Acta academica karviniensia 2017, 17(4):32-45 | DOI: 10.25142/aak.2017.028

CONTENT ANALYSIS APPLIED TO SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING

Michaela Horúcková1, Thierry Baudassé2
1 Silesian University, School of Business Administration, Univerzitní nám. 1934/3, 733 40 Karvina
2 Université d'Orléans, Faculté de Droit, Economie et Gestion, Laboratoire d'Économie d'Orléans, UMR 7322 CNRS, Rue de Blois - BP26739, Orléans Cedex 2, France

Content analysis is an accredited research technique that despite its increasing use in numerous disciplines and substantial expansion in academia lacks a unified methodology and rigorous methodological standards. This paper presents the technique of content analysis and the way it can be applied to social and environmental reporting, with a special focus on environmental corporate reporting. Major methodological problems that have been raised by the use of content analysis, and unique coding rules and decisions developed by authors are presented. Through the application of content analysis on CEZ Group's corporate report, possible outcomes that can be obtained while using this technique are shown.

Keywords: content analysis, corporate reporting, corporate social responsibility, environmental reporting
JEL classification: F64, Q40, Q50, Q56

Received: May 2, 2018; Revised: November 30, 1999; Accepted: November 21, 2018; Published: December 30, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Horúcková M, Baudassé T. CONTENT ANALYSIS APPLIED TO SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING. Acta academica karviniensia. 2017;17(4):32-45. doi: 10.25142/aak.2017.028.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ABBOTT, W. F. and R. J. MONSEN, 1979. On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility: Self-Reported Disclosures as a Method of Measuring Corporate Social Involvement. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 22, issue 3, pp. 501-515. Go to original source...
    2. BEATTIE, V. and S. J. THOMSON, 2007. Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosures. Accounting Forum, vol. 31, issue 2, pp. 129-163. Go to original source...
    3. BECK, A. C. et al., 2010. Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British-German context. The British Accounting Review, vol. 42, issue 3, pp. 207-222. Go to original source...
    4. BERELSON, 1952. Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, III., Free Press.
    5. BRAVO, R., et al. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Vehicle to Reveal the Corporate Identity: A Study Focused on the Websites of Spanish Financial Entities. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, issue 2, pp. 129-146. Go to original source...
    6. BUHR, N. and M. FREEDMAN, 2001. Culture, institutional factors and differences in environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 12, pp. 293-322. Go to original source...
    7. CEZ, 2015. CEZ Group Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2012/2013 [online]. [2017-09-04]. Available from: from: https://www.cez.cz/edee/content/micrositesutf/odpovednost2013/downloads/CSRR_en.pdf.
    8. CEZ, 2016. CEZ Group: The Leader in Power Markets of Central and Southeastern Europe [online]. [2017-09-04]. Available from: https://www.cez.cz/edee/content/file/investors/investment-stories/equity-investors_may2016.pdf.
    9. CEZ, 2017. CEZ Group annual report 2016 [online]. [2017-09-04]. Available from: https://www.cez.cz/edee/content/file/investori/vz-2016/vz-2016-en.pdf.
    10. COHEN, J., 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 10, issue 1, pp. 37-46. Go to original source...
    11. CUGANESAN, S. et al., 2010. Examining CSR disclosure strategies within the Australian food and beverage industry. Accounting forum, vol. 34, issue 3-4, pp. 169-183. Go to original source...
    12. FREEMAN, R. E. and D. L. REED, 1983. Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review (pre-1986), vol. 25, issue 3, pp. 88-106. Go to original source...
    13. FRIEDMAN, M, 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
    14. GRAY, R., et al., 1995a. Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 78-101. Go to original source...
    15. GRAY, R., et al., 1995b. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 47-77. Go to original source...
    16. GRI, 2016. Consolidated set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2016 [online]. [2017-09-04]. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/#user-details.
    17. GUTHRIE, J. and I. ABEYSEKERA, 2006. Content analysis of social, environmental reporting: what is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, vol. 10, issue 2, pp. 114-126. Go to original source...
    18. HOOKS, J. and C. J. VAN STADEN, 2011. Evaluating environmental disclosures: The relationship between quality and extent measures. The British Accounting Review, vol. 43, issue 3, pp. 200-213. Go to original source...
    19. HRASKY, S. 2012. Visual disclosure strategies adopted by more and less sustainability-driven companies. Accounting Forum, vol. 36, issue 3, pp. 154-165. Go to original source...
    20. JOHNSON, G. et al., 2008. Exploring corporate strategy, 8th ed. London: Pearson Education Limited.
    21. KRIPPENDORFF, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage.
    22. KRIPPENDORFF, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
    23. MILNE, J. and R. W. ADLER, 1998. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 12, issue 2, pp. 237-256. Go to original source...
    24. MITCHELL, R. K., et al., 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, vol. 2, issue 4, pp. 853-88. Go to original source...
    25. NEUENDORF, K. A., 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook, 2nd ed. Cleveland State University, USA: Sage Go to original source...
    26. O'DONOVAN, G., 2000. Legitimacy theory as an explanation for corporate environmental disclosures. Victoria University E-prints Repository [online]. [2017-09-04]. Available from: http://vuir.vu.edu.au/15372/1/O%27Donovan_2000compressed.pdf.
    27. O'DONOVAN, G., 2002. Environmental disclosures in the annual report. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 15, issue 3, pp. 344-371. Go to original source...
    28. PARKER, L, 2005. Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 18, issue 6, pp. 842-860. Go to original source...
    29. PESCI, C. and E. COSTA, 2014. Content Analysis of Social and Environmental Reports of Italian Cooperative Banks: Methodological Issues. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 157-171. Go to original source...
    30. ROBERTS, C. B., 1991. Environmental Disclosures: A Note on Reporting Practices in Mainland Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 4, issue 3, pp. 62-71. Go to original source...
    31. SAPKAUSKIENE, A. and S. LEITONIENE, 2014. Corporate social responsibility research methods analysis. European Scientific Journal, special edition, vol. 1, pp. 237-244.
    32. SCOTT, W. A., 1955. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 19, pp. 321-325. Go to original source...
    33. SUCHMAN, M., 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 571-610. Go to original source...
    34. SWEENEY, L. and J. COUGHLAN, 2011. Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigation though the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 14, issue 2, pp. 113-124. Go to original source...
    35. TILLING, M. V., 2004. Refinements to Legitimacy Theory in Social and Environmental Accounting. Commerce Research Paper Series, vol. 4, issue 7. Go to original source...
    36. UNERMAN, J. 1999. Methodological issues: Reflection on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 13, issue 5, pp. 667-680. Go to original source...
    37. VAN STADEN, J. C. and J. HOOKS, 2007. A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness. The British Accounting Review, vol. 39, issue 3, pp. 197-210. Go to original source...
    38. WOOD, D. J., 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, issue 4, pp. 691-718. Go to original source...
    39. ZÉGHAL, D. and S. A. AHMED, 2002. Comparison of Social Responsibility Information Disclosure Media Used by Canadian Firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 38-53. Go to original source...

    Return to the content