Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving Goffman

Jill F. Solomon, Aris Solomon, Nathan L. Joseph, Simon D. Norton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees' utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors' shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the 'performers' (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)195-213
Number of pages19
JournalAccounting, Organizations and Society
Volume38
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Federal Government Report on Social Policy
environmental reporting
Social Responsibility
investor
myth
Social Perception
management
Cosmetics
Decision Making
Interviews
private institution
responsibility
cosmetics
social cognition
transparency
Impression management
Social reporting
Environmental reporting
Investors
decision making

Cite this

@article{087058c659b040ebaa78bb271f47a619,
title = "Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: insights from Erving Goffman",
abstract = "This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees' utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors' shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the 'performers' (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.",
author = "Solomon, {Jill F.} and Aris Solomon and Joseph, {Nathan L.} and Norton, {Simon D.}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "195--213",
journal = "Accounting, Organizations and Society",
issn = "0361-3682",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting : insights from Erving Goffman. / Solomon, Jill F.; Solomon, Aris; Joseph, Nathan L.; Norton, Simon D.

In: Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, 04.2013, p. 195-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting

T2 - insights from Erving Goffman

AU - Solomon, Jill F.

AU - Solomon, Aris

AU - Joseph, Nathan L.

AU - Norton, Simon D.

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees' utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors' shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the 'performers' (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.

AB - This paper explores the nature of private social and environmental reporting (SER). From interviews with UK institutional investors, we show that both investors and investees employ Goffmanesque, staged impression management as a means of creating and disseminating a dual myth of social and environmental accountability. The interviewees' utterances unveil private meetings imbued with theatrical verbal and physical impression management. Most of the time, the investors' shared awareness of reality belongs to a Goffmanesque frame whereby they accept no intentionality, misrepresentation or fabrication, believing instead that the 'performers' (investees) are not intending to deceive them. A shared perception that social and environmental considerations are subordinated to financial issues renders private SER an empty encounter characterised as a relationship-building exercise with seldom any impact on investment decision-making. Investors spoke of occasional instances of fabrication but these were insufficient to break the frame of dual myth creation. They only identified a handful of instances where intentional misrepresentation had been significant enough to alter their reality and behaviour. Only in the most extreme cases of fabrication and lying did the staged meeting break frame and become a genuine occasion of accountability, where investors demanded greater transparency, further meetings and at the extreme, divested shares. We conclude that the frontstage, ritualistic impression management in private SER is inconsistent with backstage activities within financial institutions where private financial reporting is prioritised. The investors appeared to be in a double bind whereby they devoted resources to private SER but were simultaneously aware that these efforts may be at best subordinated, at worst ignored, rendering private SER a predominantly cosmetic, theatrical and empty exercise.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877148337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001

DO - 10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84877148337

VL - 38

SP - 195

EP - 213

JO - Accounting, Organizations and Society

JF - Accounting, Organizations and Society

SN - 0361-3682

IS - 3

ER -