES

This section outlines the main findings fromthe content analysis of the annual reports of the83 listed companies. Details of the incidenceand volume (length) of reporting practice, aswell as an examination of reporting accordingto industry sector are firstly delineated. Thepotential influence of industry sector andcompany size on disclosure levels is alsoexamined.

Overall CER evidence

Thirty-four per cent of listed companies under-took some form of environmental disclosure(see Table 2). Only one company issued a sepa-rate stand-alone environmental report. Disclos-ing companies tended to concentrate mainlyon general environmental policy (18%) andproducts/processes with environmental ben-efits (12%). A number of companies empha-sized very broad commitments to environmen-tal protection, but neglected to provide muchdetail on how commitments were met:

The Group is committed to a policywhich recognises environmental issues inall aspects of its business to ensure compli-ance with best practice (IWP Internationalannual report 2000, directors’ report, p. 24).

Two companies, Greencore and Heiton Hold-ings, included identical wording in theirenvironmental policy statements, while prod-uct/process related disclosures tended to beupbeat, effectively highlighting the environ-mental benefits of products and processes andfocusing on the win–win scenario this pro-duced for companies:

. . . we are leveraging environmental bestpractice across our group. For example, ouracquisition of Ibstock Building Productsbrings leading edge technology on fluorideemission reduction from clay brick kilns,


94

CER IN IRELAND

Table 2. Corporate environmental reporting in Irish listed companies

Environmenttotal

Environmentalpolicy

Products/processes

Financial Audit Other

No. disclosing 28 15 10 10 1 9No. not disclosing 55 68 73 73 82 74% disclosing 34 18 12 12 1 11Total length 15.89 4.11 4.82 3.95 0.17 2.84(in pages)Average (page) length of

disclosers0.57 0.27 0.48 0.40 0.17 0.32

No. of quantified and/orfinancial disclosures

14 1 3 10 0 0

No. of audited disclosures 10 0 0 10 0 0No. of negative news

disclosures0 0 0 0 0 0

as well as advanced robotics and fastfiring technology with major ergonomicand environmental benefits (CRH annualreport 1999, ‘The environment’ section,p. 32).

While 12% of companies also undertook finan-cial disclosures, this was mainly in order tocomply with new financial reporting require-ments with respect to provisions for environ-mental liabilities. The average volume of dis-closure among disclosing companies was justover half a page (0.57 pages). The vast major-ity of this disclosure was declarative, withvery few financial or quantitative data pro-vided. There was no evidence of what could betermed ‘bad’ or negative news disclosures inany of the annual reports. Only one companyprovided information on environmental audits

and no company made any detailed referenceto sustainable development.

Impact of company size on CER levelsTesting was undertaken on the data usingSpearman rank correlation coefficients in orderto ascertain whether a relationship existedbetween company size and the average vol-ume of a company’s CER (see Table 3).4 Foroverall CER, there was a positive but sta-tistically insignificant relationship. However,for environmental policy disclosures a statisti-cally significant association between companysize (represented by the number of employ-ees) and the volume of these policy disclosures

4 Non-parametric statistical testing was used as it could not beassumed that the distributions underlying the variables of interestwere normal.

Table 3. The correlation between the average volume of CER and company size using Spearman rankcorrelation coefficients

Environmenttotal

Environmentalpolicy

Products/processes

Financial Audit

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

0.170 0.085 0.205 0.271 −0.012 −0.160 −0.160 0.013 −0.065 −0.0510.881 0.447 0.063 0.013 0.912 0.888 0.885 0.905 0.562 0.649

1. Turnover used as the proxy for company size.2. Number of employees used as the proxy for company size.The figure in italics is significant at the 5% level.


95

B. O’DWYER

was found. The other three main categories ofdisclosure indicated negative but statisticallyinsignificant associations.

Trends in disclosure incidence

When one compares these results with theO’ Dwyer–Gray (1998) study of annual reportdisclosures in 1995, an increase in the inci-dence of disclosure among companies commonto both samples is evident (see Table 4). Allten companies who undertook disclosures in1995 were still disclosing in 1999/2000 andall increased or maintained their 1995 volumeof disclosure. Of the 1995 sample, 43 compa-nies were also included in the current sample,with 44% (19) of these companies undertak-ing disclosures in 1999/2000 compared with23% (10) in 1995. In three of the nine newcases of disclosure, disclosure merely compliedwith new financial reporting requirements. Ofthe remaining six companies, four were pro-viding minimal levels of disclosure, while, ofthe other two, one outlined its environmen-tal policy and the other disclosed informationregarding its environmentally beneficial prod-ucts. The average volume of disclosure among

Table 4. Trend in incidence of corporate environmentalreporting 1999/2000 and 1995

1999/2000 1995

No. of companies commonto both samples

43 43

No. of companies disclosing 19 10% disclosing 44 23

disclosing companies was also substantiallyhigher among the current sample comparedwith the 1995 sample (0.57 pages comparedwith 0.27 pages).

Sectoral analysis of corporate environmentalreporting in listed companies

The main disclosing sectors were the manufac-turing/processing, exploration/extractive andfood and drink sectors (see Table 5).5 Volumesof disclosure averaged almost three-quarters ofa page in the first two sectors. There was no evi-dence of disclosure in the financial/other, retailand leisure or property development sectors.While the percentage of companies disclosingin the exploration/extractive sector appearsquite high at 67% (ten companies), four of thesecompanies merely provided information withrespect to provisions for environmental liabili-ties in compliance with a newly issued financialreporting standard. Of the remaining six com-panies in this sector, two provided relativelydetailed positive information on environmen-tal policy while another represented the onlycompany in the entire sample to refer to envi-ronmental audits (albeit of an internal nature).Five of the eight disclosers in the manufactur-ing/processing sector disclosed some form ofenvironmental policy and one of these compa-nies (CRH) included a separate environmen-tal section in its annual report dealing with,

5 The sample of companies was divided into eight broad industrysector groups. These comprised the following: financial andother (fin./other); manufacturing/processing (manuf./process);retail and leisure; exploration/extractive (exp./extract.); printing;property development and other.

Table 5. Corporate environmental reporting by industry sector

Total Fin./other

Manuf./process

Retail/leisure

Exp./extract.

Print Prop.Dev.

Food/drink

Other

No. of companies 83 6 18 3 15 2 4 9 26No. disclosing 28 0 8 0 10 1 0 4 5% disclosing 34 0 44 0 67 50 0 44 19Total length 15.89 0 5.75 0 7.10 0.58 0 1.50 0.96Average length of

disclosers0.57 0 0.72 0 0.71 0.58 0 0.38 0.19


96

CER IN IRELAND

in addition to policy, products and processrelated matters. All four companies in the foodand drink sector outlined their environmen-tal policy ranging from a full page of theannual report to a few sentences mentioningthe existence of environmental awareness inthe company.

In order to determine whether the differ-ences in the average volume of CER betweensectors were statistically significant, testingwas undertaken using the Kruskal–Wallistest (see Table 6). In relation to overall envi-ronmental disclosure, significant differenceswere reported in the average volume of CERreported among sectors.

Resistance to external disclosure ofenvironmental data in media analysed?A notable feature of many of the responses torequests for stand-alone environmental reportswas a comment that while companies didcollate information internally regarding theirenvironmental impacts, for example for inclu-sion as part of an Annual EnvironmentalReport to the Irish Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in compliance with IntegratedPollution Control (IPC) licensing requirements,they did not engage in any formal externalreporting of this information. This suggeststhat many companies may have informationcollated internally, which could be reportedexternally, but they are choosing not to doso. Furthermore, this paper exclusively con-siders disclosures in the annual report orstand-alone publicly available environmentalreports. However, throughout the course ofthe research it was discovered that a number

of companies included environmental infor-mation on their website (including one majorfinancial institution) but neglected to discloseany information in their annual report or anenvironmental report.

DISCUSSION

This paper reports on the recent state of CERamong Irish listed companies. The results indi-cate that, apart from companies whose coreoperations have an easily observable envi-ronmental impact, there is little evidence ofextensive environmental reporting, in terms ofeither its quantity or quality. In most instances,disclosing companies are at the very earlystages in their consideration of environmen-tal reporting and there is little evidence ofany substantial evolution in reporting throughthe annual report since the early 1990s. Out-side the annual report, reporting appears littlebetter, with only one company disclosing a sep-arate publicly available environmental report.There was, however, some evidence, fromresponses to requests for stand-alone envi-ronmental reports, that many companies pos-sessed formal policy statements, but neglectedto include information regarding these in theirannual reports, thereby suggesting that it is notonly disclosing companies who possess envi-ronmental policies.

CER as a minimal response to ineffectuallegitimacy threats

The predominance of disclosure incidenceamong companies in more environmentally

Table 6. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for significant differences in the average volumeof CER between industrial sectors

Environmenttotal

Environmentalpolicy

Products/processes

Financial Audit

Chi square 21.372 10.019 14.229 19.206 4.929p value 0.003 0.187 0.047 0.008 0.669

p values in bold are significant at the 5% level.


97

B. O’DWYER

sensitive sectors suggests some desire to ensurethat they appear to be concerned about environ-mental issues. Given the recent upsurge of con-cern at governmental and non-governmentalorganization (NGO) level about environmen-tal impacts in Ireland, these companies maybe protecting any perceived legitimacy theypossess. This is evident in some of the dis-closures among exploration/extractive com-panies and accords with the perspectives ofexecutives in the O’Dwyer (2002) study whoclaimed that, initially, environmental disclo-sure was undertaken in response to perceivedwidespread external pressure on environmen-tally sensitive industries. The increased trendin disclosure incidence since 1995 also sug-gests that a number of other companies mayhave responded to these pressures by engag-ing in some form of voluntary disclosure.However, as outlined above, most attemptsat disclosure predominantly encompass verybroad environmental policy objectives whichalmost always fail to set specific targets againstwhich performance can be measured in futureyears. This can be evidenced in Greencoreand Heiton Holdings using the same word-ing in their broad environmental policy state-ments. It is therefore difficult to understandhow companies expect these rather dismis-sive disclosure statements to alleviate exter-nal pressures and protect organizational legit-imacy.

Neu et al. (1998, see also Mitchell et al., 1997),however, indicate the need to consider an orga-nization’s numerous stakeholders (and theiroft competing interests) when thinking aboutorganizational legitimacy. They claim that CERis aimed at important and supportive stake-holders (or those perceived to have power andlegitimacy, Mitchell et al. 1997), not at periph-eral and ‘critical’ stakeholders. Oliver (1991)argues that if the demands of, for example,environmentalists conflict with the demandsof more powerfully perceived financial stake-holders then it makes tactical sense for anorganization to reject or at best ‘minimallyappease’ the former’s demands. ‘Low effort’

symbolic gestures, such as the provision ofbasic environmental disclosures, may thereforebe used to demonstrate minimal appeasementas an alternative to outright defiance. Thisimplies that minimal as opposed to detailedenvironmental disclosures may be more likelyto form part of a legitimacy process aimedat appeasing the concerns of less powerful‘relevant’ publics such as environmentalistsand NGOs. The evidence of increased min-imal environmental disclosures in this studywhen considered in light of O’Dwyer’s (2002)findings suggest this form of minimal appease-ment may be at least partially motivating thisincrease. It could be that increased, detailed CERin response to any external criticism or con-cern may be seen as implicitly granting legit-imacy to environmentalist claims, somethingorganizations may be resistant to (O’Dwyer,2002). Furthermore, given that many execu-tives in the O’Dwyer (2002) study claimedthey found that increasing environmental dis-closure exposed them to even greater pres-sures, there may be a resistance to overlypublicizing environmental impacts and poli-cies in place. This is supported by a numberof the responses to requests for stand-aloneenvironmental reports whereby a number ofcompanies stated that, while they had detailedenvironmental policies in place, they did notpublicize these; the lack of external report-ing should not be seen to imply an absenceof policy.

CONCLUSIONS

CER in Ireland has a long way to go beforeit can be deemed a comprehensive, cred-ible, reliable and widely practised activityamong listed companies. However, this studyis limited in that it does not assess report-ing by private limited companies and sub-sidiaries of foreign multinationals, almost 150of whom have obtained ISO 14001 registration,and it may therefore miss out on substantial


98

CER IN IRELAND

reporting in these sectors.6 However, currentCER practice in listed companies tends toignore a growing awareness of environmen-tal issues by the general population in thiscontext (Kelly and Moles, 2000). EU member-ship may also bring with it greater pressureto engage more credibly and comprehensivelyin CER. More fundamentally, increased soci-etal awareness of environmental impacts couldlead to calls for more open and accountablereporting on these impacts, while the possi-bility of the evolution of mandatory reportingrequirements for certain environmentally sen-sitive companies cannot be discounted (Kolk,1999). If Irish CER practice among listed com-panies proceeds in its current limited vein,the luxury of voluntarism may be lost dueto a reluctance to appear open and account-able with regard to environmental impacts. Itwill be up to industry to demonstrate publiclythe seriousness with which it takes environ-mental issues in order to deter the threat ofregulation.

The information that could be reported exter-nally does appear to exist within many Irishlisted companies. For example, responses torequests for stand-alone environmental reportsindicate that, in a number of companies, muchenvironmental impact information is availableand reported internally but not externally. Asimple, and relatively cost-free, way of report-ing this information externally would involvecollating all of the existing environmental dataand summarizing it within the annual reportas a separate environmental reporting section(see Gray, 2000). To an extent, one companyanalysed followed this approach and while theinformation included was not especially pro-found it did raise the profile of environmentalissues in a simple and cost-free manner. Thisinitial simple approach could initially movereporting in Ireland beyond the infancy stage.

6 For example, the inaugural ACCA Irish Environmentalreporting awards scheme was won by a major private company,Musgrave Group.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The financial assistance of the Association of CharteredCertified Accountants (ACCA) is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Abbott WF, Monsen RJ. 1979. On the measurementof corporate social responsibility: self reporteddisclosures as a method of measuring corporate socialinvolvement. Academy of Management Journal 22(3):501–515.

Adams CA, Harte G. 1998. The changing portrayal ofthe employment of women in British banks’ andretail companies’ corporate annual reports. Accounting,Organizations and Society 23(8): 781–812.

Ader C. 1995. A longitudinal study of agenda setting forthe issues of environmental pollution. Journalism andMass Communication Quarterly 72(2): 300–311.

Ashforth BE, Gibbs BW. 1990. The double-edge oforganizational legitimation. Organization Science 1(2):177–194.

Buhr N. 1998. Environmental performance, legislationand annual report disclosure: the case of acid rain andFalconbridge. Accounting, Auditing and AccountabilityJournal 11(2): 163–190.

Deegan C, Rankin M, Voght P. 2000. Firms’ disclosurereactions to major social incidents: Australianevidence. Accounting Forum 24(1): 101–130.

Deephouse DL. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate?Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 1024–1039.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Ireland’sEnvironment: a Millennium Report. http://www.epa.ie/soe/soemain.html [12 August 2002].

Gray RH. 2000. Current developments and trends insocial and environmental auditing, reporting andattestation: a review and comment. International Journalof Auditing 4(3): 247–268.

Gray RH, Kouhy R, Lavers S. 1995a. Corporate socialand environmental reporting: a review of the literatureand a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting,Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(2): 47–77.

Gray RH, Kouhy R, Lavers S. 1995b. Constructinga research database of social and environmentalreporting by UK companies: a methodological note.Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 8(2):78–101.

Gray RH, Owen DL, Adams CA. 1996. Accounting andAccountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Socialand Environmental Reporting. Prentice-Hall: Europe.

Gray RH, Owen DL, Maunders KT. 1988. Corporatesocial reporting: emerging trends in accountabilityand the social contract. Accounting, Auditing andAccountability Journal 1(1): 6–20.


99

B. O’DWYER

Guthrie J, Parker LD. 1989. Corporate social reporting: arebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and BusinessResearch 19(76): 343–352.

Investors Relations Business. 2000. Annuals remain topinfo source: investors rate annual over financial mediaor analysts’ reports. 3 April.

The Irish Times. 2000. Editorial. 2 November: 17.Kelly R, Moles R. 2000. Towards sustainable

development in the mid-west region of Ireland.Environmental Management and Health 11(5): 422–432.

Kolk A. 1999. Evaluating corporate environmentalreporting. Business Strategy and the Environment 8:225–237.

Krippendorff K. 1980. Content Analysis: an Introduction toits Methodology. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

McDonald F. 2000. ‘Radical’ state plan to reducegreenhouse gas. The Irish Times 2 November: 7.

Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D. 1997. Toward a theory ofstakeholder identification and salience: defining theprinciple of who and what really counts. Academy ofManagement Review 22(4): 853–886.

Neu D, Warsame H, Pedwell K. 1998. Managing publicimpressions: environmental disclosures in annualreports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23(3):265–282.

O’Donovan G. 1999. Managing legitimacy throughincreased corporate environmental reporting: anexploratory study. Interdisciplinary EnvironmentalReview 1(1): 63–99.

O’Dwyer B. 2002. Managerial perceptions of corporatesocial disclosure: an Irish story. Accounting, Auditingand Accountability Journal 15(3): 406–436.

O’Dwyer B, Gray RH. 1998. Corporate social reportingin the Republic of Ireland: a longitudinal study. TheIrish Accounting Review 5(2): 1–34.

Oliver C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutionalprocesses. Academy of Management Review 16:145–179.

Sethi SP. 1979. A conceptual framework forenvironmental analysis of social issues and evaluationof business response patterns. Academy of ManagementReview 4(1): 63–74.

Suchman MC. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategicand institutional approaches. Academy of ManagementReview 20(3): 571–610.

Yearley S. 1995. The social shaping of the environmentalmovement in Ireland. In Irish Society: SociologicalPerspectives, Clancy P, Drudy S, Lynch K, O’Dowd L(eds). IPA: Dublin; 652–674.

BIOGRAPHY

Dr Brendan O’Dwyer is College Lecturer inAccountancy at the Michael Smurfit GraduateSchool of Business, University College Dublin,Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.Tel.: +353-1-7168038.E-mail: [email protected]


100

the ponderous evolution of corporate environmental reporting in ireland. recent evidence from...

Documents