By repeating certain discursive mechanisms, discourse actively perpetuates particular hegemonic ideals (Alexander, 2009; Davison, 2014; Spence, 2009). In this chapter, the environmental reports and interviews will undergo a second layer of analysis, in which the discourse of corporate environmental reporting is examined through the lens of western environmental philosophy. To highlight the ways in which the reporting process communicates these philosophies, some of the more prevalent discursive motifs – and the mechanisms with which they are communicated – will be considered and discussed. How these motifs relate to the philosophical themes used in this book will also be examined. After the discursive motifs and mechanisms have been outlined and considered, the following chapter will explore the repercussions of these findings.

Alexander (2009) notes that by repeating certain words or themes, texts accustomise readers to particular notions, thus normalising certain approaches to the natural environment. Similarly, others have noted that despite being perceived as objective and neutral statements, corporate reports are social constructs which are embedded with the corporation’s values (Benschop & Meihuizen, 2002). By repeating themes within an environmental report, the corporation implicitly adopts a rhetorical technique which attempts to persuade the reader (Davison, 2014). It is argued that these themes not only communicate the company’s approach to the natural environment, but contribute to the construction of particular ways of interacting with the natural environment (Dryzek, 2013; Nerlich, 2010). The discursive motifs explored in this book are expressions of the three primary philosophical themes which reflect particular underpinnings in the relationship between corporations and the natural world. The motifs are expressed through discursive mechanisms which are common to many (sometimes all) of the environmental reports analysed for this book.

Archel, Husillos and Spence (2011) outline how organisations come to resemble each other through the process of institutionalisation through the shared sense of meanings, values and practice. In this book, I uncover some of the discursive mechanisms that reflect the institutionalisation of various approaches to the natural world. The mechanisms outlined below were found in many (sometimes all) of the environmental reports analysed for this book, and therefore reflect not only a shared understanding amongst the sample of corporations examined in this book but also the discursive mechanisms these corporations use to shape cultural views about nature.

Discourse actively shapes cultural views. This is particularly so in discourses about the natural environment. Discourse is not only text, but also design, layout and images. All of these aspects of discourse can be analysed to uncover implicitly communicated meanings enshrined in organisational documents such as those analysed here. The discourse analysed for this book demonstrates some repeated discursive techniques elucidating the philosophies at play in corporate communications about nature.

Some of the discursive mechanisms discussed are visual in character. Davison, McLean and Warren (2012) illustrate the communicative power of images and visual techniques in framing the content of a corporate report. They argue that visual devices have great influence in how the user of the report views the content and are often more compelling than the content itself.

Other discursive mechanisms discussed utilise both visual and textual techniques. The ways in which these techniques communicate particular philosophies will be explicated and analysed, in the context of the organisation. Also discussed is what these techniques are communicating about the corporate approach to nature.

Many of the most prevalent discursive mechanisms used in the reports were in keeping with a dualistic approach. As discussed in the previous chapters, a dualistic approach reinforces the idea that humans are separate and distinct from the natural world, and also that objects within the natural world are distinct from each other. Since interdependencies between subjects are ignored in this way of thinking, this brings about the notion of hierarchical relationships, inevitably leading to the view that human interests should be at the top of this hierarchy. This view is embedded into much of western culture, and has become somewhat ubiquitous, however this first section of this chapter aims to bring to light some of the ways dualism is discursively expressed, particularly in contemporary corporate environmental reporting.

To assist with the textual analysis, a list was created as a reference tool in order to group some of the more often repeated motifs which were expressed in the environmental reports. The fact that these approaches were frequently found in the environmental reports reflects what Archel et al. (2011) describe as the institutionalisation of particular beliefs and values which leads to organisational homogeneity. Some of the more frequently referred to discourses reflecting a dualistic approach are listed below.

The corporate environmental reports analysed here frequently utilised visual analytical aids such as charts and graphs. Beattie and Jones (2008) outline the types of graphs typically used in corporate reporting, and propose that while graphs are useful for communicating concepts in a simple, visual way that is easy to understand, they often obfuscate meaning.

Dambrin and Robson (2011) draw from Latour’s notion of action at a distance in outlining the effects of reducing information to mechanisms such as charts and graphs. They describe how these linguistic techniques stifle some modes of being, while giving voice to other elements. Through reducing the particularities of events, charts and graphs construct a division between the physical event and the reader. This act of separating the terrestrial effect with the reader’s understanding of it manifests a dualistic approach, since dualism itself describes a separation between the natural world and the human experience.

The chart above (Figure 6.1), from Alpha’s 2013 environmental report, illustrates a simplified version of events, removing awareness of the terrestrial effects of these measures, how they came about or even identifying their base measurements. This image displays some key symbols – a garbage bin, a dripping tap and the chemical symbol for carbon dioxide. It is left to the reader to interpret the meaning of these symbols, for instance, the garbage bin could represent waste to landfill, but equally could symbolise overall waste, including recycling. The dripping tap might represent overall water usage, or more literally, dripping taps and therefore water wastage. “CO₂” might represent the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbon, or perhaps only carbon dioxide. The reader is left to decipher these images for herself. Beneath these three symbols are three downward facing arrows of varying sizes representing the percentage reduction of those three materials. The reader is not provided with baseline data, and is therefore left to her own devices as to how much of a reduction 31%, 12% and 13% actually is. The colour green here implies that these measures are good for the environment (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2002).

By obfuscating the meaning of this graphic, Alpha communicates a very generalised message about environmental measures taken by the company, thereby reducing the capacity for a more critical reading of the report.

Zeta used a pie chart in its 2014 environmental report to illustrate the company’s greenhouse gas emissions for the year. The chart has been presented against a narrative of how Zeta is addressing climate change, and sits above a table of energy efficiencies which have been investigated (but not necessarily implemented). This chart does not indicate whether these are direct (scope 1 or 2) or indirect (scope 3) emissions¹ and makes no reference to which calculation methods have been used in preparing this chart. In common with the previous chart discussed, there is no baseline data provided, so the reader cannot discern the amount of overall greenhouse gas emissions, or what quantity 55%, 26% or 10% might actually indicate.

The use of bright red draws the reader’s attention to the 55% of emissions which has been emitted through the energy required in Zeta’s buildings. The reader isn’t told whether this includes all buildings, since data centre emissions have been given separately – or whether ‘building energy use’ includes the buildings which house the data centres. The purpose of breaking the data up into these categories is unclear; what is silenced in this process? A more useful graphic might present data from various branches, or departments, however Zeta have chosen to categorise emissions by building energy use, data centres, air travel, other, hotel stays and car fleet in a seemingly random selection of sources.

Through the mechanisms of colour and positioning, attention is drawn to the energy use of buildings. This may be linked to Zeta’s significant investment in a new Melbourne building with a “Six Star Green Star Design” rating; perhaps Zeta would like to highlight this investment and its environmental utility. Similarly, in the narrative provided around this graph there is mention of an expected decrease in emissions attributed to the data centres, with a move to a new “LEED Platinum certified” data centre. By presenting the pie chart in such a way that these two areas represent the highest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, it may appear that the two significant investments undertaken by Zeta are justified.

While a justification of Zeta’s investments may underpin this graphic, by presenting the information as a pie chart a sense of objectivity is achieved (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). This sense of abstraction achieves a distancing which is associated with a dualistic approach to the environment.

Delta’s 2013 environmental report presents a set of charts and graphs. In comparison to the Zeta graph, Delta’s information graphic provides information about the scope of greenhouse gas emissions, what it means by emissions (ktCO₂e, or kilotonnes of carbon dioxide and equivalent gasses) and the quantity emitted. It also provides some comparative data, and adds a sense of legitimacy through providing some unfavourable information about increased emissions in the current year, however the presentation of the 2009/10 and 2010/11 data in this graphic does appear to minimise the current year’s increase in emissions. While the image provided in the top part of the graphic provides this more legitimate information, the image in the lower part of the graphic suffers the same ambiguity as Zeta’s pie chart, in that greenhouse gas emissions by the type of fuels is not essentially of use to the reader. By balancing the more negative information in the top graphic with a less meaningful chart, attention is diverted. Similarly, the use of a circular shaped chart carries with it a sense of organic, natural order (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006).

This information graphic is on the right-hand side of a page otherwise filled with written narrative, alongside a table which reports a total of 97 separate spills of large volumes of toxic materials. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) have demonstrated how information provided to the left often represents information that is ‘given,’ whereas information provided to the right is ‘new’ information. This tendency is based on the left to right pattern of western reading and writing, and differs in cultures with other patterns of reading and writing. By utilising this placement, Delta implies that although there have been some significant spills of toxic materials (on the left of the page), the reader’s attention should be drawn to the new information provided by the pleasant looking graphs in which current year emissions are visually minimised, and the eye is drawn to a circular graph which provides information of questionable use. Using the colour green here reinforces the sense that the actions being reported are good for the environment.

The use of pie charts and graphs to present information in this way was almost ubiquitous amongst the environmental reports analysed in this book. Similarly, tables formed a major part of the language which corporations use to communicate environmental information about their operations and impacts.

Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) propose that tables present information in a way which draws from a hierarchical view of information. Information which is presented on the left represents that which is ‘given,’ while information on the right represents new information. By presenting the years in the order of 2012, 2013 and 2014 (top to bottom), Psi draws on a hierarchy which highlights older data (FY 2012) above more recently acquired data (FY 2014). Since the 2014 data informs the reader that more rubbish attributable to salmon farms was found in 2014 than in the previous two years, it stands to reason that Psi would accentuate the earlier years’ data.

In addition to the emphasis on favourable information, tables which are constructed of squares and rectangles draw legitimacy from the association western readers have of these shapes, which reflect not only objectivity, but stability and rationality (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006; Ledin & Machin, 2016).

Another table from Phi’s 2012 environmental report demonstrates many of the attributes which are commonly highlighted in critical discourse analysis literature. For instance, Kress and Van Leeuwen (2002, 2006) examine how colour is used to highlight particular items of information, and de-emphasise others. Different shades of pink are used in the hierarchical chart at the top of this image, drawing attention to the term “Climate Change” through a brighter shade of pink. Similarly, the colour pink can be used to relax hostility (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2002), perhaps in an appeal to the ‘feminine.’ In this context, the pink can be interpreted as a way to calm the readers’ anxiety in the face of climate change. Four boxes outline some of the ways Phi is likely to be affected by climate change (literally) pales in comparison through the use of a paler shade of pink. The steps Phi is taking to generate energy from sustainable sources sits in between these two ends of the spectrum. This chart succeeds in expressing the idea that Phi has climate change issues under control, and categorised neatly into rectangular shapes, which as discussed above, help to portray a sense of reason, modernity and control.

The term ‘climate change’ is often used in favour of ‘global warming.’ Poole (2006) demonstrates how this choice of words has been deliberately chosen to diminish the apparent threat and to reduce controversy. Phi’s chart also favours this term, and coupled with the use of shape, colour and word choice in this hierarchical chart, the effect of presenting environmental information in this way underscores Phi’s portrayal of these issues as ‘under control.’ Other aspects of this chart which underpin this analysis is the use of the term ‘footprint,’ which implies an environmental impact which is restricted, and therefore that there are no repercussive effects to the wider natural world, whereas the scientific consensus is that climate change is a difficult to control occurrence with far reaching consequences (Steffen, Grinevald, Crutzen, & McNeill, 2011).

The hierarchical chart is followed by a table which outlines a summary of Phi’s environmental ‘performance.’ By drawing attention to these issues (carbon exposure and sustainable generation sources), Phi successfully silences the myriad of other environmental impacts the company has, and focuses attention on two very specific attributes.

By again utilising Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006) analysis of tables, the columns to the left indicate the ‘given.’ As the reader views the columns to the right, the information becomes more ‘new.’ This table demonstrates this tendency with the established ‘vision’ to the left, the original 2012 target next, the actual performance of 2012, followed by the following year’s targets on the extreme right.

The text in this table appears to show how Phi has decreased emissions intensity during the 2012 financial year, and how they intend to continue this trend in 2013; however, as with other graphic images provided in the corporate reports analysed here, not all is as it appears. For instance, the first large print >50% below indicates that Phi’s emissions are significantly less than the Australian average, however by reading the notes provided in very small print below the table, the reader learns that not all of the electricity sold by Phi has been included in this calculation. A factor which has been excluded from this formula are the emissions from a particular coal fired power generation plant and coal mine purchased by Phi in 2012. Phi’s purchase of this power station was controversial due to its status as the highest emitting power plant in Australia (Ummel, 2012). As such, the omission of “[g]eneration from [name of power plant] is not included in these figures for either the period prior to, or following the [Phi] acquisition” (Phi, 2012) is significant, and potentially misleading.

Similarly, the switch from percentages to absolute measures in the right-hand column conceals the news that from 2013, the base line data will change to only include “new generation capacity.” This choice of words indicates that the target will only relate to new investments, and not include emissions from existing plants. The information provided in this table is in deep contrast to other versions of reality, such as an Australian Conservation Foundation report (2016) which lists Phi as Australia’s largest emitter of CO₂e in absolute terms.

Charts, graphs and tables used in this way express an environmental dualism in corporate reporting. Shapes, positioning and colours have the capacity to not only obfuscate important environmental information, but to underpin an approach to nature which deepens the divide between humans and the natural environment, in the process reducing the apparent responsibility of corporations towards the beneficial treatment of nature.

The previous examples demonstrate how quantitative information can be presented and manipulated to express a favourable impression. Such manipulation is possible due to the sense of objectivity and authority which is communicated through quantitative information. These qualities are directly associated with a dualism and therefore when environmental issues are expressed in this way, it is considered a dualistic approach to the natural environment.

Miller (2001) has argued that expressing issues through calculative processes shapes social and economic relationships, and implicitly communicates a particular strategy. Others have linked numerical expression with the desire to control (Dambrin & Robson, 2011); to shape a particular view of the world (Bloomfield & Vurdubakis, 1997); to silence alternative accounts (Robson, 1992) and to persuade readers to consent with the actions they express (Chua, 1995). This silencing, control and shaping of a world view which omits the contextual information which is integral to environmental values are approaches which conform to dualism. Ruth Hines articulates this effect:

Through the accounting gaze reality is seen to be divisible and quantifiable. Particular aspects of reality are identified, named and so separated and delineated – assets, liabilities, expenses, revenues, capital – and these realities are combined, recombined, added and subtracted. In combination they create and delimit the boundaries of organizations….

Expressing environmental issues quantitatively is a common approach in all of the environmental reports analysed in this book. Alpha’s 2012 environmental report provides one example of the ways in which companies commonly communicate environmental issues. In this example, Alpha lists several quantitative environmental targets for future years. Except for one (“implementation of water management plans in other regions”), all of these targets are discussed in a numerical manner.

Robson (1992) asserts that by expressing a value as a number, qualitative variations are suppressed, allowing the number to ‘stand in’ for the object it counts. He argues that this function allows for the control of what is being counted. Similarly, Qu and Cooper (2011) explain how the reduction of objects and events into numbers plays a crucial role in of the way institutions exercise power. Analysing environmental reports in this light opens up a new way of understanding the corporate relationship with the natural environment.

Read on its own, the previous example (Figure 6.1) lists targets for future years. The green table below (Figure 6.2) is provided on the same page in the 2012 Alpha environmental report, and seems to respond to the target data, however read in conjunction, the two sets of numbers do not easily correlate. For instance, in the image above, one of the targets is a “10% reduction in GHG emissions intensity from 2010/11 by 2015/16.” In the table below, the first row of percentages actually relates to an older set of targets from 2005/06 to 2010/11. To compound confusion, it is not clear whether the percentages provided in the green table are targets or outcomes. Regardless of the actual meaning of these numbers, their use achieves a sense of objectivity and trust that such things are being measured. The arrows provided alongside the percentages indicate that most of these items have decreased (although as stated, it is not clear if these are outcomes or targets). Using bright green draws to reader’s attention to the table, and implies that what is being reported is good for the environment due to a common association between the colour green and the environment (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2002).

By using numbers to express environmental issues, corporate environmental reports draw attention to specific aspects, for example, the reduction of emissions, while silencing other aspects not measured numerically (for example, the effect of emissions) (Badiou, 2008; Robson, 1992), and in this way, shape a particular view of the world (Bloomfield & Vurdubakis, 1997; Miller, 2001). This shaping of reader’s perceptions plays a crucial role in of the way institutions exercise power and control (Dambrin & Robson, 2011), two qualities which are reflective of a dualistic approach to the natural world.

Rose (1991) furthers this argument by demonstrating the political power inherent in the quantification of objects and subjects. He argues that the use of numbers is critical in the attempt to appear legitimate in the public domain, and is inherent in constructing a perceived reality. This understanding of numerical communication can be applied to the expression of environmental values. In the context of environmental reporting, a focus on numerical values constructs a view of the natural world that can be reduced to something non-descript and exchangeable. Rose discusses the ways in which the quantification of things reduces the perceived importance of more qualitative aspects, and in the process, establishes a sense that the calculations are above question.

Expressing values in numerical form enhances a sense of distance and sterility, removing context thereby giving the impression that these factors are entirely controllable (Latour, 2004; Robson, 1992). Values such as greenhouse gas emissions, emissions reduction, energy use, energy intensity, recycling rate, packaging compliance, waste and energy use are generally presented in exclusively numerical terms in the absence of context. As such, this discursive mechanism expresses a dualistic attitude towards the environmental effects of operations, and towards the natural world more broadly.

In the same way, the expression of environmental values through financial assessment is considered to communicate a dualistic approach. In line with using quantitative values to express environmental values, the use of financial language offers the same protective barrier between the actual effects of corporate actions through the reporting process. As such, financial language including ‘natural capital,’ ‘cost effectiveness,’ ‘offsetting’ and ‘resources’ is considered an extension of the dualistic approach expressed through numerical communication.

The link between quantification and the language of finance is clear. Spence (2007) argues that when problems are reduced to economics, decisions which may have pernicious environmental consequences begin to appear rational and even desirable. When reducing complex issues into financial terms, a bias towards economic benefit is created. Examples of using a financial style of language include comparing the costs and benefits of environmental ventures; attributing monetary terms to environmental values (for example, carbon pricing); using terms which are associated with finance to describe natural values (for example, capital, resource). Using these discursive mechanisms to describe and interact with the natural environment is frequent in the reports and interviews analysed for this book. The following two passages from an interview with the sustainability manager from Sigma exemplify the close connection between the environment and financial values that many of the case study companies shared.

Oh sure, I mean businesses are around to make money and we need to be very clear that you need to make good commercial decisions. But I believe the sustainability is a commercial decision and I believe we’ve come a long way from just doing the right thing – it’s a risk, and you need to manage it that way…

There’s been a number of studies that talked about value and shareholder value, and investor returns being linked to sustainable development. So it’s my view that for investors to – savvy investors – who want to buy shares in our company, they want to know that we’re managing all of our risks and sustainability and environmental management is a risk and we need to manage that.

Similar views were demonstrated in other interviews, such as in the following quote where a decidedly cost benefit approach is taken by Gamma to justify irreversible environmental damage.

…we accept that there is some irreversible impact due to our operations. We do everything we’re obliged to do to manage that, and we go beyond that in a lot of ways. And at the end of the day we consider that the value that is generated by the business, that is – economic and social – outweighs the impact of those operations.

The environmental reports analysed for this book shared this way of discussing the natural environment in financial terms. For instance, this next excerpt from Phi’s 2012 environmental report outlines the regulatory environment of carbon pricing.

In November 2011, the Federal Parliament passed the Clean Energy Act 2011 (Cth), which introduced a price on carbon from 1 July 2012 as part of the Clean Energy Future legislative package. The scheme is designed to operate at a fixed price for the first three years and then transition to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme from July 2015. FY2013 was the first year of operation for the scheme, and the fixed carbon price was $23/tCO₂e.

Zeta also draws on this approach by focusing on the company’s financial investments in environmental initiatives.

Also in Zeta’s 2014 report, environmental values are discussed in financial terms, such as in the following Figure 6.3, in which Zeta converts environmental issues into economic effects. In reference to climate change, Zeta explains the potential need for increased climate finance; the natural world is described as a scarce resource, a term commonly associated in economics with the factors of production; here, Zeta views the erosion of the natural world in purely economic terms, and in the third section, Zeta commandeers the natural world by reducing it to capital, with the potential to impact on assets and business value. This approach to communicating environmental values in economic terms reflects the tensions between the economic base of corporations and their environmental responsibilities highlighted by Spence (2009).

By reducing environmental values into currency and its equivalents, this type of narrative reflects a dualistic approach towards nature. It does so first by the reduction of the context and particularities of such aspects of the natural environment, and second by implicitly referring to the environment in terms of something that is uniform and exchangeable. As discussed in the previous chapter, the perception that aspects of the natural environment can be removed and replaced like parts of a machine reflects what Mathews (1991, 2001) describes as a dualistic approach which devalues the interconnected nature of the environment. Similarly, Cooper and Senkl (2016) explain how the desire to express environmental issues in monetary terms represents the urge to reduce and control the issues at hand. They argue that by reducing complex systems such as the natural world into capital, currency and other financial terms, the company seeks to minimise and obscure the underlying issues. These tendencies point towards a dualistic approach to the natural world.

Similarly, grading the importance of environmental issues in the environmental report reflects a dualistic approach since it explicitly refers to a hierarchy of values within nature. Hierarchy is identified as a fundamental aspect of dualism, and as such, in the detection of dualism any hierarchical frameworks are considered. Most of the environmental reports and associated interviews referred to the concept of materiality. In terms of accounting, materiality “depends on the size and nature” of an item, which is considered material if it has the capacity to influence the economic decisions of users (AASB 108, para 5). Similarly, materiality in environmental reporting refers to the GRI, which notes that materiality is “the threshold at which aspects become sufficiently important that they should be reported” (Global Reporting Initiative, 2015, p. 17). In most of the cases where materiality is mentioned in the reports and interviews analysed for this book, it is in reference to the materiality assessment process of the GRI:

The rigorous materiality assessment of the new GRI G4 framework supports this.

Our new materiality focus using the GRI G4 guidelines has been transformational. We really are starting to understand how to identify and target the most material issues for our business.

Psi’s 2014 sustainability report lists the steps to their materiality process, in which the process of hierarchically grading issues becomes clear. The steps are as follows, with italics added to highlight the hierarchical logic.

1. Topics from key external stakeholder engagement activities throughout the reporting year informed a list of 60 topics.

2. These topics were circulated to the heads of each of the following departments: Environment and Sustainability, Human Resources, Sales and Marketing, Workplace Health and Safety and Quality departments who then prioritised the topics.

3. Specific engagement was undertaken with the Sustainability Report Advisory Committee (SRAC) to represent external stakeholder interests. The SRAC is comprised of a diverse range of community representatives.

4. Each [Psi] representative and SRAC member was asked to rank the topics in order of their view of the importance of the topic to external stakeholders and to [Psi]’s ability to deliver on their business strategy.

5. The responses were collated and separated into three categories: (1) agreement in topic ranking by both internal and external stakeholders, (2) material to internal stakeholders only and (3) material to external stakeholders only.

6. The topics were then mapped against the GRI reporting framework’s ‘Aspects,’ including those in the Food Processing Sector Supplement (Psi, 2014).

The materiality assessment process which Psi outlines is part of the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 reporting guidelines, which has been taken up by almost all of the case study companies in this book. This process has influenced the topics which are being reported on. In this way, the GRI has shaped the content of many companies’ environmental reports, specifically to a more dualistic shift. This shift was mentioned during many of the interviews, as demonstrated below by the project manager responsible for Gamma’s environmental reporting:

…therefore the whole point about GRI 4 is if there’s a topic that’s material then you’ve got to report on it, so as part of moving towards GRI 4, for the first time we had to move to a materiality – we had to do a materiality assessment, that we hadn’t done before. And so that changed a bit of the content. It moved us away from certain things and into other things.

Again in the following two interview excerpts from the Delta and Sigma interviews, respectively, the issue of what guides the inclusion of specific content is demonstrated to be the materiality assessment process, which is itself a part of the GRI guidelines.

RESEARCHER: …the voluntary environment section of the sustainability report, how is it decided which information gets included in that report?

PARTICIPANT: …effectively it’s based on materiality really. It’s what we see as being important to show our shareholders and our board effectively, and also to report to the community on – yeah, it’s around the material issues.

Materiality decides the focus of our strategy. So our strategy is a five-year strategy and it’s based on those material impacts. So it’s got six strategic areas which is our community, our suppliers, our team members, environment, governance and one more – it’s on our website…. carbon and waste, it’s all on our website as well, so if you have a look on there it actually has our materiality assessment, and it’s got the process that we went through so we spoke to stakeholders, we considered the feedback so we’ve got all that there in a diagram, and then how we came up with those issues.

As Plumwood (1993a, 1993b, 2002) has argued, a hierarchical view of nature is implicit in the dualistic approach, thereby supporting the domination and exploitation of the natural world. The materiality assessment process required by the G4 guidelines explicitly impose the need to hierarchically grade environmental issues, and thereby perpetuates a dualistic view of nature in the corporate reporting process.

Also perpetuated through discourse about the natural world is the concept that nature is a ‘resource’ for human use. This anthropocentric view is endemic throughout the environmental reports analysed in this book, as illustrated in the following excerpts and images from the environmental reports of case study companies (italics added) (Figure 6.4).

Governments and communities expect the energy industry to act responsibly so that water resources are not harmed by exploration and development activities, or energy production operations.

Our global database allows us to compare the environmental performance of different sites to identify improvements in resource use.

The following section details our performance in environmental areas as we seek to use energy, fresh water and other resources more efficiently where economically viable.

…to create a platform for future growth, we continue to seek opportunities to improve our own resource efficiency, and to be innovative in the technologies and services that we provide to our clients.

Developing a stakeholder engagement program to work with our retailers to reduce resource consumption….

Plumwood (2009) discusses the logic which underpins the description of nature as a ‘resource,’ illustrating how the ideology of dualism reduces the natural world to “mere matter” (p. 119). She argues that once nature is reduced in this way, the treatment of non-humans as slaves or tools for human use is naturalised. She places this kind of thinking at the heart of ecological exploitation.

Linked to the reduction of the natural world that underpins the description of nature as a resource for human use is the approach which sees the natural world as made up of an aggregate of interchangeable parts. Mathews (1991) connects this view with a reductionist understanding in which systems (including ecosystems) can be explained completely in terms of the aggregate of their parts. Conversely, a deep ecologist’s view would consider the autonomy of the whole as something above the total of its parts. To exemplify this thinking, consider yourself: you are likely to think of yourself as more than a collection of body parts. You may consider your personality, your whole body, your mind, but probably not as two legs, two arms, a torso and head!

The concept of interchangeable parts is exemplified in the environmental reports by discussion of ‘offsets,’ particularly, but not exclusively in terms of carbon accounting, where carbon offsets are part of the carbon accounting formula. Other reflections of this logic are found where different places can be used to offset mined land, as in the following passage:

…if you’re going to destroy any area because you’re going to dig it up, you must have acquired an offset area of equivalent or greater biodiversity value.

This view is also reflected when in the following passage, the Phi report discusses ‘produced water’:

Deep groundwater is brought to the surface (or ‘produced’) as an unavoidable by-product of upstream gas exploration and production activities.

Phi is not the only company which uses this dualistic logic in the context of water, as seen in the following phrase used in Gamma’s 2014 environmental report:

…assessment of extended use of Caster Dam recycled water to offset Murray River water.

More commonly, though, this perception of the interchangeability of natural objects is represented with reference to carbon, where it is considered normal practice to exchange an action which results in x emissions of carbon and carbon equivalents (CO₂e), with the purchase of an offsetting mechanism which will theoretically absorb x CO₂e. Reference to carbon offsetting is commonplace in the environmental reports, as exemplified in the following statement from Zeta’s 2014 environmental report:

Our requirements for the purchase of quality carbon offsets and the management of our offset portfolio are documented in our Environmental Reporting and Offsets Management Standard.

…there’ll be a few emissions that we’d need to sweep up around refrigerants and some materials, and then we would use offsets as our last resort….

Aside from research which finds many of these carbon offsetting mechanisms invalid and even fraudulent (Cacho, Hean, & Wise, 2003), the underpinning logic that considers one aspect of the natural environment exchangeable for another is dualistic in its approach.

Preston, Wright and Young (1996) illustrate how the images within corporate reports transmit messages to the reader. They explain how these messages are portrayed through symbolism and metaphor, in an attempt to mislead the reader. This is particularly so through the use of photographs, since photos are seen as value neutral and objective, despite their capacity to portray deceptive or manipulated images and concepts.

The image below (Figure 6.5) of a thick-billed grasswren, appears in Gamma’s 2013 environmental report. Through displaying such a close and detailed image of a small and delicately proportioned bird, Gamma presents the idea that it is sensitive to even the smallest aspects of the ecosystem. The implication is that Gamma has minimal environmental impacts, despite being a mining company.

In the next photograph (Figure 6.6), Gamma presents an image of their Senior Sustainability Scientist against a backdrop of what appears to be a mangrove lined waterway. Beneath the image are the words “Senior Sustainability Scientist [name]’s passion for the environment helps drive his dedication to continually improve our environmental performance.” This is followed by a narrative about his work at Gamma. In particular reference to the mangroves, the narrative lists dust control and minimising impact on the marine environment as part of their achievements. While these achievements shouldn’t be understated, it is important to consider the range of backdrops a mining company could provide in their environmental report. Rather than setting this scientist against a backdrop of an open cut mine or other similarly damaged environments, Gamma has chosen to use a backdrop of a natural area that it has avoided damaging. This provides a positive reflection of Gamma’s environmental impact, which is at odds with the majority of its actual impacts. The use of images to portray an overly positive view of environmental impact is repeated in many of the reports analysed for this book, for instance in Psi’s environmental reports.

The following two images are taken from Psi’s 2014 and 2013 environmental reports (Figures 6.7 and 6.8). Photographs that have been taken from a distance appear to minimise the visual impact of the salmon farm ponds which are in shallow estuaries. The visual concept communicated in these images is that the salmon farm ponds are inconsequential in comparison to the environment in which they are situated.

Delta uses a similar narrative in an image which appears in its 2012 environmental report. Although this image focuses on the large ship and other infrastructure in the marine environment, has also used a waterway which appears clear and healthy. The message portrayed here is that although Delta may be responsible for operating large industrial machines, the natural environment remains intact and undamaged by such operations.

Another image with appears in Delta’s 2014 environmental report highlights the natural environment within which Delta operates. Like the images of the grasswren in Gamma’s reports, this one uses a detailed view of some grasslands, which highlights the delicate nature of such an ecosystem. Like Gamma, Delta is involved in the mining industry, and this image seems to portray the message that although Delta is involved with mining and infrastructure development, these delicate ecosystems are left unharmed by operations. While this image on its own represents an interconnected approach, set within the context of this report, it also minimises the apparent environmental impact of operations.

These images exemplify the common discursive mechanism of minimising apparent environmental impact, which is a dualistic device. As Davison et al. (2012) argue, images play a powerful role in constructing organisations. In the context of environmental reporting, images portray messages more powerfully than words alone, and it is important to examine what those messages are.

By placing an accounting framework on aspects of the natural environment, another set of values slips through largely unnoticed. The values which are associated with financial accounting, such as the universal value of money which allows for its interchangeability, are thereby also imposed onto nature. In the instance of carbon accounting, the focus is removed from the temporal and physical effects of CO₂e emissions, and instead CO₂e is considered interchangeable and tradable. This thinking opens up the possibility of then exchanging financial values for carbon. The interchangeability that carbon accounting introduces to natural values is reflective of Mathews’ (1991) account of a mechanistic view of nature, itself a dualistic view.

Due to legislation such as the Clean Energy Act and the National Greenhouse Energy Reporting scheme (which is now known as the Clean Energy Regulator), many large companies in Australia are obliged to use carbon accounting methodology to account for and report their CO₂e emissions to the Clean Energy Regulator (Australian Government, 2016). Since corporate CO₂e emissions are of interest to many stakeholders, it is a logical step to then publicly report on this data. The relevance of these legislated requirements is illustrated in the following quote from Phi’s 2014 environmental report.

In July 2014, the Commonwealth Government repealed the Clean Energy Act and subsequently removed the applicability of carbon pricing in Australia.

Other companies also use carbon accounting data to report on their CO₂e emissions, such as Delta, who report aspects of this data annually in their publicly available environmental report.

In the following passage, three examples are provided from Alpha’s 2013 environmental report which illustrate the use of information derived from the carbon accounting process. These types of emissions reporting are common in all of the environmental reports analysed for this book.

Two years into our second five-year EnviroAction period, I am pleased to report excellent results. We have delivered a 13% reduction in GHG emissions intensity…

One of the initiatives, the redesign of our popular PowerBlock beverage container, saved 1,880 tonnes of CO₂-e emissions.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

• 10% reduction in GHG emissions intensity from FY2010–2011 by FY2015–2016; and

• 60% reduction in GHG emissions intensity from FY2005–2006 by 2030

By reducing aspects of the environment to numerical values, this discursive mechanism also draws form the views outlined above, that expressing environmental issues numerically shapes the way such issues are perceived. Dambrin and Robson (2011) have argued that this is a method of control. These are characteristics which conform with a dualistic view.

The motif of separation (and therefore dualism) is expressed through the use of carbon accounting, in particular the claim of carbon neutrality, which is a product of carbon accounting. Nerlich and Koteyko (2009) and Koteyko, Thelwall and Nerlich (2010) discuss the discursive use of the word carbon, as well as some of the many compound words which include carbon (for example, carbon counting, carbon footprint). The discussion of carbon in these reports reflects Nerlich and Koteyko and Koteyko et al.’s arguments that the discourses around carbon reflect a moralistic attitude. In these reports, the use of the term ‘carbon neutral’ is considered to reflect a dualistic view, since the use of the term neutral is based on the accounting treatment of carbon and carbon equivalent emissions. Like accounting itself, which has historically made ill-founded claims to neutrality, the term neutral in this context is equally deceptive. The calculations and assumptions which guide carbon accounting measurements are based in part on politically motivated decisions (Ascui & Lovell, 2011). For instance, in countries where powerful industries like agriculture have a strong influence on environmental policy, land clearing and vegetation burning are not included in the carbon equation (Cacho et al., 2003; Hurteau, 2008). It has been argued that carbon accounting has different meanings for different user groups, and as such, is far from a neutral concept (Ascui & Lovell, 2011). Following these arguments, a claim of carbon neutrality is here considered to be an attempt to ‘neutralise’ the reader – to use terminology which masks the underlying contestations. In this case, such misleading terms are considered as an attempt to mask and separate the company from the physical reality of carbon emissions, and as such, are dualistic. Some examples of the expression of this motif are provided below in the following three excerpts.

[Kappa] is committed to carbon neutrality in areas within its control.

Additionally, uncoated paper (office paper) should be carbon neutral.

…can we design a carbon neutral packaging solution in the long-term? What are the steps involved in achieving this?

As it is expressed in the corporate environmental reports analysed in this book, carbon neutrality reflects a dualistic approach to the natural environment. The dualistic motif is further expressed in the reports by discussion of ‘environmental risk.’

In terms of corporate reporting, environmental risk refers to the risks environmental factors pose to the business, rather than any risks the business may pose to the natural environment. This approach is exemplified in the following passages which were drawn from the environmental reports analysed in this book.

To future-proof our business, we aim to play a leading role in the transition to a sustainable economy, where…environmental risks are understood and opportunities captured to achieve positive outcomes for customers, business and environment.

The understanding and management of risk is crucial to the ongoing success of any business. The management of environmental risk is particularly important to [Phi] given the company holds long-term leases on land used by third parties for other purposes and also operates in sensitive environments such as National Parks.

Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are a key tool in maintaining environmental compliance and managing environmental risk.

By focusing on the risk apparent to the business, mention of environmental risk reflects a hierarchical view where corporate interests are valorised at the expense of natural values. The repetition of this discursive mechanism contributes to the construction and maintenance of a dualistic approach to the natural world. The dualistic theme is further reflected in the self-congratulatory and repeated mention of prizes and awards won by the reporting companies.

Hawken (1993) argues that while companies congratulate themselves with awards and certification, the world continues on its trajectory of degradation and environmental damage. He articulates that the structure of business itself is antithetical to the wellbeing of the environment, and that congratulating organisations with awards while they continue to cause environmental damage, regardless of their intentions, highlights the disparity between business practice and environmental benefit. As such, the display of prizes, awards and similar certification is considered in this book to be an expression of a dualistic attitude towards nature.

Dualism is also characterised by an anthropocentric outlook, which values the human over environmental values (Plumwood, 1993a). There are some common expressions of a dualistic anthropocentric motif which are frequently repeated in corporate environmental reports, including the ‘self-congratulatory’ motif, as expressed through the discussion of awards, accreditation to specifically environmental groups of ‘elite’ performers, the signing of agreements and the winning of prizes for environmental performance, as exemplified in the images below. It has been argued that these types of ranking devices serve as a way to interpret a situation and construct artificial hierarchies (Pollock & D’Adderio, 2012).

Many of the case study companies analysed for this book have listed prizes and awards in their environmental reports. This reflects the findings of earlier research, which noted the self-laudatory tendencies of environmental reporting in the 1990s (Deegan & Gordon, 1996). The following is a selection of how these awards and certifications are displayed in environmental reports (Figures 6.9–6.11 and an extract from Gamma’s 2014 environmental report).

Extract from Gamma’s 2014 environmental report:

Case Study – [Gamma] wins regional award for Sustainability

[Gamma] Steelworks and [Gamma] Mining have been recognised for their exceptional commitment to the environment and local community, being named the winner of the Sustainability category in the South Australian Regional Awards in late 2013.

While there are critics of such award winning in the accounting literature, who see the winning of prizes as often distant from operations (Herzig & Moon, 2013), others have reiterated these concerns with attention on the role such prizes play in the legitimisation process (Hopwood, 2009). For instance, Deegan and Gordon (1996) note that companies tend to report positive and self-congratulatory information regardless of whether their operations have been damaging to the environment. The disparity between awards and (in some cases) actual operations reflects the dualistic tendency to separate and distinguish. Similarly, the self-congratulatory nature of such awards, and the hierarchical approach this draws from, points towards a dualistic view, which valorises the company over the natural environment in an anthropocentric dualism.

Prior research has illustrated the use of images in corporate reports which conflict in message with the surrounding text. For instance, David (2001) found that the use of images in annual reports could change readers’ perceptions of the company. She found this even when the content of the report conflicts with the message given in the picture. She pointed out that the use of graphics and pictures foregrounds certain aspects that the designer would like to highlight, even to the extent of distorting the truth. This capacity of images to create or manipulate meaning is supported by Davison (2010). Further to this, Hrasky (2012) notes that sustainability reports often rely on images that reflect sustainability themes but which are unrelated to actual operations.

Zillmann, Gibson and Sargent (1999) point out the mechanisms which make the use of images which conflict with surrounding content useful in corporate environmental reporting. They point out that readers’ perceptions are powerfully influenced by images, particularly photographs, and that when text is accompanied by biased photographs, readers will tend to believe the image over and above the text.

In the first image below, Alpha visually introduces its sustainability report with an image which powerfully conveys an interconnected approach (Figure 6.12). The image below is on the cover page of Alpha’s 2013 sustainability review (with company name and details removed), which includes the environmental report. This image incorporates text, and is considered interconnective in its approach, since it illustrates connections between the person, her thoughts and the other symbols. The hand drawn effect underpins this approach by giving the appearance of a personal account. Since images which evoke emotions have been found to more powerfully influence the effect on readers (Zillmann et al., 1999), the ‘happy’ message in this image functions as an indicator for the reader as to their perception of the content of the report. In contrast to this interconnective image, the environmental report was found to be predominantly dualistic in approach through its focus on disclosing company policy and environmental regulations. Prior research has found that companies reporting primarily on these aspects are reactive, as opposed to proactive about environmental issues (Cañón-de-Francia & Garcés-Ayerbe, 2009), in a distinctly defensive approach (Morrison, Wilmshurst, & Shimeld, 2018).

Stiles (2004) argues that pictures enable messages to be quickly understood and in doing so, are powerful communication tools. By using images which present a message which is different to, even conflicting with, the theme of the surrounding text, these environmental reports attempt to convince readers that their approach is interconnected. Where the text reinforces this approach, the report can be interpreted as reflecting an interconnective approach to the natural world, however, if the text is found to be dualistic, or transcendent in its approach, the images are used to deflect from, rather than reinforce the text. The attempt to divert attention is itself reflective of a dualistic approach, since it constructs a barrier and aims to control the readers’ perception of the environmental interactions of the company.

The image below (Figure 6.13), which appears in Psi’s 2014 environmental report reflects the concept of biomimicry, where human made objects draw from the workings of nature. In this image, the shape of the salmon pond net in the foreground mirrors the shape of Mt Wellington in the background. The message of this image is that the salmon pond reflects the natural order of things, and fits in with the existing ecosystem. The use of repeating patterns is discussed by Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006), who illustrate how such visual techniques portray associations between subjects. As such, the image represents the interconnectivity between the natural environment (Mt Wellington), and Psi’s operations. Contrary to this messaging, the image is followed by table of bird ‘interactions’ including how many birds have died in their interactions with Psi. In this instance, the image draws the readers’ attention away from the table.

Similarly, an image is found in Beta’s 2014 environmental report which reflects a transcendent theme. It does so by its focus up and away from the terrestrial plane, and also through the symbolism of stairs, which are a common object depicted in religious images leading to heaven. Ledin and Machin (2016) also draw parallels between the depiction of stairs and the core values of neoliberalism, such as improved profits. While the image depicts transcendence, it is followed by text of a dualistic theme.

Through the use of images which portray a conflicting philosophical message compared with the context within which they sit, these environmental reports attempt to distract the readers’ attention from the content (David, 2001; Hansen & Machin, 2008; Zillmann et al., 1999). Where a conflicting message is presented between text and image, the image proves more influential (Zillmann et al., 1999) and capable of constructing perceptions (Davison et al., 2012). The fundamental ontology informing dualism is that of separation and hierarchical distinction. A discursive mechanism such as this, where an image is used which conflicts and distracts from the text is a reflection of an ontology of separation. The literature which points out the hierarchies within discourse highlight the bias that is given to images in the readers’ perception of the text. This bias reflects the ontology of hierarchical distinction which signals a dualistic approach. In this way, the use of conflicting images constructs a barrier between the reader’s perception and the actual environmental impacts; again, a dualistic approach.

In many of the environmental reports which are analysed as part of this book, readers are directed away from the reports themselves, towards other sources of information. This discursive mechanism is considered to be a dualistic method of diverting attention away from the environmental report. This is an act of delineating the boundaries of responsibility, particularly when the reader is directed towards external sources of information. In some cases, the reader is directed towards other webpages within the corporate website, or towards other areas of the report itself.

Within Psi’s 2014 environmental report there is a section entitled “Marine Reserves and Marine Conservation Areas.” Information which would be considered critical to this topic is not directly presented in this section, but either on an external site, as in the first paragraph, or in an appendix, as in the second paragraph.

These areas are either solely managed by Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service or in conjunction with the Marine Resources Branch of DPIPWE. Specific Information regarding the natural values of these marine reserves and marine conservation areas is available on the Parks and Wildlife website at www.parks.tas.gov.au/indeX.aspX?base=397.

Appendix 1 details the proximity of each of [Psi]’s operational leases to the above marine reserves and marine conservation areas.

The following examples illustrate how Phi directs readers away from their 2014 environmental report. The underlined words in these quotes are hyperlinked to sections of their website.

The Camden Gas Project groundwater management plan provides a framework for early assessment of changes in the groundwater systems…

We also prepare annual water resource status reports. All are detailed on our website.

Visit the data centre to view or download the amount of water produced at each of [Phi]’s coal seam gas facilities.

This discursive device is also used in Zeta’s 2012 environmental report. The following example demonstrates how Zeta uses hyperlinks to direct readers’ attention.

Further detail is provided in our Group Environmental Reporting and Carbon Offset Standard, available at [Zeta website address].

By creating a division between the environmental report and the reader, this common discursive mechanism is considered to be a dualistic device.

Mention of the adherence to laws and regulations provides a barrier between organisational decisions and responsibilities, effectively stating that the company isn’t responsible for the regulations, and is simply abiding by the law. This allows the company to step away from their direct impact on the environment, instead focussing on the regulation. As such, a focus on the regulatory environment reflects a dualistic approach to nature. This interpretation is supported in the following passages from the interview with Gamma’s sustainability manager.

Having said that, I am very confident that we are a solid corporate citizen, so we have a commitment to compliance in all of the countries we operate in.

So there are standards set by the state government on rehabilitation. And they’re mostly around, well, around, let’s talk about – there are standards set to do with biodiversity and mining, so the first one is if you’re going to destroy any area because you’re going to dig it up, you must have acquired an offset area of equivalent or greater biodiversity value.

Again, in the interview with one of Zeta’s sustainability managers, the role of regulation in their relationship with the natural environment, particularly through their environmental reporting processes is highlighted, below.

…predominantly decided by regulation and reporting bodies, and then if there’s no guidance then we’ll look at our own internal determination of what we should be using.

This role is highlighted in many of the environmental reports, for instance, in the following excerpts from Phi’s 2013; Alpha’s 2013 and Gamma’s 2014 environmental reports.

[Phi] met all of its regulated targets under the Victorian Energy Savings Initiative, the South Australian Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme and the New South Wales Energy Savings Scheme for the 2012 calendar year.

We have achieved high levels of compliance with our Environmental Policy and environmental regulations.

[Gamma] seeks to comply with applicable environmental laws, regulations and mandatory standards.

Morrison et al. (2018) argue that a focus on environmental regulatory requirements indicates a deontological approach to nature, which centres on the obligatory duties of the company. This regulatory focus creates a barrier between the company and its actions, since the impetus for making the decision is based on the regulation rather than because of any direct response to the environment itself.

Hines (1992) calls for accounting to embrace ‘negative,’ feminine or ‘yin’ values. She perceives accounting tradition as overly biased towards ‘positive,’ masculine or ‘yang’ values. Her call to incorporate negative values into the accounts of business is a call to step back from the continuous growth (particularly economic) which characterises western culture. Gray (2010) similarly calls for a stepping back from claims of sustainability, in order to acknowledge that there is very little that could authentically be labelled as ‘sustainable’ in modern, western society. As Gray argues, it is difficult to know what might be sustainable except a dramatic shift in values and lifestyles. Western society is increasingly becoming aware of how difficult sustainability would be to actually achieve (Giddens, 2008; IPCC, 2013). Parallel to this realisation is the plethora of businesses claiming to be sustainable (Gray, 2010; KPMG, 2013). Making such claims is a ‘positive’ statement in terms of Hines’ discussion of positive and negative accounting, since it is a forceful statement of what the company is doing, rather than not-doing.

Prior research has argued that the claim of positive environmental interactions underpins sustainability reports in general (Gray, 2010). Similarly, some of the reports and interviewees make the claim that they are having a positive influence on the environment. Rather than minimising their negative impact (not-doing, or negative), these examples claim to have improved the natural environment (doing, or positive). The following excerpt from the interview with the sustainability manager from Theta demonstrates how these claims were made.

RESEARCHER: So how well do you think your company interacts with the environment? Would you say it’s got a positive, negative, or neutral impact?

PARTICIPANT: I think very positive. Actually very positive, and I think you know we always talk about – we need to educate, we need to do different things and recognition is one of the things that sometimes gets a little bit lost. But I think that since we started to get some awards the business has started to get, you know to put a little bit more focus.

Again, in the interview with the sustainability manager form Sigma, a similar claim was made in terms of their personal relationship with the natural world.

Personally my relationship with the natural environment is fantastic. We’re always out bushwalking, those sorts of things.

The theme of positive contribution to the environment was implicit in all of the environmental reports, as evidenced by some of the other common discursive mechanisms, such as awards. The following example (Figure 6.14) demonstrates how this mechanism was explicitly communicated in Alpha’s 2014 report.

The image below, a full-page picture from Alpha’s 2014 report, demonstrates how a ‘positive’ environmental impact can be expressed through both image and words. The image is reflective of the joyful and energetic themes of many soft drink advertisements, the most well-known of which is Coca Cola. The sunshine, the youthful and healthy model, and the enjoyment she displays are all implicitly ‘positive.’ As discussed above, images are powerful methods for communicating messages. Along with this image are the words “Lighter packaging means better environmental outcomes.” Although the truth of this claim is not disputed, the implication is that lighter packaging equates to a positive environmental impact. The context of this message is supported by the interview with the sustainability manager of Alpha, who stated numerous times that:

I would say that packaging on the whole as a positive impact, but it’s often not well perceived. We see the main role of packaging is in protecting the product, making sure it gets safely to consumers and then it gets used for whatever it was created for. If packaging doesn’t work well then you get a lot more food waste, you’ve got to grow more food, so up the supply chain you get a lot more impact, so we certainly see that packaging is a very valuable part of the supply chain.

The discursive mechanism of expressing a positive impact on the environment, while not commonly expressed explicitly in the environmental reports analysed, is a theme which runs through all of the reports implicitly, and as Gray (2010) argues, is a fundamental theme of environmental and sustainability reports more generally.

A claim that a positive environmental contribution has occurred as part of normal business operations without justification, demonstrates a distance between the claimant and the reality of the physical world. As such, this discursive device reflects a dualistic attitude towards the natural world. While many of the most commonly evident discursive devices reflect a dualistic approach, there are some repeated throughout the environmental reports analysed for this book which also reflect the other two primary discourse themes: transcendence and interconnectivity.

Transcendence is evident in the environmental reports analysed for this book. Some of the commonly used discursive motifs and mechanisms which portray a transcendent approach are outlined in the following list.

Management of the Environment – EMS & ISO 14000

Mention of environmental management systems (EMS) and the International Organisation for Standards (ISO) is an example of a discursive mechanism which can be interpreted as reflecting either a dualist or transcendent approach. As mentioned, these two themes overlap somewhat. In common with dualism, transcendence can also be portrayed through anthropocentrism. While similar in some respects to a dualistic anthropocentrism, transcendent anthropocentrism represents a focus on human values within a transcendent context, for instance, if humans are represented as more transcendent, higher, less physical or less earthly than the natural environment. In the context of corporate reporting, a patriarchal or protective approach towards nature based on perceived human superiority is considered part of the transcendent theme. This approach is reflected in the expression of a caretaking, or stewardship role of humans towards the natural environment. In the context of corporate environmental reporting, this approach is commonly expressed by discussion of ‘environmental management,’ including the ISO 14001 environmental management standard. The inclusion of ISO 14001 as representative of either a transcendent or dualistic anthropocentrism is supported when considering the wording used in the standard which reduces the natural world to ‘natural resources,’ ‘ecosystem services’ and focuses on the benefit of managing the environment for human purposes (ISO, 2015). In such an example, the context is taken into account to decide on its inclusion as either dualism or transcendence. In some cases, mention of EMS or ISO 14000 was considered as both dualistic and transcendent.

Corresponding with the transcendent approach to the natural environment is the reasoning that humans are superior to nature. This superiority is most often justified in terms of human intelligence, which is commonly perceived to be exceeding that of other species (Singer, 1990/1975) and of nature itself (Plumwood, 2002). Such a sense of superiority leads humans to see a need for ‘managing’ the natural world. In the context of the research in this book, the idea that humans should, or even could manage nature is considered to be a transcendent approach, since it involves a perceived hierarchy of (western) human reason over and above the autonomy of nature (Plumwood, 2009).

In terms of corporate environmental reporting, there are copious examples of this approach, particularly since the ISO 14000 series of standards are in common use. These standards relate to best “environmental management” practices (ISO, 2015). The image above (Figure 6.15), and the following two extracts (a quote from Alpha’s 2012 environmental report and a quote from Psi’s 2012 environmental report) present some of these examples.

Extract from Alpha’s 2013 environmental report:

With over 300 sites across the globe, we have a responsibility to manage our environmental impacts. To achieve this, we focus on:

> implementing environmental management systems and continuously improving environmental performance at our sites

[Alpha] maintains environmental management systems appropriate for each site’s operations and for the country in which the site is located.

In the reporting year, the Environment and Sustainability team began the review of [Psi]’s Environmental Management System (EMS) in order to prepare for third party certification to ISO14001 standard. The process of review highlighted the need to streamline the alignment of our EMS and additional eco-certifications with [Psi]’s Integrated Management System (TIMS) resulting in the EMS being delayed.

The philosophical approach that places humans in a position to ‘manage’ the environment is underpinned by the assumption that humans can manage the environment. The benefits of environmental management systems are not being debated however, these underpinning assumptions are.

Like dualism and transcendence, the philosophical theme of interconnectivity is represented repeatedly in the environmental reports. This would seem to indicate that the companies are not attempting to obscure their relationship with the natural world. Some common motifs are outlined in the list below, and explained in more depth in this section.

Recycling

Embedded into the idea of recycling is the awareness of the wider impacts of waste disposal as well as resource consumption. Since the awareness of the connected nature of environmental effects and decisions reflects an expression of interconnectivity, recycling reflects the interconnective theme. Recycling rates are commonly reported in the environmental reports analysed for this book. Below are some examples of this frequently reported aspect of environmental reporting (Figures 6.16 and 6.17, an excerpt from Kappa’s 2014 environmental report, Beta’s 2014 report, and two excerpts from Sigma’s 2014 and 2013 environmental reports).

Extract from Kappa’s 2014 environmental report:

Key achievements in 2014 included:

• Recycling rates improved from 29% to 47% since 2005

• $1.8 million of avoided landfill costs

• 6,342 tonnes of waste to landfill avoided

• [Kappa] developed and trialled more accurate waste reporting

Extract from Beta’s 2014 environmental report:

[recycling symbol]

Recycling rate (% waster recycled) FY2014: 57% FY2013: 55%

Implemented a new Waste Management Strategy, improving [Sigma’s] recycling rate by 14%.

Some of the environmental and sustainability design features of the Event Centre include…Glass recycling systems for the bar and restaurant areas….

These examples range from a predominantly quantitative reporting of recycling rates (as demonstrated in the three examples, from Kappa, Beta and Zeta), to more narrative type of reporting (as in the two quotes from Sigma’s 2014 and 2013 environmental reports, and Figure 6.17). As discussed earlier in this chapter, the predominant use of quantitative communication is considered a dualistic mechanism. As such, the reporting of recycling information in quantitative terms represents both a dualistic and interconnective approach. As discussed in Chapter 4 (Operationalising Critique), critical discourse analysis is flexible enough to allow for these crossovers and overlapping themes.

In a similar vein to, and for the same reasons as the discussion of specific geographies, case studies which discuss specific events, species or places also reflect an interconnective approach to the environment. The four examples provided on the following two pages illustrate the ways in which environmental impacts and decision-making is communicated through case studies in the environmental reports analysed for this book. The first example (Figure 6.18), which appears in Gamma’s 2012 environmental report describes how Gamma delivered an environmental benefit to the thick-billed grasswren. The case study provided in their report describes the relationship between the company, the bird and its habitat.

The second example (Figure 6.19) outlines the reduction in Zeta’s energy use in narrative form. While quantitative information is supplied, the case study also explains some of the context around the energy savings, and thus reflects a more interconnective approach to environmental issues.

The third example (Figure 6.20) explains how a subsidiary of Gamma has contributed to the production of a book which aims to promote tree-planting in the Arequipa area.

Providing context through case studies is a method of acknowledging the relationships that exist between events, objects and subjects. In this way, related aspects of an issue are discussed together, and a fuller story is revealed; providing context also counters the dualistic tendency to reduce issues into simple, quantitative data. Other methods of acknowledging the interrelatedness of environmental issues in a corporate environmental report include discussion of the supply chain, and life cycle analyses (LCA).

Supply Chain and LCA

When supply chains are discussed, a wider view of a product or service is introduced; the product or service is usually the result of multiple preparatory events and materials, which can have an impact on the natural environment. Omitting these issues, then, tells only a partial account of the environmental impacts of business. Similarly, life cycle analysis considers the after effects of the product or service, beyond that time it is under the direct control of the company.

Many of the environmental reports analysed in this book demonstrate an awareness of these before and after effects of the products or services provided by the company. For instance, the following examples (A quote from Theta’s 2013 environmental report, Figures 6.21 and 6.22 and an excerpt from Psi’s 2013 environmental report) demonstrate an awareness of the environmental impacts of life cycles and supply chains.

The Group is committed to establishing a framework for the effective life cycle management of consumer packaging through an educational approach with our team, our trade partners and our customers.

Life cycle assessment in Psi’s 2013 environmental report:

Life Cycle Assessment

A detailed ‘cradle to grave’ Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of [Psi]’s supply chain was undertaken in the reporting year to better understand the environmental impacts of producing [Psi] product and to highlight areas for improvement. LCA is a comprehensive, methodological framework that quantifies the environmental impacts that occur over the lifecycle of a product.

The LCA incorporated upstream and downstream impacts associated with the production of [Psi] product.

Included in the LCA were greenhouse gas emissions, fuel use, water use and eutrophication potential.

The examples provided above establish that for many of the company’s analysed in this book, the wider effects of their environmental choices have been considered. This demonstrates an interconnective approach to the natural world which acknowledges the connections between subjects within the environment. The interconnectivity theme is also expressed in the environmental reports and interviews through discussion about influence, as outlined next.

As outlined above, the text analysed in this book is peppered with discursive techniques which implicitly express the three primary philosophical approaches towards the natural environment: dualism, transcendence and interconnectivity. These techniques involve graphical communications such as pictures, graphs and tables; written communications such as wording and topic choices, and numerical expressions. All of these mechanisms carry with them a particular message about how the corporation relates to the natural environment. This chapter has discussed these mechanisms at depth and as such forms a link between the previous results chapter and the analysis which follows.

1. AGL Energy Ltd. (2012). 2012 Sustainability Performance Report. Melbourne, VIC.

2. AGL Energy Ltd. (2013). 2013 Sustainability Performance Report. NSW.

3. Alexander, R. (2009). Framing Discourse on the Environment. New York: Routledge.

4. Archel, P., Husillos, J., & Spence, C. (2011). The Institutionalisation of Unaccountability: Loading the Dice of Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 327–343.

5. Ascui, F., & Lovell, H. (2011). As Frames Collide: Making Sense of Carbon Accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 978–999.

6. Australian Conservation Foundation. (2016). Australia’s 10 Biggest Climate Polluters. Carlton, VIC.

7. Australian Government. (2016). National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au

8. Badiou, A. (2008). Number and Numbers. Cambridge: Polity Press.

9. Beattie, V., & Jones, M. J. (2008). Corporate Reporting Using Graphs: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 27, 71–110.

10. Benschop, Y., & Meihuizen, H. E. (2002). Keeping Up Gendered Appearances: Representations of Gender in Financial Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7), 611–636.

11. Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. (1997). Visions of Organization and Organizations of Vision: The Representational Practices of Information Systems Development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(7), 639–668.

12. Cacho, O. J., Hean, R. L., & Wise, R. M. (2003). Carbon-Accounting Methods and Reforestation Incentives. Australian Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics, 47(2), 153–179.

13. Cañón-de-Francia, J., & Garcés-Ayerbe, C. (2009). ISO 14001 Environmental Certification: A Sign Valued by the Market? Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(2), 245–262.

14. Chua, W. F. (1995). Experts, Networks and Inscriptions in the Fabrication of Accounting Images: A Story of the Representation of Three Public Hospitals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 111–145.

15. Cooper, C., & Senkl, D. (2016). An(other) Truth: A Feminist Perspective on KPMG’s True Value. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(4), 494–516.

16. Dambrin, C., & Robson, K. (2011). Tracing Performance in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Ambivalence, Opacity and the Performativity of Flawed Measures. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(7), 428–455.

17. David, C. (2001). Mythmaking in Annual Reports. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(2), 195–222.

18. Davison, J. (2002). Communication and Antithesis in Corporate Annual Reports: A Research Note. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability, 15(4), 594–608.

19. Davison, J. (2010). [In]visible [in]tangibles: Visual Portraits of the Business élite. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), 165–183.

20. Davison, J. (2014). Visual Rhetoric and the Case of Intellectual Capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(1), 20–37.

21. Davison, J., McLean, C., & Warren, S. (2012). Exploring the Visual in Organizations and Management. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 7(1), 5–15.

22. Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting & Business Research, 26(3), 187–199.

23. Dryzek, J. (2013). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24. Giddens, A. (2008). The Politics of Climate Change: National Responses to the Challenge of Global Warming. London: Policy Network.

25. Global Reporting Initiative. (2015). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam.

26. 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, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

27. Greenfield, K. (2008). The Failure of Corporate Law: Fundamental Flaws and Progressive Possibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28. Hansen, A., & Machin, D. (2008). Visually Branding the Environment: Climate Change as a Marketing Opportunity. Discourse Studies, 10(6), 777–794.

29. Hawken, P. (1993). The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: Harper Business.

30. Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2013). Discourses on Corporate Social Ir/responsibility in the Financial Sector. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1870–1880.

31. Hines, R. D. (1992). Accounting: Filling the Negative Space. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(3–4), 313–341.

32. Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the Environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 433–439.

33. Hrasky, S. (2012). Visual Disclosure Strategies adopted by More and Less Sustainability-driven Companies. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 154–165.

34. Hurteau, M. D. (2008). Carbon Protection and Fire Risk Reduction: Toward a Full Accounting of Forest Carbon Offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(9), 493–498.

35. IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36. Irigaray, L. (2004). The Power of Discourse and the Subordination of the Feminine. In J. Rivkin & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary Theory: An Anthology (2nd ed., pp. 795–811). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

37. ISO. (2015). ISO 14001:2015. Retrieved August 9, 2016, from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14001:ed-3:v1:en

38. Koteyko, N., Thelwall, M., & Nerlich, B. (2010). From Carbon Markets to Carbon Morality: Creative Compounds as Framing Devices in Online Discourses on Climate Change Mitigation. Science Communication, 32(1), 25–54.

39. KPMG. (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. Netherlands.

40. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Colour as a Semiotic Mode: Notes for a Grammar of Colour. Visual Communication, 1(3), 343–368.

41. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

42. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43. Latour, B. (2014). The Affects of Capitalism. Copenhagen: Royal Academy.

44. Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2016). A Discourse–design Approach to Multimodality: The Visual Communication of Neoliberal Management Discourse. Social Semiotics, 26(1), 1–18.

45. Mathews, F. (1991). The Ecological Self. London: Routledge.

46. Mathews, F. (2001). Deep Ecology. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy (pp. 218–232). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

47. Miller, P. (2001). Governing by Numbers: Why Calculative Practices Matter. Social Research, 68(2), 379–396.

48. Morrison, L. (2017). Heading South. PAN Philosophy Activism Nature, 13, 101–104.

49. Morrison, L., Wilmshurst, T., & Shimeld, S. (2018). Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 903–918.

50. Nerlich, B. (2010). Theory and Language of Climate Change Communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 1(1), 97–110.

51. Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2009). Compounds, Creativity and Complexity in Climate Change Communication: The Case of ‘Carbon Indulgences’. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 345–353.

52. Oxford Dictionary. (2016). Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, viewed 3rd October. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com .

53. Plumwood, V. (1993a). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

54. Plumwood, V. (1993b). The Politics of Reason: Towards a Feminist Logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71(4), 436–462.

55. Plumwood, V. (2002). Decolonising Relationships with Nature. PAN: Philosophy Activism Nature, 2, 7–30.

56. Plumwood, V. (2006). The Concept of a Cultural Landscape: Nature, Culture and Agency in the Land. Ethics & the Environment, 11(2), 115–150.

57. Plumwood, V. (2009). Nature in the Active Voice. Australian Humanities Review, 46, 113–129.

58. Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2012). Give Me a Two-by-Two Matrix and I Will Create the Market: Rankings, Graphic Visualisations and Sociomateriality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 565–586.

59. Poole, S. (2006). Essay. New Statesman, 135(4780), 34.

60. Preston, A. M., Wright, C., & Young, J. J. (1996). Imag[in]ing Annual Reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(1), 113–137.

61. Qu, S. Q., & Cooper, D. J. (2011). The Role of Inscriptions in Producing a Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(6), 344–362.

62. Robson, K. (1992). Accounting Numbers as “Inscription”: Action at a Distance and the Development of Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(7), 685–708.

63. Rose, N. (1991). Governing by Numbers: Figuring Out Democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692.

64. Singer, P. (1990/1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (2nd ed.). New York: Avon Books.

65. Spence, C. (2007). Social and Environmental Reporting and Hegemonic Discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6), 855.

66. Spence, C. (2009). Social Accounting’s Emancipatory Potential: A Gramscian Critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 205–227.

67. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 369, 842–867.

68. Stiles, D. (2004). Pictorial Representation. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 127–139). London: Sage.

69. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. (2012). Calculation Tools. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from http://www.ghgprotocol.org/

70. Ummel, K. (2012). CARMA Revisited: An Updated Database of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Power Plants Worldwide. Washington, DC.

71. Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., & Sargent, S. L. (1999). Effects of Photographs in News-Magazine Reports on Issue Perception. Media Psychology, 1(3), 207–228.