Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities
Pertanika Journal Home Facebook
Pertanika · Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities

Official journal of Universiti Putra Malaysia for scholarly work across the social sciences, humanities and related interdisciplinary fields.

e-ISSN 2231-8534 ISSN 0128-7702
Browse latest issue Author guidelines Submit Here
Research article

Compliance and Rhetoric in Sustainability Reports Published by A Malaysian Plantation Company

Hajibah Osman and Affiana Kadri

Volume 30, Issue 4 December 2022 Published 15 December 2022
https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.22
KeywordsCompliance, critical genre analysis, rhetoric, sustainability reports
Article content

Abstract

Publishing sustainability reports has been mandatory in most countries, including Malaysia, where all publicly listed companies must disclose their sustainability activities since 2007, as gazetted in the Bursa Malaysia Listing Requirements, Ministry of Finance 2006. In addition, a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) framework was established to report corporate sustainability initiatives to include four focal areas: Environment, Workplace, Community, and Marketplace. Based on critical genre analysis, this article examines the discursive practices in disclosing these reports published by one plantation company by identifying the reports’ generic structure and reporting style. The results show that the disclosure complies with the Listing Requirements, and the discourse employs modern rhetoric, a form of subtle persuasion supported with facts and figures. Therefore, it can be concluded that these sustainability reports are more than just paying lip service.
Supporting literature

References

  1. Avelsson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886300362002
  2. Bhatia, A. (2012). The corporate social responsibility report: The hybridization of a ‘confused’ genre (2007–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(3), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2205732
  3. Bhatia, A. (2013). International genre, local flavour: Analysis of PetroChina’s corporate and social responsibility report. Revista Signos, 46(83), 307-331. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342013000300002
  4. Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew & R. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 166-77). Routledge.
  5. Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & Communication, 21(1), 32-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309351208
  6. Bursa Malaysia. (2006). Listing requirements of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad. https://www.bursamalaysia.com/sites/5bb54be15f36ca0af339077a/content_entry5ce3b50239fba2627b2864be/5ce3b6ca5b711a155e9506d7/files/listing_requirement_main_market_archives_0506.pdf?1570701419
  7. Catenaccio, P. (2011). Social and environmental reports: A short-term diachronic perspective on an emerging genre. In G. Garzone & M. Gotti (Eds.), Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise: Genres and Trends (pp. 169-192). Peter Lang.
  8. Chek, I. T., Mohamad, Z. Z., Yunus, J., & Norwani, N. M. (2013) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disclosure in consumer products and plantation industry in Malaysia. American Journal of Contemporary Research, 3(5), 118-125.
  9. Crawley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1994). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. Allyn & Bacon.
  10. Cyphert, D. (2021). From product to process: The rhetoric of sustainability and evolving management practice. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490620987835
  11. Darus, F., Che Ku Hamzah, E. A., & Yusoff, H. (2013). CSR web reporting: The influence of ownership structure and mimetic isomorphism. Procedia Economics and Finance, 7, 236-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(13)00240-2
  12. Fuoli, M. (2012). Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse & Communication, 6(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311427788
  13. Fuoli, M. (2018). Building a trustworthy corporate identity: A corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Applied Linguistics, 39(6), 846-885. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw058
  14. Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.). About GRI. https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/
  15. Greenwood, M., Jack, G., & Haylock, B. (2018). Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports. Organizational Research Methods, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118765942
  16. Higgins, C., & Coffey, B. (2016). Improving how sustainability reports drive change: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.101
  17. Hynes, G. E. (2009). Annual reports: A tool for businesses, investors, and educators. Journal of Organizational Behavior Education, 2, 81-96.
  18. Ingram, R. W., & Frazier, K. B. (1983). Narrative disclosures in annual reports. Journal of Business Research, 11(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(83)90038-3
  19. Karreman, J., De Jong, M., & Hofmans, S. (2014). The effects of different parts of the annual report on potential investors’ attitudes towards the company and on the corporate reputation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2311872
  20. Khaveh, A., Nikhashemi, S., Yousefi, A., & Haque, A. (2012). Voluntary sustainability disclosure, revenue and shareholders wealth – a perspective from Singaporean companies. Business Management Dynamics, 1(9), 6-12.
  21. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034
  22. Lai, A., & Stacchezzini, R. (2021). Organisational and professional challenges amid the evolution of Sustainability reporting: A theoretical framework and an agenda for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(3), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2021-1199
  23. Lestari, I., Hamzah, N., & Maelah, R. (2019). Corporate social and environmental strategy and reporting in Indonesian plantation industry. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 3(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.28992/ijsam.v3i1.80
  24. Lin, Y. (2020). Communicating and bad news in corporate social responsibility reporting: A genre-based analysis of Chinese companies. Discourse and Communication, 14(1), 22-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481319876770
  25. Loh, L., Thao, N. T. P., Sim, I., Thomas, T., & Yu, W. (2016). Sustainability reporting in ASEAN. State of progress in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand 2015. Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO), National University of Singapore.
  26. Nwagbara, U., & Belal, A. (2019) Persuasive language of responsible organisation? A critical discourse analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of Nigerian oil companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2395-2420. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2016-2485
  27. Qian, W., Tilt, C., & Belal, A. (2021). Social and environmental accounting in developing countries: Contextual challenges and insights. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34(5), 1021-1050. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2021-5172
  28. Rajandran, K. (2015). A critical discourse analysis of Malaysian corporate social responsibility reports [Doctoral thesis, University of Malaya]. http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/id/eprint/5776
  29. Rajandran, K., & Taib, F. (2014). The representation of CSR in Malaysian CEO statements: A critical discourse analysis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(3), 303-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-2013-0011
  30. Saleh, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility disclosure in an emerging market: A longitudinal analysis approach. International Business Research, 2(1), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v2n1p131
  31. Sun, Y., Jin, G., Yang, Y., & Zhao, Z. (2018). Metaphor use in Chinese and American CSR reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(3), 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2018.2826759
  32. Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’dwyer, B. (2018). Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities. Accounting and Business Research, 48(5), 497-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1470155
  33. Van Der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Credible claim or corporate spin?: A checklist to evaluate corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 15(3), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333213500129
  34. Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(82)90025-3
  35. Yu, D., & Bondi, M. (2017). The generic structure of CSR reports in Italian, Chinese, and English: A corpus-based analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2702040
  36. Yusoff, H., Darus, F., Zain, M. M., Sawani, Y., & Janggu, T. (2019). Environmental risk disclosure practice in Malaysia: An emphasis on the plantation industry. Management & Accounting Review, 18(1), 117-137. http:// doi.org/10.24191/mar.v18i1.703
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .