474957 OAEXXX10.1177/1086026612474957Organization & EnvironmentTregidga et al.

Organization & Environment

The Politics of Knowing 26(1) 102­–129

© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
“Organizational Sustainable sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086026612474957

Development” oae.sagepub.com

Helen Tregidga1, Kate Kearins1, and Markus Milne2

Abstract
We critically examine organizational representations of sustainable development in 197 pub-
licly available corporate reports. Using a discourse theoretical approach, we analyze how these
organizations have come to “know” sustainable development, and we consider the conditions
that made this knowledge possible. Themes identified are (a) enlightened self-interest and the
business case, (b) organizational sustainable development as a balancing act, (c) organizational
sustainable development as necessary and important, (d) being sustainable as responsibility and/
or obligation, (e) organizational sustainable development as challenge and opportunity, and
(f) sustainable development as a new and an old concept. Taken-for-granted assumptions in cor-
porate reports emphasize organizational ability to manage sustainably underpinned by optimism
about technological advancements, continuous improvement, and efficiencies.The organizational
construction of sustainable development “accommodates” current organizations and systems of
organizing. More extensive and compelling engagement with the discourse is required by both
practitioners and academics, and with each other—if an environmentally, socially, and economi-
cally enabling construction of sustainable development is to be realized.

Keywords
organizational discourse, sustainable development, reporting, taken-for-granted assumptions,
legitimation

Introduction

It is widely understood that the “meaning” of sustainable development is both contested and
political (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2002; Dryzek, 1997; Jacobs, 1999; Lélé, 1991; Sachs, 1999;
Welford, 1997). Some argue that the term sustainable development leads to confusion over what
is to be sustained—the natural environment or the economy/market (e.g., see Lélé, 1991).
Others, such as Jacobs (1999), claim that it is the complex and normative nature of the concept
that leads to contestation and political struggle.

1
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
2
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Helen Tregidga, Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142,
New Zealand.
Email: [email protected]
Tregidga et al. 103

Jacobs (1999) identifies that contestable concepts, such as sustainable development, which
are complex and normative have two levels of “meaning.” At the first level of meaning, con-
cepts are often able to be defined by a number of core ideas. These core ideas can often be
expressed in a short definition which, although vague, gains unitary and broad acceptance. For
sustainable development, this coalescence occurs around the abridged Brundtland definition
of the concept: development which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment
and Development, 1987, p. 8). This definition, although not without its limitations (see
Bebbington, 1997; Benton, 1999; Hediger, 1999; Redclift, 1994; Verburg & Wiegel, 1997), is
probably the most widely stated expression of sustainable development. The second level of
meaning is more open to debate. Contest occurs in relation to what these core ideas actually
“mean”. However this contestation “shouldn’t be perceived as a remediable lack of precision
over what sustainable development ‘means’” (Jacobs, 1999, p. 26). Political argument over
how the concept should be interpreted in “practice” is thus very real. Academics can engage in
this debate to better understand the embrace of the concept by organizations and their role in
shaping it. They can do so, as we do as critical scholars in this article, to unmask and attempt
to resist the direction the discourse appears to be developing. Alternatively they can seek to
open out the discourse in a bid to enhance communicative praxis (for this latter approach, see
Habermas, 1971, 1984/1987, and for a work that uses Foucauldian and Habermasian
approaches, making quite distinct interpretations from each, in the context of organization
studies, see Alvesson, 1996).
Our article focuses on the second level of meaning—the politics of “knowing” sustainable
development. Using an approach inspired by the work of French social theorist, Michel Foucault,
and that of discourse theorists, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and Laclau (1990), we discuss themes
and taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in organizational discourse on sustainable devel-
opment. In spite of skepticism about corporate “sustainability” reports, in particular dismissal of
such reports as a mere public relations exercise (see Livesey & Kearins, 2002), research into the
organizational discourse of sustainable development in these reports, and its potential effects, is
limited.
We examine the discourse on sustainable development within a particular context, that of
organizations who are members of the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable
Development (NZBCSD). We use the term organizational sustainable development to signal that
we are referring to sustainable development within this context. First, we provide background
information contextualizing organizations and sustainable development. Second, we outline the
theoretical approach and method taken. Key findings in the form of themes evident in the con-
struction of sustainable development are presented and discussed along with reference to the
context within which they occur. A critique of the taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in
the discourse is then undertaken, and final comments offered with a focus on implications for
practitioners and academics who seek to open out and/or resist the kind of organizational sustain-
able development discourse that we identify.

Organizations and Sustainable Development

The basic premises of sustainable development are potentially radical with possible effects on,
among other things, growth and wealth distribution. There are potential “winners” and “losers”
in the sustainable development arena—the ability to obtain and maintain the dominant discur-
sive formation on the concept of sustainable development may be politically advantageous.
Resisting it may even seem individually disadvantageous to organizations. The discursive
struggle around bringing “meaning” to sustainable development involves many groups, including
104 Organization & Environment 26(1)

governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business organizations, and academics,

all of whom construct the meaning of the phrase in their own terms (Eden, 1994). Postlinguistic
turn thinking would support the view that it is impossible to completely close down possibili-
ties for meaning making either within or between different groups. There is a remaining sense
of disquiet for some that sustainable development, though now widely talked about, may not
have led to the substantive changes required to ensure human survival, that what has resulted
are constructions of sustainability wherein forms of capital are substituted and short-term
trade-offs effected.
Organizations have engaged in the sustainable development debate, in particular, around the
pragmatics of sustainable development, for some time. The response of organizations is seen by
some as a move away from “mainstream” notions of sustainable development to a position of
“sustaining the corporation” (Banerjee, 2003; Milne, Kearins, & Walton, 2006). Some authors
believe that the business response has been to “capture,” “hijack,” “appropriate,” or “co-opt” the
concept, redefining sustainable development in a way that is “business-friendly” and unchalleng-
ing of “progress” and “growth” (e.g., see Ball, Owen, & Gray, 2000; Eden, 1994; Eder, 1996;
Hajer & Fischer, 1999; Larrinaga-Gonzalez & Bebbington, 2001; Milne et al., 2006; Sachs,
1999; Welford, 1997). While not dismissing their claims, we relocate the focus away from read-
ing the organizational discourse as an attempt to capture sustainable development to a reading
which considers the discourse of organizational sustainable development in relation to its condi-
tions of possibility and the taken-for-granted assumptions which it entails. We believe a more
fruitful approach is to understand the current construction, and subsequently construct a basis on
which to offer critique.
Organizations are located within particular contexts that determine what is said and what is
not said. Notably, organizational discourse on sustainable development is located within contexts
such as organizational and accounting notions of economics and industry and the environment
and environmentalism. By recognizing the importance of context, we shift the debate from a
concern with whether or not organizational constructions of sustainable development are more
“accurate” or more “true” than are others to how particular constructions are possible and other
constructions less possible. It is through analyzing the foundations of a discourse that we aim to
both understand and problematize the meaning of sustainable development within the organiza-
tional context and open out the debate for voices which have been marginalized, in turn creating
space in which alternative constructions are potentially conceivable.
Furthermore, we recognize that public discourse on sustainable development by organizations
has transformative effects on the concept of sustainable development (Livesey, 2001, 2002).
Representing sustainable development in particular ways is part of wider social and political
struggles over defining sustainable development. As Eden (1994) identifies, research into the
corporate discourse of sustainable development “is an important area for investigation because
of the power of the business lobby in framing the political agenda . . . and therefore influencing
the environmental debate” (p. 160). This organizational influence is particularly true in the New
Zealand context within which this research is situated. Within this context, there are a limited and
“visible” number of groups and individuals engaged in the sustainable development debate (see
Milne, Tregidga, & Walton, 2009) and these groups are in close proximity, and are in an active
relationship with one another and the state.

Working Within a Discourse Framework

We focus on discourse as a cluster of related statements that cohere to produce both meaning
and effects concerning a particular topic at a particular historical moment (Carabine, 2001;
Hall, 1997). The term discourse in this article signals a theoretical and analytical approach
Tregidga et al. 105

that recognizes the productive and performative nature of discourse. Furthermore, and funda-
mentally, it is recognized that the “meaning” or identity of a concept is never fully fixed
(Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). “Meaning” represents discursive space where actors, including
organizations, “compete, in a process that is both social and political, to reproduce their
discourses—that is, to sustain their stories and their definitions” (Livesey, 2001, p. 63), and
potentially also to resist other discourses. We recognize individuals and organizations as par-
ticipants in multiple discourses, in their creation and reproduction/dissemination. And dis-
courses themselves extend beyond what is thought or written down, to what organizations
produce, the way they produce it—and in a Foucauldian sense—to having particular (power)
effects.
“Sustainable development” is one such discursive space in which organizations (and others)
constitute meaning. We examine the attempt by organizations to constitute meaning by analyzing
the organizational discourse and identifying constitutions of organizational sustainable develop-
ment within it. We do so by considering knowledge and truth claims embodied within the dis-
course and through recognizing, with the aim of realizing, contingency. In conducting our
analysis, we find Foucault’s conceptions of the power/knowledge relationship and “truth” useful,
along with the concept of objectivity (Laclau, 1990; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) and the identifica-
tion of the taken-for-granted as a form of critique.

Power, Knowledge, and Truth

Many of Foucault’s writings are concerned with how it is that we know something and the pro-
cesses whereby something becomes established as “fact” (Mills, 2003). For Foucault, the pro-
cess of knowledge production is always inside relations of power. Neither are separable
concepts, nor are they distinct from discourse. To capture the relationship between power and
knowledge, Foucault writes of power/knowledge (Foucault, 1976/1978, 1980). He characterizes
it as an abstract force which determines what will be known as where there are imbalances of
power relations between groups of people, or between institutions or states, there will be produc-
tion of knowledge (Mills, 2003).
Within a power/knowledge formation, “silences” or “absences” become open to analysis,
making what is not included and discussed—that which has been marginalized or subjugated—
as important as that which is included. Knowledge claims produced by organizations about sus-
tainable development are embedded within relations of power and have performative effects.
Taking a discursive theoretical approach enables a consideration and critical examination of
questions such as “who gets to define organizational sustainable development?” and “under what
circumstances are actions or organizations considered to be sustainable?”
Considering how discourse forms the concept of organizational sustainable development
within relations of power has implications for the status of “truth.” The “truth” about organiza-
tional sustainable development does not exist out there waiting to be found or appear in a tran-
scendental way, but exists as a system which produces, regulates, and circulates statements
which are positioned as true. What is considered as “true,” and in turn “false,” about organiza-
tional sustainable development is a function of the discursive formation and power relations.
“Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of “the truth” but has the power to
make itself true” (Hall, 1997, p. 49). Furthermore, the knowledge, or “truth” produced within a
discourse has effects. Just as Foucault (1975/1995) demonstrated how a certain conception of
crime had an effect on how crime was regulated, controlled and how criminals were punished,
the constitution of organizational sustainable development is likely to affect the way organiza-
tions interact with the environment and society, and the way society (and its members) interact
with organizations.
106 Organization & Environment 26(1)

Objectivity, the Taken-for-Granted, and Legitimacy

For Laclau and Mouffe, discourses which become so firmly established that their contingency
is forgotten are called objective (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002; Laclau, 1990). Objectivity masks
contingency and, as such, hides alternatives. Objectivity is linked to power and politics and
refers to that which we take for granted or reality that comes to appear as natural or noncontingent—
and therefore less likely to be resisted.
We recognize that the discourse of organizational sustainable development analyzed here
contains a number of taken-for-granted assumptions. “Opening out” the discourse for alternative
representations is a form of resistance. Identification and subsequent problematization of taken-for-
granted assumptions is a basis for ultimately realizing a more environmentally, socially, and
economically enabling construction of sustainable development.
A critique of the taken-for-granted starts from the recognition that all constitutions are contin-
gent and could have been different. Therefore, while recognizing that distortion is an everyday
part of meaning construction, we identify what appears to be taken for granted in the discourse
with the aim of opening out the discourse. Although we cannot offer a “truth” free from distor-
tion, we can offer a critique of the taken-for-granted and a subsequent problematization of the
discourse based on these observations.
How constitutions of meaning or significations serve to legitimize and sustain relations of
power and/or domination is also considered. Objectivity “works through” discourse to legitimate
particular constructions of the “real.” Legitimation is also crucial to achieving consent and thus
hegemonizing—that is dominating and controlling—discursive space.
Through a consideration of objectivity, we examine what forms of sustainable development
the organizational reporting discourse analyzed seeks to legitimize and maintain and also what it
excludes and marginalizes. We consider knowledge construction and maintenance to be essential
features in legitimation. This perspective has been largely overlooked within the management,
organization studies and accounting literature, and theorization on legitimacy (Deegan, 2002;
Tilling, 2004) but has relevance.

Method
Discourse analysis—the systematic and structured study of texts (Phillips & Hardy, 2002)—
enables the investigation of the constructive effects of discourse. Our discourse analytical
approach involves two phases—process and application. First is the process engaged in to
identify, select, and analyze the archive of reports and second is the application of concepts from
discourse theory to “make sense” of the “empirical data.” Throughout this process of analysis
we were aware of the necessarily interpretive and subjective nature of the research. As “all
knowledge is situated, contingent and partial” (Taylor, 2001, p. 319), we acknowledge that our
reading is only one possible reading and the need for a reflexive account wherein we question
our own interpretations. It is a reading, however, that each of the three authors agrees with.

Identifying, Selecting, and Analyzing the Archive

Organizational sustainable development discourse is embodied in a number of texts. In this
study, we draw on organizational annual and standalone reports on the environment and society
(e.g., sustainable development reports, triple bottom line reports, and health, safety, and environ-
ment reports).
Such reports are an attractive research archive. They are produced regularly, generally on an
annual basis. They remain a major and arguably the most comprehensive source of
Tregidga et al. 107

organization-generated communication on organizations’ values, operations, and goals, over

which management have substantial control. They are supplemented by a variety of other forms
of organizational communication which may or may not have senior management sign-off from
those involved in or responsible for the activities they present—such as advertisements, web
pages, and sponsored/coauthored news articles. We accept that corporate reports and these other
forms of corporate communications can serve public relations and image building functions.
Starting to appear, particularly in areas of greater contestation, are exemplars of counter/shadow
reports (Dey, 2003, 2007), produced by the likes of environmental NGOs and other social move-
ment groups. Despite this resistance, and indeed implied in the wider embrace of the reporting
form, we claim, annual and standalone reports represent “important texts” (Phillips & Hardy,
2002, p. 73) in the discourse of organizational sustainable development; they are widely distrib-
uted and associated with changes in practice. Many are available as downloads or appear in sum-
mary form on company websites. Furthermore, and of particular importance to this study,
organizational annual and standalone reports can be regarded as “ideological weapons” (Lehman
& Tinker, 1987; Tinker & Neimark, 1987).
Considering organizational reports as “ideological weapons” focuses on the political aspects
of reporting and the constructive and performative effects of discourse. Tinker and Neimark
(1987, p. 72) show that organizations’ annual reports are “not passive describers of an ‘objective
reality,’ but play a part in forming the world-view or social ideology that fashions and legiti-
mizes.” Annual and standalone reports “organize in” and “organize out” particular representa-
tions. Tinker, Lehman and Neimark (1991) claim that organizational reports are most effective
because of their repetition of the mundane and the censoring of other points of view. Such reports
can thus be seen to play an active and significant role in deciding on what constitutes organiza-
tional sustainable development.
All available reports from the 47 organizational members of the NZBCSD over a 12-year
period (1992-2003) were selected for analysis. The NZBCSD is a coalition of business organi-
zations with a mission to “provide business leadership as a catalyst for change towards sustain-
able development” (NZBCSD, 2004, p. 6). It holds a prominent place in the New Zealand
business context in relation to sustainable development and member organizations’ reports are
often considered leaders and “models” for other organizations. Many of the organizations are
among New Zealand’s largest; some, however, are quite small. A range of sectors is covered,
including industrial and resource intensive utilities, service businesses, and retailers. The own-
ership structures also vary—public, private, New Zealand owned, overseas owned—New
Zealand–based subsidiaries, cooperatives, and research institutes all feature. The total number
of available reports included in the analysis is 197 (157 annual reports and 40 standalone
reports). The 12-year period studied covers both the emergence and development of organiza-
tional reporting on sustainable development in New Zealand. The reports vary in length, lay-
out, and style.
The analytical process was conducted via multiple readings of each report by the first author,
with the aim of “knowing the data.” During the readings of the texts, extracts where organiza-
tions discussed the concept of sustainable development (and related concepts such as sustainable
management and the triple bottom line) were recorded and reviewed by the other authors. An
understanding of the texts developed, and more general information and observations about each
report were manually recorded on an agreed template. This process did not “code” the entire text
nor ensure that all possible extracts were collected. It was, therefore, an interpretive process
where extracts were retrieved based on the research interest and the explicit or implied linkage
with those sustainability concepts noted above. Checking of a sample of reports occurred to
ensure both appropriate and sufficiently extensive selection of extracts on the template.
108 Organization & Environment 26(1)

Once extracts had been recorded, coding of extracts was undertaken and subsequently “key
themes” were decided on initially by the first author and checked by the other two. Despite being
familiar with the themes emerging from the texts through the process of reading the reports and
extracting and coding statements, the process of “deciding” on key themes was an iterative one
involving discussion and agreement. The merging of related codes when deciding on key themes
occurred in several instances, often when reconciling codes from earlier reports with those from
later reports. Codes that were contrasting or contradictory (i.e., sustainable development as an
opportunity and a threat) were combined under one theme as it was considered by all three
authors important to examine and explore these contrasting statements.

“Applying” Discourse Concepts

The second phase involved the application of concepts from discourse theory to “make sense” of
the themes. A discursive theoretical framework initially drove the method of reading the texts.
Not only were certain kinds of statements the focus of analysis, but how these statements or
constructions of knowledge became “thinkable” were considered by examining things such as the
relationship between text and context (i.e., explicit reference to context as well as instances of
language sharing) and demonstrations of intertextuality or reweaving (often the combining of
environmental discourse with business or accounting discourse). Concepts from discourse theory
were then used by the authors to examine themes. Power/knowledge and claims to truth and/or
objectivity were considered by looking at the nature of statements. The first author interrogated
the extracts individually and across a single report and then across the archive of all the reports,
looking for where there was demonstration of power imbalances, hierarchical relations, authorita-
tive knowledge, definitiveness, self-evident “truth,” or instances of uncertainty. Absences and
silences were reflected on and raised for discussion among the authors.
Taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the discourse were identified throughout the
data analysis process, in particular, through the analysis of the themes, both theme-by-theme and
more holistically, and were agreed by the authors. Levy’s (1997) article analyzing ideologically
laden assumptions embedded within the environmental management discourse was useful to
compare and contrast observations made.
Findings are presented below. First, six themes drawn on within the texts which work to con-
stitute organizational sustainable development are examined along with a consideration of their
conditions of possibility. Representative quotes from the reports are provided—these were
selected and organized so as to offer a cogent yet relatively complete narrative around each
theme. A summary section pulls together what we have identified as important conditions of pos-
sibility that have influenced the constitution of organizational sustainable development. A dis-
cussion of the taken-for-granted within the discourse follows. Finally, a table summarizing the
complete set of findings is presented.

Themes Used in the Constitution of “Organizational

Sustainable Development”
We identified six themes in the organizational constitution of sustainable development. It should
be noted that the first three themes were the most prevalent or common in the reports in terms
of the number of times they appeared. The remaining themes, although not the most common in
the texts, are themes that we consider significant in the construction of the concept of organiza-
tional sustainable development in this context. As demonstrated below they “have an effect” on
the constitution of meaning in the discourse.
Tregidga et al. 109

Enlightened Self-Interest:The Business Case

The first theme identified from the texts analyzed is the “enlightened self-interest” perspective,
often referred to as the business case for sustainable development. Enlightened self-interest
purports that people/entities that act to further the interests of others (including groups or societ-
ies of which they are part) ultimately serve their own self-interest, as we exemplify and explain
further below:

The adoption of this philosophy [sustainable development] is in fact enlightened self-

interest as we believe as a company we can take actions to protect the environment and
enhance society and at the same time enhance long term profitability. The move towards
sustainable development will become a key component of our ongoing business competi-
tiveness. (TrustPower, 2001, pp. 7-8)

Let’s be realistic, and honest. Sustainable development is about enlightened self-interest.

(Westpac, 2003, p. 6)

The enlightened self-interest perspective is based on the fundamental notion of rationalism

and argues that, “going green” (or in this case representing one’s organization as engaged in
sustainable development) makes pragmatic sense because it makes organizations more competi-
tive and enhances the (financial) bottom line (Day & Arnold, 1998; Porter & van der Linde,
1995; Prasad & Elmes, 2005). The pragmatic, rational, and self-interested business case approach
to sustainable development is also highlighted by Fineman (1996, 1997, 2001) and Mayhew
(1997).
The business case is dominantly portrayed by organizations through reference to “win-wins.”
The win-win scenario is one where organizations and the environment and/or society benefits
from “sustainable business practices.”

The investment in good health and safety practice, while having as its primary objective
the health and safety of Watercare’s employees and public, is considered to have consider-
able commercial benefits. (Watercare Services, 1998-1999, p. 11)

Although many statements refer to general win-wins, the financial win to the organization
appears the most-often stated.
What is notably absent from these extracts and others in the texts is any acknowledgement of
trading off the economic for the environment and/or the social (see Hahn, Figge, Pinske, and
Preuss, 2010, and associated special issue of Business Strategy and Environment on trade-offs in
corporate sustainability). Weinberg (1998) notes a clear tension between growing and “staying
green.” Nevertheless, many organizations focus on growth within their reports and leave the ten-
sion between growth and the environment largely unaddressed. In fact, many organizations avoid
the growth/staying green anomie discussed by Weinberg (1998) through a focus on operational
improvements, and more particularly the concept of eco-efficiency.
Eco-efficiencies (a per unit measurement rather than absolute or total measurement), enables
organizations to grow while appearing “green.”

Eco-efficiency measures make it possible to demonstrate progress in environmental terms

while at the same time increasing economic growth. The smaller the ratio becomes over
time the more it reflects an improvement in the efficiency of the resources’ use. (Sanford,
2003, p. 58)
110 Organization & Environment 26(1)

The focus on eco-efficiencies has an important effect in the understanding of sustainable

development within the organizational discourse as it reduces the challenge provided by the
discussion of limits (e.g., Wackernagel & Rees’s [1996] definition of the ecological footprint
and the Brundtland Report definition) or antigrowth sentiments associated with “being
sustainable.”
The business case is also represented through the reports via an identification that sustainable
development can bring about competitive advantage:

The triple bottom line management approach is about creating competitive advantage.
(Watercare Services, 2001, p. 5; 2002, p. 20)

When identifying the competitive advantage gained by aligning the organization with sustain-
able development, perceived increase in reputation by both internal and external stakeholders is
noted.

Being recognised as a trusted and responsible custodian of natural resources enables us to

pursue development opportunities that will allow us to continue long-term, sustainable
business performance. (Meridian Energy, 2001, p. 4)

What is being sustained above is, once again, the financial performance of the organization.
Sustainable development as enlightened self-interest represents sustainable development as
an organization-centered and organization-friendly concept. By constituting sustainable devel-
opment in this way, reporting organizations claim that the goals of sustainability and the goals of
the organization are aligned. The business case, therefore, fits comfortably within the traditional
for-profit organizational arena as it not only allows organizations to pursue financial objectives
while also claiming to address principles of sustainable development but is also constituted as a
way to help organizations achieve their own and wider societal goals.

Organizational Sustainable Development as a Balancing Act

When defining sustainable development as a process that seeks to improve the economy, the
environment, and society (i.e., the triple bottom line), organizations draw on the concept of bal-
ance. Sustainable development is portrayed as a balancing act as it requires organizations to
consider the three elements together.

Sustainability is about striking a balance between economic, social and environmental

considerations. (Meridian Energy, 2002, p. 27)

The Company is continually seeking to balance the three aspects of sustainability—eco-

nomic, social and environmental. (Watercare Services, 2000, p. 39)

Achieving this balance is not always presented as an easy task. Challenges are often seen to
come from the fact that the three elements are often in conflict.

We found ourselves having to balance potentially conflicting environmental, economic

and social considerations. (Meridian Energy, 2002, p. 27)

There are a number of environmental issues that conflict with improved economic perfor-
mance. (Sanford, 1999/2000, p. 9)
Tregidga et al. 111

Due to the potentially conflicting nature of that which is to be balanced, organizations, such
as Mighty River Power (2003, p. 3) claim that “[s]ustainability is inevitably about trade-offs.”
Although trade-offs are generally accepted among the reports analyzed, BP NZ’s CEO (2003)
disagrees,

I don’t believe there has to be a trade-off between financial performance and a sustainable
environment (p. 3). . . . The challenge for business is to prove that there is no trade-off
between those desires—to offer clean fuels which meet both requirements [ability to drive
cars and clean air]. (p. 6)

The inherent notions of balance and trade-offs are the reason why some commentators have
referred to the business constitution as “weak” (Gray & Milne, 2002, 2004; Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment, 2002; Springett, 2003). Through identifying trade-offs as a
necessary part of sustainable development, organizations open up the possibility for environ-
mental and/or social elements to be “traded-off” in order to make economic improvements.

Activities support cannot compromise Manaaki Whenua’s financial viability or the deliv-
ery of objectives agreed with the Shareholders. (Manaaki Whenua/Landcare Research,
2002, p. 43)

The balancing act theme constitutes the concept of sustainable development as a decision-
making premise—providing a basis for how organizations make business decisions involving the
environment, society, and economic/financial issues. Although many organizations engage
stakeholders as part of their business practices, and some do in relation to reporting on sustain-
able development, organizations constitute themselves in a position of authority as the ultimate
decision makers.
When discussing the notions of balance and trade-offs, the texts, once again, remain relatively
silent on the concept of limits (e.g., environmental, ecological, or resource limits). Within many
radical discourses notions of limits are essential. For example, deep green discourses are con-
cerned with the mistreating of nature, giving the nonhuman moral standing, and therefore, limits
are central because of the effect that a “limitless” conception of social has on the nonhuman
world. Moreover, within some anthropocentric or conservation discourses, notions of limits are
expressed largely concerning the limits to environmental resources (e.g., see Meadows, Randers,
& Meadows, 2004; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Both these conceptions of limits (i.e., moral
standing of nonhuman life and limits to environmental resources or natural capital) are absent
from the organizational discourse on sustainable development. This absence of limits, along with
the presence of trade-offs and the decision-making ability of organizations, constitutes sustain-
able development in a way that potentially remains unchallenging of traditional business objec-
tives and, furthermore, places organizations in an authoritative position.

Organizational Sustainable Development as Necessary and Important

Within the reports, many organizations claim that it is either necessary or important to “be sus-
tainable” or incorporate sustainable business practices into their operations and/or thinking:

Get this: sustainable development is non-negotiable. (Vodafone, 2002-2003, p. 3)

We chose this course at our inception, because we fundamentally believe that being sustain-
able is not an option for a responsible business; it is a necessity. (Meridian Energy 2002, p. 5)
112 Organization & Environment 26(1)

Presenting sustainable development as necessary claims that “sustainable development is not

an option, it is an imperative” (Landcare Research, 1999/2000, p. 4). Sustainable development as
necessary takes two main forms: (a) organizational sustainable development is necessary because
of organizational dependence on the natural environment in particular and (b) organizational
sustainable development is necessary as it is demanded by society.
Sustainable development as necessary due to dependence acknowledges that organizations
are dependent on the natural environment and that they therefore must sustain that environment
in order to survive. This theme is present in many of the reports, in particular in those of organi-
zations with an obvious or visible dependence on natural resources in their primary operations.

Milburn’s ability to make cement, concrete, aggregate and burnt lime for New
Zealanders depends on the use of natural resources. With this in mind, in the early 1990s
Milburn embarked on a comprehensive review of its environmental performance.
(Milburn, 2001, p. 14)

We can only sustain our company through sustaining its resources and our rights to use
them . . . If we do not act sustainably then in the long run we will have no business.
(Mighty River Power, 2003, p. 3)

The identification of organizational dependence on the environment is consistent across the

years analyzed.
The second way the theme of necessity emerges is through the identification that sustainable
development, or good environmental and social performance, is demanded. Reference to demand
for environmentally, socially, and economically responsible organizations once again appears
over the entire period analyzed and consistently across the reports. The form of the demand on
the organization, however, changes over this time period.
Many early reports refer to compliance and the need to comply with current legislation. In
fact, compliance is one of the main subject matters in many of the early reports. Once again,
reference to compliance is particularly common among organizations that have a close interac-
tion with the environment, either as extractors or major users of natural resources or discharges
of wastes to the natural environment. In later reports, while compliance is still identified as a
driver for environmental performance, the theme of demand is extended to sustainable develop-
ment as being demanded, or at times expected, by a number of different stakeholders including
the consumer, the investor, the shareholder, and the general public. The potential for differing
stakeholder perspectives on sustainable development does not much feature in the reports:

Environmentalism is expanding with increasing demand for “clean, green” products.

(Sanford, 1997, p. 34)

Vodafone New Zealand, alongside Vodafone Group, believes striving to be a truly sustain-
able business is totally non-negotiable. Why? Because the Vodafone community of stake-
holders expect it? Absolutely. But also because we simply believe it’s the right thing to do.
(Vodafone, 2002-2003, p. 3)

The second aspect of this theme involves the presentation of sustainable development as
important. Two main areas are drawn on. First, sustainable development is presented as important
to maintain New Zealand’s “clean green” image, an image that is not questioned in the reports.
Maintenance of this image is represented as important not only to the organizations themselves
but also to the industries within which they are involved, or to New Zealand as a whole:
Tregidga et al. 113

Internationally, New Zealand maintains a “clean and green” reputation and as one business
enjoying some of the benefits of this, we are working progressively to contribute posi-
tively to the environment in which we operate. (Richmond, 2001, p. 16)

Second, and more commonly, sustainable development is constituted as important to ensure

continued business success:

If Interface Agencies truly wishes to sustain our successfulness, we know that we can’t
ignore our social, economic or environmental performance. (Interface Agencies NZ, 2001,
p. 1)

The direct concern with sustaining the organization itself underpins the entire theme of orga-
nizational sustainable development as necessary and important.
Although sharing some similarities with the business case theme, the theme of sustainable
development as necessary and important differs in the sense that it is externally, rather than inter-
nally, driven. While the business case is largely concerned with internal operations (sustainable
development as good for business), this theme is concerned with external matters, that is, sus-
taining that which is external to the organization and on which the organization depends, and
meeting external demands (e.g., stakeholders or industry). However, like the business case, the
presentation of sustainable development as necessary and important is based on rationalism.
Sustainable development is rationalized through constituting it as necessary and important to
sustain the organization, its continued operations, and its reputation. Once again, sustainable
development is shown to be organization centered and economically driven.

Being Sustainable: A Responsibility and/or Obligation

After the word commitment, responsibility is perhaps one of the most commonly used words in
the texts. Statements expressing responsibility and/or obligation are often empty or vague, how-
ever (e.g., “the organization has an environmental responsibility”). Although we do not consider
this theme has a significant effect on how the concept of sustainable development is constituted
within the discourse, it does represent an important theme, because of the vagueness it encom-
passes as it detracts attention from the possibility that organizations might be seen to be irre-
sponsible.
Declarations of responsibility to the environment and society increase over time. These asser-
tions are shadowed by an increasing identification of the relationship between the organization
and the environment and society, in particular, the impact the organization has on the natural
environment:

As people’s ability to modify the environment increases, we must all take responsibility
for the impact of our activities on the natural world. (Meridian Energy, 2000, p. 2)

Additionally, with the growing sense of responsibility and awareness of the organization/
environment/society relationship, a sense of obligation emerges in the texts.
The sense of obligation found in the later reports differs from that discussed above in relation
to necessity. Obligation here, relates more to a sense of moral obligation. This notion is perhaps
best encapsulated by The Warehouse in its 2002 report titled, “What Ought One to Do?” In this
report, The Warehouse draws on Socrates’s ethical challenge and asks, “If we are indeed a people
first company–what ought we to do? If indeed the environment does matter to us as a business–
how do we behave in this area?” (p. 2).
114 Organization & Environment 26(1)

What makes this theme interesting is that although vague statements regarding responsibility
are common, expressions of moral obligation are not. Two observations are made here. First, as
acknowledged, the vagueness inherent in statements of responsibility is important. Such state-
ments detract from any consideration that organizations might be irresponsible and that more
stringent regulation may be needed, while leaving what organizations are responsible for largely
unanswered.
Second, the less common reference to moral obligation is not driven by any economic ratio-
nale but by a moral and ethical one which is more contingent. This theme is closely aligned with
the theme of ecological responsibility discussed as a motivation for ecological responsiveness by
Bansal and Roth (2000). Ecological responsibility, according to Bansal and Roth is “a motivation
that stems from the concern that a firm has for its social obligations and values” (p. 728); it
emphasizes the ethical, rather than pragmatic aspects. Being based on the ethical and the moral,
rather than the more common organizational concepts of rationality or pragmatism, it is not sur-
prising that reference to obligation is less dominant than the vague statements of responsibility
and the business case. This reading of the discourse is consistent with Bansal and Roth’s (2002)
analysis, which found the least support for this motivation (compared with competitiveness and
legitimation). These findings add to the discussion above highlighting the dominance of prag-
matics and rationalism within the organizational discourse on sustainable development.

The Challenge and Opportunity of Organizational Sustainable Development

Overall, the reports we analyzed claim that sustainable development is not easy:

I’d like to acknowledge up front that moving a company like The Warehouse towards a
sustainable future is an enormous task. (The Warehouse, 2002, p. 3)

Many organizations claim that sustainable development brings about a challenge mainly
because of the activities which they are engaged in. BP NZ (2003, p. 2) recognizes that, “one of
the biggest challenges we all face lies in the paradox in wanting both the mobility that our prod-
ucts provide and a cleaner environment,” while Shell NZ (2001) acknowledges the challenges
of sustainable development to an organization that is in the business of extracting fossil fuels.
Large extractive organizations are not the only ones to constitute sustainable development as a
challenge. Small to medium organizations such as Urgent Couriers note challenges to being
“sustainable”:

Operating in an industry that burns fossil fuels as the foundation of its operations provides
a significant challenge to an organisation contemplating sustainability. (Urgent Couriers,
2001, p. 3)

Although these challenges are identified, the organizations fail to discuss what is to be done
in the face of such challenges. For example, are there organizations which are inherently unsus-
tainable and, if so, is there a point where these organizations would have to cease operations to
contribute toward sustainable development? Silence is present around any solutions to business-
threatening challenges presented by sustainable development. Instead, the organizational dis-
course is optimistic:

. . . it’s quite a task. Integrating sustainable practices into every facet of our business
is a biggie. But we’re serious about it, we’re focused on it–and we’ll do it. (Vodafone,
2002-2003, p. 3)
Tregidga et al. 115

One way in which this optimism is presented is through constituting sustainable development as
an opportunity. Presenting sustainable development as an opportunity can be seen in numerous
reports, and most clearly in the reporting of Tranz Rail (New Zealand’s major rail company).
From very early on in the reporting period analyzed, Tranz Rail notes that increasing environ-
mental consciousness, legislation and later sustainable development represents an opportunity:

We will continue to exploit our competitive advantages of offering a lower cost for higher
tonnages and promoting rail as an environmentally sound alternative to trucking. (Tranz
Rail, 1994, p. 10)

We do, however, note that Tranz Rail appears to have found it harder when it comes to social
aspects of sustainable development, in particular recognizing the challenges rather than opportu-
nities in relation to health and safety.
Despite challenges being recognized, the broad discourse of sustainable development is opti-
mistic in tone. Several commentators suggest that this optimism is why the concept has appealed
to a wide audience including business (Dryzek, 1997; Redclift, 1994). The organizational reports
imply, on occasion, that business need only direct its attention and marshal its resources for sus-
tainable development challenges to be resolved, when the underlying issues are much more
complex.

Sustainable Development as a New and an Old Concept

Whether sustainable development was an old concept or a new one for New Zealand organiza-
tions at the time is something that is ambiguous in the texts. Although the sudden interest in and
struggle to define the concept would indicate sustainable development as something new for
organizations, views are divided.

We accept this [sustainable development] is quite a new concept for New Zealand, and one
not that easy to pin down. (Westpac, 2003, p. 7)

Sustainable development is not a new concept. (Landcare Research, 2001, p. 5)

How the concept is constituted by organizations is important as it addresses the fundamental

question as to whether or not sustainable development represents a change to the traditional
organizational model based on neoclassical economics. Waste Management NZ (2003) claims
that sustainable development requires changes to the current organizational systems and
processes:

Until now, organisations have tended to pursue profit to the detriment of other priorities.
But sustainable development requires companies to recognise that whilst they are primarily
businesses, they have longer-term responsibilities that reach beyond commerce. That’s not
easy with the huge pressures now mounted by investors to see immediate and continuing
growth; growth that itself threatens our ability as a planet to develop sustainably. (p. 1)

Orion (2002) contrasts this perspective stating:

We have long been a champion for the prudent use of both electricity and network assets.
Because of this, a focus on sustainability does not represent a fundamental change in the
way Orion operates. (p. 6)
116 Organization & Environment 26(1)

The result of these contrasting claims made is that it is left unclear as to whether or not the
integration of the discourse of sustainable development is likely to bring about fundamental
change that many commentators see as necessary for its achievement.
Overall, the texts analyzed constitute sustainable development as a concept which is not nec-
essarily new, but as existing organizational practices which are receiving renewed interest.
Expressing sustainable development as “not new” or as “already familiar to” organizations,
raises concern. Sustainable development is constituted in a way that potentially avoids morpho-
genetic or deep-seated change and as such may not be environmentally enabling (supporting the
views of Gray, Walters, Bebbington, & Thomson, 1995; Larrinaga-Gonzalez & Bebbington,
2001; O’Dwyer, 2003; Owen, Gray, & Bebbington, 1997). Furthermore, the discourse does not
represent a fundamental challenge to the existing structures of organizations and, therefore, does
not represent an environmentally or socially enabling discourse. Moreover, this theme reinforces
the theme of responsibility discussed above by suggesting that sustainable development is some-
thing that organizations are “already doing.”

Organizational Sustainable Development and

the Conditions of Its Possibility
It is outside the scope of this article to comprehensively consider the history and context of the
constitution of the concept organizational sustainable development—how it has been possible
for organizations to come to understand sustainable development in these particular ways.
However, two key conditions which can be seen to have influenced the constitution of sustain-
able development within the reports examined are the triple bottom line and the notion of ratio-
nalism.
The triple bottom line concept has been adopted by many organizations as a way to concep-
tualize sustainable development. Extending the organization’s goals to focus on three bottom
lines, rather than on the traditional single bottom line, has been well-recognized in the reports.
As we have argued, however, this focus, rhetorically at least, on the triple bottom line has resulted
in constituting sustainable development as a balancing act and subsequently incorporating the
concept of trade-offs. Trade-offs are an important element to the constitution of organizational
sustainable development because not only do they allow, for example, the environment to be
traded off in favor of the economic, but they also place organizations in a position of authority as
organizations take on a decision-making role as arbitrator of this act of balancing.
Rationality inherent in traditional organizational discourse has been a strong condition in
shaping the organizational discourse on sustainable development. Rationalism has become a
feature of the sustainable development discourse within organizations and can be seen through
several of the themes discussed above. Most prominently, economic rationality is evident in the
most dominant theme—sustainable development as enlightened self-interest. Rationality is also
fundamental to the presentation of organizational sustainable development as necessary due to
organizational dependence on the environment.
The discourse of organizational sustainable development involves what Fairclough (2005)
refers to as “reweaving.” The emerging discourse of sustainable development within the organi-
zational context can be seen to involve a reweaving of the “external” discourse of environmental-
ism and sustainable development with the “internal” discourse of organizations and
accounting—so as to remain within what Shrivastava and Schneider (1984) have referred to as
an organizational frame of reference, delineating a legitimate scope of organizational engage-
ment. This reweaving can be seen most explicitly through the merging of language, for example,
referring to the environment via the concept of the bottom line. The result is a changed order of
discourse, as represented by the use of the term organizational sustainable development in this
Tregidga et al. 117

article. Elsewhere, more popularly, we see terms such as corporate or business sustainability,
which also underscore that which is being sustained—organizations, corporations, and busi-
nesses and, their reputations of legitimacy in the field of sustainable development. However, as
the extracts also indicate, this “new” order of discourse, one which has its own conditions of
possibility which are the result of the merging of the organizational discourse and that of sustain-
able development, has left much traditional organizational ideology intact, something which is
explored now.

The Taken-for-Granted as a Coalition of Effects Within the

Discourse of Organizational Sustainable Development
Five taken-for-granted assumptions identified through the analysis of the discourse and are
examined and, consideration of their effect undertaken. They are also compared and contrasted
to extant literature.

Organizations Can and Should Manage the Environment

The supposition that the environment can be managed is implicit in the discourse. The term
environmental management is used frequently throughout the reports analyzed which, as Levy
(1997, p. 137) identifies, is a term that inherently assumes that the natural environment can be
managed. As such, the complexity of the natural environment and ecosystems is often over-
looked and the anthropocentric human–nature dualism is upheld (Egri & Pinfield, 1996).
Furthermore, any discussion regarding the moral aspects of managing the natural environment
is marginalized. In fact, the ability to manage the environment is so entrenched in the founda-
tions of the discourse that it is not questioned. Establishing the “need” to manage the environ-
ment along with how it can be done, therefore, becomes the focus.
Beyond the taken-for-granted acceptance that the environment can be managed is the assump-
tion that it is the role and responsibility of organizations to do the managing. We see this clearly
when organizations are constructed as the decision makers in charge of balancing sustainable
development’s competing aims. The resulting assertion from these representations is one of a
“have trust in organizations to manage it.” It could be argued that this “trust us” assertion pro-
motes less government regulation (Newton & Harte, 1997).
The assumptions that organizations can and should manage the environment embedded in the
discourse analyzed here are similar to those identified by Levy (1997) in his analysis of the dis-
course of environmental management and are related to the findings of Prasad and Elmes (2005).
Levy (1997) identified two central assumptions embedded in the environmental management
discourse as “the environment can and should be managed,” and “leave it to the corporate man-
agers.” The findings of this study indicate that these assumptions present in the broader discourse
of environmental management are also evident in the discourse of sustainable development in
organizational reports. An effect of the assumptions that the environment can and should be man-
aged, and that organizations should be the ones to do the managing is the legitimization of the
role of the primacy of organizations in addressing issues of sustainability. The reports, and the
organization legitimizing discourse they entail, could be read as a strategic attempt to advocate
voluntary environmental and sustainable development initiatives as a means of forestalling more
stringent legislation.
In addition, these findings are related to the analysis of the environmental discourse under-
taken by Prasad and Elmes (2005). They find that “much of EM’s [environmental management’s]
legitimacy stems from its own identity as having practical relevance to resolving contemporary
environmental problems” (Prasad & Elmes, 2005, p. 845). This overriding tone of practicality
118 Organization & Environment 26(1)

noted by Prasad and Elmes can be associated with the content of the discourse identified here.
Through assuming that the environment can be managed, the focus becomes one of “getting on
with managing” as such, the practical aspect. Organizations are able to concentrate on what can
be done and what they are doing. This focus is beneficial to organizations due to the appeal of
the concept of practicality. As Prasad and Elmes acknowledge, “[i]n contemporary industrial and
post-industrial societies, the term ‘practical’ holds so much currency that anything carrying that
label tends to win automatic approval” (p. 863). The practical element of the organizational sus-
tainable development discourse is the feature of the following assumption identified from the
analysis of the effects of the discourse.

Traditional Management Approaches Should Be Used and

Developed to Manage Sustainably
Having asserted that the environment can and should be managed, and that organizations are the
ones to do the managing, the discourse also makes assumptions regarding how this management
is to be undertaken. The texts discuss traditional approaches to management and organizing
(including accounting). The discourse assumes that existing management approaches (such as
reporting practices and focus on efficiencies rather than total reductions) are adaptable to “man-
aging for sustainability.” Furthermore, this assumption rests on the notion that improved (scien-
tific) knowledge and measurement will result in “better” management.
The texts indicate that organizations approach the management of the environment and social
issues in a manner similar to other aspects of the organization. For example, Shell NZ (2000) states,

Consistent with their commitment to sustainable development, Shell companies have a

systematic approach to health, safety and environmental management in order to achieve
continuous improvement. To this end, Shell companies manage these matters as any other
critical business activity, sets targets for improvement, and measure, appraise and report
on performance. (p.16)

Approaching the management of the environment in this manner results in focus being placed
on artifacts such as environmental policies, environmental management systems, environmental
audits, and reports. Identification of such systems and management tools are central to disclo-
sures made by many of the reporting organizations.
Measurement, and the need to measure things in order to manage them, is a key notion within
the discourse with statements such as “we measure things we wish to manage” (City Care, 2001,
p. 7) and “you can’t improve what you can’t measure” (Interface Agencies, 2001, p. 1) being
common. While several texts identify challenges to the measurement of sustainability, the
assumption that measuring and monitoring the environment will bring about its management is
inherent in the discourse. While several initiatives to measure social and environmental perfor-
mance exist, the challenges with such “accounting for sustainability” are recognized.
Mighty River Power (2001, p. 21) identifies that the difficulty of measurement is “not so
much a fault of sustainability, rather a function of the way it has been viewed and of trying
to adapt conventional financial accounting performance measures into its frameworks.”
And while attempts at quantifying the costs of some aspects of sustainability are evident in
the reports, such as the quantification of CO2 emissions, Watercare Services (2002, p. 67)
recognizes that many organizations are “grappling with how to quantify costs and benefits
of environmental and social performance.” Furthermore, Watercare Services acknowledges
that there is a “significant debate over the required changes to traditional financial account-
ing principles and whether financial measures can be used to gauge the more qualitative
Tregidga et al. 119

aspects of environmental and social performance” (p. 67). Despite the recognition of such
challenges involved, an endeavor to measure, and thus manage, the environment through
accounting mechanisms such as quantifying the costs of impacts and effects (both positive
and negative) is undertaken.
Although the organizational discourse does identify some challenges associated with
managing the environment and social issues through traditional management approaches,
the result is not the questioning of these preexisting theories or methods but the claim that
improved knowledge and measurement will bring about “better” management. Focus is
therefore placed not on developing new theories or approaches but on improving knowl-
edge and existing management tools.
Underlying the assumption that improved knowledge will result in “better” management
is modernist scientific rationality (Livesey & Kearins, 2002). The discourse of organiza-
tional sustainable development is firmly embedded in scientific rationality. Many organiza-
tions believe that improvements in scientific knowledge will bring about the better
management of the environment such as fisheries stock, freshwater systems, and other
natural resources. The result of such a perspective is a focus on things that science has
measured and a failure to acknowledge, or to be vague about, those things that science has
not yet measured, or is incapable of measuring.
This finding is perhaps not surprising when it is considered in relation to the findings of
Levy (1997). Levy’s (1997) analysis of the ideological assumptions within the discourse of
environmental management focused on the texts written for or about organizations, that is
practitioner-orientated and academic texts. Levy (1997) found that the “rapidly growing
body of courses, texts, and articles on environmental management suggests that the exist-
ing disciplines of management are readily adaptable to the task” and that it is, “hardly
surprising that management scholars bring pre-existing theories and practices to bear on
environmental issues” (p. 140). This assumption found in the texts of organizations is,
therefore, related to that present in the discursive field. However, although this assumption
may not be unexpected, the implications of such an assumption are concerning. A continued
reliance on traditional management approaches and a continued faith in scientific rational-
ity is likely to have ongoing effects. As Levy (1997) suggests, a “reliance on the existing
managerial frameworks might constrain theoretical and empirical development and create
an overconfidence in managerial/technical solutions” (p. 140). It may also constrain the
development of alternative approaches to “managing” the organization/environment/soci-
ety interface.

Sustainable Development Will Be Brought About Through

Advances in Technology and Efficiency
Within the discourse, technical rationality and efficiency feature prominently, and faith in advances
in technology and efficiency in achieving sustainable development, have several effects.
The discourse clearly assumes a role for technology in the pursuit of sustainability (and
thus takes a technocentric perspective, see Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995). This role for
technology can be seen through the assumption that advances in technology will bring about
better monitoring, cleaner production, and “better” disposal of wastes. An emphasis is placed
on “keeping up to date” with technology and, where possible, implementing advanced
technologies:

The company will be alert to opportunities to introduce new technology and practices to
enhance environmental management. (Waste Management NZ, 2001, p. 11)
120 Organization & Environment 26(1)

The effect of the assumption that advances in technology will bring about sustainability is that focus
is on the development of technology rather than on a redesign of processes. Once again, therefore,
focus is placed on improving current systems rather than creating new, perhaps more sustainable (or
less unsustainable) systems.
Alongside furthering technology, the reports express a belief that advances in efficiency will bring
about sustainable development. A focus on efficiency, and improving efficiency, fits with traditional
approaches to organizing where attention to working on producing efficiently without wasting things
such as effort, time, and money has long been a feature of “successful” organization. Within the dis-
course of organizational sustainable development, however, the concept of efficiency has been altered,
or reframed. This reframing of efficiency and its use in relation to sustainable development has effects.
Within the discourse analyzed here the concept of efficiency is generally used via the concept of
eco-efficiency. Eco-efficiency, coined by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(2006), simply put, means doing more with less. Within the reports analyzed, eco-efficiency is a key
focus and central to sustainable development. The potential effects of eco-efficiency are twofold. First,
the use of resources is rationalized:

As part of Watercare’s commitment to the ongoing improvement of its environmental perfor-

mance and eco-efficiency, the most appropriate use of resources is applied at all stages of its
operations. (Watercare Services, 2000, p. 21)

When using resources, including natural resources, in the name of eco-efficiency, organizations
rationalize or justify resource use. Eco-efficiency results in a silence in the texts surrounding any moral
questioning as to whether natural resources should be used.
Second, and in relation to the sustainable development as enlightened self-interest theme discussed
above, eco-efficiency has links to growth and the rationalization of growth. As Sanford (2003, p. 58)
notes, “[e]co-efficiency measures make it possible to demonstrate progress in environmental terms
while at the same time increasing economic growth.” Eco-efficiency measures and targets are used
rather than measures or targets which focus on “absolute impacts” and “total” resource use figures:

We continue to look for innovative ways to minimize energy consumption and maintain average
power consumption under 100kWh per square metre of retail space. (The Warehouse, 2002, p.
19)

Through using the notion of eco-efficiency, the discourse maintains a position that does not question
growth or any formulation that growth and sustainable development may not be compatible.
The discourse of sustainable development within the organizational context as analyzed here, there-
fore, does not question growth; in fact, growth is a major focus and objective of many of the reporting
organizations:

While The Warehouse already has a sizeable and impressive “footprint” in New Zealand there
is still plenty of room to grow. (The Warehouse 1998, p. 8)

The company is well equipped to achieve significant growth and improved profitability in future
years (City Care, 2002, p. 11)

The position on growth contained within the organizational discourse on sustainable devel-
opment is inherently at odds with the notions of scale and limits found within the discourse of
sustainable development within alternative contexts and perspectives (e.g., Meadows et al.,
2004; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). These notions of resource use and limits have been
Tregidga et al. 121

marginalized or excluded from the organizational discourse on the concept, the effect being a
perspective mirroring that of the “traditional” or promethean environmental discourse where
nature becomes “infinitely exploitable resources that can be used to strive for growth” (Egri &
Pinfield, 1996).

Sustainable Development is About Continuous Improvement

A further assumption contained within the organizational discourse is that sustainable develop-
ment will be brought about through continuous improvement. Within the texts, organizations
make statements identifying that they are “continuously improving” or express commitment to
“continuous improvements”:

Sanford is committed to continually improving its environmental performance. (Sanford,

2002, p. 42)

Once again, the discourse of continuous improvement is not uncommon in discourse of orga-
nizing; however, when used in relation to sustainable development, it plays out in some interest-
ing ways.
Sustainable development is constituted in relation to continuous improvement via both talk
about learning and the use of the “journey” metaphor:

We see sustainability as a journey to improve our performance across all aspects of our
business. (Meridian Energy, 2001, p. 3)

The use of the journey metaphor is common within the reporting texts and is also promoted in
a range of business discourse on sustainability. In their analysis of the use of the journey meta-
phor, Milne et al. (2006) identify that

“Sustainability as a journey” invokes a subtle and powerful use of language that appears
to seriously engage with elements of the discourse around sustainable development and
sustainability, but yet at the same time, paradoxically, may serve to reinforce business as
usual. (p. 801)

Milne et al. claim that through the journey metaphor, the business discourse on sustainable
development simplifies, binds, defers, deflects, and redefines. Within the discourse analyzed here,
the assumption that sustainable development will be brought about through continuous improve-
ments can be seen to work in the same way, in particular, in relation to deferring and deflecting.
An effect of identifying sustainable development as being about continuous improvements, or
through the journey metaphor, is that it deflects attention away from the destination, that is, sus-
tainability. In fact, in some cases, the sole focus is on the journey itself; “there is no end point–the
commitment is to a journey” (Mighty River Power, 2001, p. 17). Through drawing on the notion
of continuous improvement sustainable development is rendered doable. It also becomes about
continually doing better rather than doing good or less. Furthermore, the notion of continuous
improvement defers through forestalling the radical change that many believe is necessary (Eden,
1994; Milne et al., 2006). Through deferring away from discussion and focus on the destination
itself, the discourse of sustainable development within organizations is also able to deflect dis-
senting voices and criticisms.
Milne et al. (2006) note the potential effects of referring to continuous improvement through
reference to the “middle-way” position expressed.
122 Organization & Environment 26(1)

By portraying themselves as “on the path to” or “moving toward” sustainable develop-
ment, businesses can avoid the stigma of being seen to be doing nothing and wedded to
the old-fashioned paradigm of economic exploitation, while at the same time deflecting
attention away from debating about what kind of (radically different) performance is
needed to provide a sustainable future. (p. 822)

Through continuous improvement it becomes harder to critique organizations as they are

“doing something,” and with reference to “doing something” pragmatism in the discourse is once
again recognizable.

Extending Organizational Boundaries:The Inclusion of

the Environment and the Social
A further assumption that appears in the discourse of sustainable development analyzed here, in
particular within the theme of organizational sustainable development as a balancing act, is that
the environment and the social are constituted as an essential part of the organization. As such
they are read as being included within the boundaries of the organization.
Within the organizational discourse, and through the use of the triple bottom line heuristic,
economic, environmental, and social dimensions are all considered to be intricately linked. As
NIWA (1997, p. 4) identifies “a sustainable economy requires a sustainable environment.” This
linking of the economic/environment/social, and the inclusion of these within the realm of the
organization, can be read as differing from traditional approaches where such elements are
excluded or externalized. However, this assumption has effects as the integration of the organiza-
tion/environment/society is undertaken in a way that centralizes and prioritizes the organization,
thus constituting power relations which legitimize the organization.
Within the discourse analyzed, relationships and stakeholder management are key concepts:

Demonstrating the company’s commitment to sustainable development means recognising

its role in the fabric of wider society. It also means the company must build strong rela-
tionships with, and create value for, stakeholders. (Watercare Services, 2001, p. 35)

However, while being recognized as important to the organization, it is the effects of how
these relationships and stakeholders are “managed” that is of interest here.
First, within the texts it is clear that organizations see themselves as central to the environ-
ment and to the social:

Sustainable development involves the triple challenge of meeting the needs of the com-
munity, the economy and the environment. Watercare, within the constraints of its control-
ling legislation, is seeking to balance these potentially conflicting requirements while
efficiently providing for the continuing needs of its customers for a high quality water and
wastewater service. (Watercare Services, 1998-1999, p. 40)

Shell believes that a healthy and prosperous society is built on good business principles.
(Shell NZ 2001/2002, p. 19)

Once it has been acknowledged that the environment and the social are included within the
boundaries of organizations and that organizations are central (indeed pivotal), the assumption
above that the environment can and should be managed by organizations has an effect. While
we have already identified that organizations clearly take a managing position when it comes to
Tregidga et al. 123

the consideration of the environment, this managing role can also be seen to affect stakeholder
relationships and how these are carried out. Within the texts, there is a clear assumption that
relationships with stakeholders should be “managed” and that organizations have control over
this managing process:

Hubbard Foods Ltd recognises that the Company must look after the interests of all these
stakeholders and, where necessary, manage any competing claims. (Hubbard Foods 2000-
2001, p. 3)

The effect of such a position is that organizations are constituted as central, and as logically
and legitimately exercising power.
Although it is recognized that the inclusion of the environment and the social within the
boundaries of organizations represents a break with traditional approaches to organizing where
such elements were externalized (Perrow, 1997), the effect of this break is one that leads to fur-
ther control by organizations. Rather than being emancipated through their acknowledgment, the
environment and the social are subjected to greater control. This fits with the concerns of Cooper
(1995), Puxty (1986, 1991), and Tinker et al. (1991) who suggest a “colonization” of the environ-
ment by accounting and subsequently a legitimation, or extension, of current systems and struc-
tures of domination and exploitation.
In addition to increasing the exercise of power, the extension of the organizational
boundaries has a further effect. When considering the environment and the social, organi-
zations do so at a local or organizational level, that is, focus on the environment and stake-
holder that are directly related to the particular organization, both now and potentially in
the future. As such, both immediate stakeholders and future stakeholders are considered (if
not engaged with). Therefore, included within this assumption is long-term decision mak-
ing for intergenerational equity:

Ensuring intergenerational equity across all aspects of the business is a major driver as the
company seeks to ensure sustainable profitability by balancing the needs of today’s cus-
tomers with the likely requirements of future generations. (Metrowater, 2002, p. 1)

People broadly accept sustainability to mean a state where the demands placed on the
environment and business can be met without reducing the capacity to provide for future
generations. (Orion, 2002, p. 6)

However, this local and organization-centered consideration of stakeholders results in exclu-

sion. Through considering intergenerational equity from the organizational perspective, potential
intergenerational equity of those stakeholders not “attached” to the organization is excluded (or
written out of the texts). Furthermore, the notion of intragenerational equity and justice is
excluded. Intragenerational equity, equity within the current generation and concerned with
issues such as the elimination of poverty, included in many understandings of the concept of
sustainable development (e.g., Dobson, 1999; Jacobs, 1999; Pearce, Markandya, & Barbier,
1989), does not feature—a similar conclusion is reached by Eden (1994) in her analysis of the
International Chamber of Commerce construction of sustainable development. Through consid-
ering the environment and the social through the extension of organizational boundaries, organi-
zations remain limited in focus.
While it is acknowledged that there has been a change to the organizational assumptions regard-
ing the organization/environment/society relationship, the effect of such a change can be deter-
mined as further construction of power relationships and organizational centrality. As such, instead
124 Organization & Environment 26(1)

of challenging the legitimacy of the organization and systems of organizing, a further legitimization
of organizations and the organizational role in sustainable development is established.
Table 1 provides a summary of the findings, offering for each theme short explanations and
apparent silences, as identified in the above narrative. A horizontal reading of the table also
affords an idea of some of the linkages between the quotations from the reports presented above
and the taken-for-granted as a coalition of effects in the discursive construction of organizational
sustainable development. The most salient taken-for-granted assumptions for the individual
themes are highlighted in the last column of the table. These were also derived through a more
holistic reading across all six themes.

Concluding Comments
Constructions of sustainable development within the organizational reporting context are often
economic and/or organization focused. They remain largely within an organizational frame of
reference.They do not challenge the traditional economic objective of organizations; in fact, we
have suggested that they reinforce them by extending organizational management and control.
Constituting sustainable development as enlightened self-interest is something we, as critical
scholars, find concerning and potentially limiting. For us, such a constitution raises concern
surrounding the level of change which will occur, or can occur. For example, if an initiative has
clear environmental, social, and/or economic “benefits” but does not result in a “win” for the
organizations, to what extent can such an initiative be realized under this construction?
Such taken-for-granted assumptions as uncovered in this analysis were generally not only
unchallenging of organizations but also legitimized organizations and marginalized alternative,
potentially radical, understandings. Two of the most concerning marginalizations or exclusions
we found were the forms of equity produced and excluded in the discourse and the absence of
discussion surrounding the tensions between sustainable development and growth.
Our analysis indicates that by maintaining an organization-centric conceptualization of sus-
tainable development, reports focus on the immediate stakeholders of the organization (both
present and future), and exclude broader notions of intergenerational equity (those not associated
with particular organizations) and notions of intragenerational equity. A consideration of the
world’s poor and an elimination of poverty are, to us—and others including the Brundtland
Commission, an important component of sustainable development. Their exclusion from the
discourse is troublesome. A further dialogue which we consider to be central in any discussion
on sustainability is a consideration of the tension between growth and sustainable development.
The organizational discourse analyzed has avoided, through reference to eco-efficiencies for
example, such a discussion. Like the exclusions of discussions on intragenerational equity, the
failure to address the tensions surrounding growth results in a particular construction of sustain-
able development. This construction stands to substantially (re)create the “meaning” of sustain-
able development, in organizations’ self-interest.
More work is needed to problematize the discourse of organizational sustainable development
and ensure that, in wider interests, discursive closure does not occur. Further research analyzing
the organizational discourse using alternative media and in different contexts is needed. Good
work has been done in profiling organizations that attempt more ecocentric approaches, and in
beginning to theorize around the kinds of practices that might make development overall less
unsustainable. A limitation of this study is its reference to just one national context and to orga-
nizational reports. How we might usefully go about extending the influence of our work requires
a retreat from the archives and the comfortable role of theorizing.
Academics—and specifically critical scholars—have a practical role in unmasking such
power asymmetries which Foucault sees as endemic. Moreover, in exercising our own power to
Tregidga et al. 125

Table 1. Summary: Discursive Construction of Organizational Sustainable Development.

Taken-for-granted
assumptions as a coalition
Themes Explanations Apparent silences of effects

Enlightened self- Organizations can protect Impacts of trading off Organizations can and
interest: The the environment, enhance the economic for the should manage the
business case society, and improve long- environment and/or social are environment
term profitability not highlighted
  Eco-efficiencies permit Limits to growth are not Sustainable development
economic growth discussed will be brought about
through advances in
technology and efficiency
Organizational Organizations can balance Ecological limits and the moral Organizations can and
sustainable the sometimes conflicting standing of the nonhuman are should manage the
development as elements of the economic, not discussed environment
a balancing act social, and environmental
  Organizations have authority Traditional management
to decide what gets traded approaches should be
off and how to effect trade- used and developed to
offs manage sustainably
Organizational Organizations engage in Competition for resources and Sustainable development
sustainable sustainable development the challenge of incorporating will be brought about
development as because they depend on the rising/differential stakeholder through advances in
necessary and environment and because demands are not discussed technology and efficiency
important society expects it
  Organizations can maintain  
resource use and social
license to operate if they act
responsibly and progress in
line with other organizations
Being sustainable Organizations have a moral Exactly what that responsibility Organizations can and
as responsibility responsibility for the impact extends to is vague should manage the
and/or of their activities environment
obligation
Organizational Sustainable development can Solutions to business- Sustainable development
sustainable fundamentally challenge threatening challenges are not is about continuous
development as operations, or aspects of offered, for example, equity improvement
challenge and them, but can often be
opportunity reframed more optimistically
  Organizations are being Extending organizational
proactive doing what they boundaries—the inclusion
can across different areas of the environment and
even though it is not easy; the social
more need not be asked of
them
Sustainable Sustainable development The level and extent of Sustainable development
development as can require changes to required changes is unclear is about continuous
a new and an organizational systems improvement
old concept and processes for some
organizations but not for
others
  Organizations need not make Extending organizational
fundamental changes as many boundaries—the inclusion
see themselves as already of the environment and
developing sustainably the social
126 Organization & Environment 26(1)

speak, we are engaging in resistance. The rationale for such work is that we must do more than assist
organizations to sustain (or be seen to sustain) themselves. We must “unmask” exclusions or absences
and “(re)introduce” them into discussions. In resisting, we take risks in that some organizations, con-
tent with the status quo on sustainable development reporting, will not want their people talking with
us. A couple of those intent on more than just refining the reporting art have opened the door for dia-
logue around what sustainable development would really look like, not just to us but to a wider range
of stakeholders. Both short-term and longer term engagements have been effected with a view to
improvement in organizational processes, and a wider and longer term perspective on sustainable
development being offered. Simply put, we see a need to bring equity and growth discussions to the
foreground. What we are suggesting here is that opening up the discourse can provide a basis for dia-
logue between academics and people in organizations who want to effect change. Working with those
organizations that do want to effect change is key. So too is working with those located outside the
organization who seek to effect change (e.g., NGOs, communities). Doing so inevitably means embrac-
ing the wider call for relevant theorizing, and bridging the theory–practice divide. Working both within
and outside organizations, as critical scholars, we can afford the luxury of at least sometimes asking the
difficult questions, and also, even, the obvious questions as to what the efforts being made in the name
of sustainable development are actually sustaining. We can encourage reflection at a time when devel-
oping practices around sustainable development reporting are morphing into different media, and are
part of other discourses on what responsible organizations do. If what organizations do is not much
different from what they have done in the past, we need to say so in a bid to expand reflective capacities
in our students, colleague scholars, and, importantly, among practitioners

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This research was made possible from funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden
Fund, Contract No. 02-UOO-120.

References
Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Guyter.
Ball, A., Owen, D., & Gray, R. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third-party statements
in adding value to corporate environmental reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9, 1-23.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature.
Organization Studies, 24, 143-180.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 717-736.
Bebbington, J. (1997). Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental accounting.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10, 365-381.
Benton, T. (1999). Sustainable development and accumulation of capital: Reconciling the irreconcilable?
In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice
(pp. 199-229). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (2002). The geo-politics of sustainable development: Bureaucracies and politi-
cians in search of the holy grail. Geoforum, 33, 351-365.
Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830-1990: A genealogical analysis. In M. Wetherell., S. Taylor,
& S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 267-309). London, England: Sage.
Tregidga et al. 127

Cooper, C. (1995). Ideology, hegemony and accounting discourse: A case study of the national union of journalists.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 175-209.
Day, R., & Arnold, M. (1998). The business case for sustainable development. Greener Management Interna-
tional, 23, 69-92.
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical
foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 282-311.
Dey, C. (2003). Corporate “silent” and “shadow” accounting. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal,
23(2), 6-9.
Dey, C. (2007). Developing silent and shadow accounts. In J. Unerman, J. Bebbington, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.),
Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 307-326). Oxford, England: Routledge.
Dobson, A. (1999). Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Eden, S. (1994). Using sustainable development: The business case. Global Environmental Change, 4, 160-167.
Eder, K. (1996). The institutionalisation of environmentalism: Ecological discourse and the second transforma-
tion of the public sphere. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity:
Towards a new ecology (pp. 203-223). London, England: Sage.
Egri, C. P., & Pinfield, L. (1996). Organizations and the biosphere: Ecologies and environments. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 459-483). London, England: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Stud-
ies, 26, 915-939.
Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17, 478-500.
Fineman, S. (1997). Constructing the green manager. British Journal of Management, 8, 31-38.
Fineman, S. (2001). Fashioning the environment. Organization, 8, 17-31.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage.
(Original work published 1975)
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans., Vol. 1). New York, NY: Vintage.
(Original work published 1976)
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (C Gordon, Ed.). Sus-
sex, England: Harvester Press.
Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications
for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874-907.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2002). Sustainability reporting: Whose kidding whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of
New Zealand, 81(6), 66-70.
Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: Mirages, methods and myths. In A.
Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 70-80). London, England:
Earthscan.
Gray, R., Walters, D., Bebbington, J., & Thomson, I. (1995). The greening of enterprise: An exploration of the
(non)role of environmental accounting and environmental accountants in organizational change. Critical Per-
spectives on Accounting, 6, 211-239.
Habermas, J. (1971). Towards a rational society. London, England: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vols. 1/2). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work
published 1984)
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinske, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake
and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217-229.
Hajer, M., & Fischer, F. (1999). Introduction. Beyond global discourse: The rediscovery of culture in envi-
ronmental politics. In F. Fischer & M. A. Hajer (Eds.), Living with nature: Environmental politics as
cultural discourse (pp. 1-20). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
128 Organization & Environment 26(1)

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signify-
ing practices (pp. 13-74). London, England: Sage.
Hediger, W. (1999). Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics,
26, 1120-1143.
Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity:
Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21-45). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London, England: Sage.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, England: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (W.
Moore & P. Cammack, Trans.). London, England: Verso.
Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., & Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting change or institutional appropriation? A case study
of the implementation of environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 269-292.
Lehman, C., & Tinker, T. (1987). The “real” cultural significance of accounts. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 12, 503-522.
Lélé, S. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19, 607-621.
Levy, D. (1997). Environmental management as political sustainability. Organization & Environment, 10, 126-
147.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. Journal of
Business Communication, 38, 58-91.
Livesey, S. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable development. Man-
agement Communication Quarterly, 15, 313-349.
Livesey, S., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reports by The
Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization & Environment, 15, 233-258.
Mayhew, N. (1997). Fading to grey: The use and abuse of corporate executives’ “representational power”.
In R. Welford (Ed.), Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development
(pp. 63-95). London, England: Earthscan.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). The limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junc-
tion, VT: Chelsea Green.
Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London, England: Routledge.
Milne, M., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in wonderland: The journey metaphor and envi-
ronmental sustainability. Organization, 13, 801-839.
Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable development
reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22, 1211-1257.
Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34, 75-98.
New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2004, October). The journey: The first five years.
Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Account-
ing, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16, 523-557.
Owen, D., Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: Cosmetic irrelevance of radical agenda for
change? Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, 4, 175-198.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2002). Creating our future: Sustainable development for New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. (1989). Blueprint for a green economy. London, England: Earthscan.
Perrow, C. (1997). Organizing for environmental destruction. Organization & Environment, 10, 66-72.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120-164.
Tregidga et al. 129

Prasad, P., & Elmes, M. (2005). In the name of the practical: Unearthing the hegemony of pragmatics in the dis-
course of environmental management. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 845-867.
Puxty, A. G. (1986). Social accounting as immanent legitimation: A critique of technicist ideology. In
M. Neimark (Ed.), Advances in public interest accounting (Vol. 1, pp. 95-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Puxty, A. G. (1991). Social accountability and universal pragmatics. In A. G. Puxty (Ed.), Advances in public inter-
est accounting (Vol. 4, pp. 35-45). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Redclift, M. (1994). Sustainable development: Economics and the environment. In M. Redclift & C. Sage (Eds.),
Strategies for sustainable development: Local agendas for the southern hemisphere (pp. 17-34). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Sachs, W. (1999). Sustainable development and the crisis of nature: On the political anatomy of an oxymoron. In
F. Fischer & M. Hajer (Eds.), Living with nature: Environmental politics as cultural discourse (pp. 23-41).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Shrivastava, P., & Schneider, S. (1984). Organizational frames of reference. Human Relations, 37, 795-809.
Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A perspective from critical theory. Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment, 12, 71-86.
Taylor, S. (2001). Evaluating and applying discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherell, M. Taylor, &
S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 311-330). London, England: Sage.
Tilling, M. (2004). Some thoughts on legitimacy theory in social and environmental accounting. Social and Envi-
ronmental Accountability Journal, 24(2), 3-7.
Tinker, T., Lehman, C., & Neimark, M. (1991). Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: Political quietism
in corporate social reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(2), 28-54.
Tinker, T., & Neimark, M. (1987). The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions at General Motors:
1917-1976. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 71-88.
Verburg, R., & Wiegel, V. (1997). On the compatibility of sustainability and economic growth. Environmental
Economics, 9, 247-265.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola
Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2006). Catalyzing change: A short history of the WBCSD.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future (the Brundtland report).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, A. (1998). Distinguishing among green business: Growth, green and anomie. Society & Natural
Resources, 11, 241-250.
Welford, R. (1997). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development. London, Eng-
land: Earthscan.

Author Biographies
Helen Tregidga is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting in the Faculty of Business and Law at Auckland
University of Technology, New Zealand. Her research interests are primarily in the areas of business and
sustainability, and social and environmental accounting and reporting.

Kate Kearins is Professor of Management in the Faculty of Business and Law at Auckland University of
Technology, New Zealand. Her research focuses on business constructions of sustainability, social and
environmental entrepreneurship, and stakeholder engagement.

Markus Milne is Professor of Accounting in the College of Business and Economics, University of
Canterbury, New Zealand. His research over the past 20 years has focused on corporate social and envi-
ronmental reporting, in particular critiquing corporate attempts to address (un)sustainability.