APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
1.0. Inter-Rater Reliability
Before deciding on the final set of codes to use for the analysis, we included multiple sets of codes that seemed relevant for the research question. These sets were taken from studies on impression management in SRs. This was done because we did not want to exclude any codes that might be relevant before we had tried them out. Additionally, we wanted to see whether we would choose similar codes to work with. Therefore, the reports were coded individually. The initial codes we used came from the studies by: Cho, Laine, Roberts and Rodrigue, 2015; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Ihlen, 2009; Sandberg and Holmlund, 2014, and Talbot and Boiral, 2015. Note that the codes ‘Description Type 1’ and
‘Description Type 2’ are a new set of codes that we made combining the ‘Type 1’
and ‘Type 2’ aspect of Hahn and Lülfs (2014) ‘Coercive Action’ category and the
‘Description’ category from Sandberg and Holmlund (2014). The initial codes are detailed intable 1below.
Table 1: Complete set of codes used in initial coding
Author(s) Code Description
Cho et al. (2015) Talk Talk is understood to
include descriptive disclosures, generic statements, and broad commitments that are presented without any concrete plans or details of implementation.
Cho et al. (2015) Decisions Decisions consist of
future-oriented
statements, which have a tangible and to some extent detailed outline of forthcoming activities.
Cho et al. (2015) Actions Actions are implied by disclosures, which depict something that has already been done or is currently in process.
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) marginalisation Rendering negative aspects non-relevant, unimportant or
negligibly. By using the marginalisation strategy, companies potentially seek to legitimize a negative incident by rendering it
non-relevant, unimportant, or negligible.
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) Abstraction Generalizing negative aspects as being prevalent throughout (typically) a whole industry. The abstraction strategy is characterized by generalizing the existence of a negative aspect as being prevalent throughout (typically) a whole industry and hence distancing the reporting corporation from the negative aspect
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) Indicating facts Mentioning the existence of a negative aspect. A very common strategy is to simply mention the existence of a negative aspect as a fact without providing explanations or justifications for it.
The company quantifies the occurrence of the negative incident but does not evaluate it and leaves its judgment to the report’s readers.
Although this can be regarded as a
comparably pure and unbiased form of disclosure it might be challenging for the readers to estimate the reported fact especially if no benchmarks (such as industry standards and references) are given to evaluate the figures provided by the company.
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) rationalisation instrumental
Instrumental rationalisation
legitimizes the aspect or practice in question by highlighting the benefits, functions, or purposes
(mostly the effectiveness or efficiency)
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) rationalisation theoretical
Emphasizing some form of “normal” or “natural”
behavior or
development. In such a case of theoretical rationalisation,
legitimation is grounded in “the way things are”
(i.e., the occurrence of the respective aspect is an inevitable fact).
Hahn & Lülfs (2014) Authorisation Referring to authorities.
The Authorisation strategy aims at legitimization by referring to authority.
These authorities can be natural persons (such as the CEO of a company) or impersonal references (such as regulations) Sandberg & Holmlund
(2014),
Hahn & Lülfs (2014)
Description: type 1 A company can use the OIM tactic of
description by reporting facts and numbers that describe its actions. A company can also use the OIM tactic of description by giving examples of its actions.
In this case, the
company does not give a full account of its actions but of a selected few. By providing examples, the company can, however, give the reader the impression that these represent the way the company behaves in general.
Type 1 (imprecise provision of ideas, intent, or measures how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the future) Inexact,
imprecise adjectives and phrases
Sandberg & Holmlund (2014),
Hahn & Lülfs (2014)
Description: type 2 A company can use the OIM tactic of
description by reporting facts and numbers that describe its actions. A company can also use the OIM tactic of description by giving examples of its actions.
In this case, the
company does not give a full account of its actions but of a selected few. By providing examples, the
company can, however, give the reader the impression that these represent the way the company behaves in general.
Type 2 (concrete provision of ideas, intent, or measures how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the future) Concrete numbers, specific descriptions of
sequences and processes.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2014)
Praise The OIM tactic of praise
entails a company presenting its actions in an overly favorable manner. This means that the company foregoes a neutral tone in favor of more, actively
shaping the impression others hold of it by presenting its actions in a successful light. (i.e.
noble/high morals etc) Sandberg & Holmlund
(2014)
Admission The OIM tactic of
admission entails a company readily
admitting that it has not
acted in a
way that supports the impression it tries to portray. Thus, the company readily admits that
it has failed to act sustainably.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2014)
Defense When a company has
failed to act sustainably, it can also use the OIM tactic of defense, that is, it tries to justify why it has not acted sustainably so that its inaction will be perceived as
acceptable. The goal of the use of this tactic is to excuse an unsustainable action so that it does not disturb the impression of the company as a
sustainable actor.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2014)
Subjective Writing Style A subjective writing style is obtained when a company describes matters using only its point of view; the
account is colored by the company’s opinions and/or one-sided arguments in its favor.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2014)
Positive Writing Style A positive writing style entails an imbalance between favorable and unfavorable information for a company. A
company using a positive writing style presents itself and its actions in a way that immoderately
emphasizes favorable aspects as opposed to unfavorable aspects and, as such, fails to give equal attention to both realms.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2015)
Vague Writing Style A vague writing style entails a company giving unspecific information about its actions. The use of a vague style obscures what the company is actually saying, thereby making it incomprehensible to the reader.
Sandberg & Holmlund (2015)
Emotional Writing Style An emotional writing style prevails when the company makes the text personal and tries to evoke feelings from the reader. Thus, the writing style emphasizes
emotion over cognition.
Talbot & Boiral (2015) Self-proclamation of excellence
Promoting an idealized green image, focus on commitments and awards received, and exemplification of the company
Talbot & Boiral (2015) Promotion of a systematic vision
Extended vision of the life cycle of the products, emphasis on economic, social and environmental benefits of the company's activities
Talbot & Boiral (2015) Denial and minimisation Trivialization of the potential impact of global warming/climate change and minimising corporate responsibility Talbot & Boiral (2015) Denouncing unfair
treatment and deceptive appearances
Criticism of simplistic interpretations of the environmental impact of businesses, need to provide context information on the subject
Talbot & Boiral (2015) Economic and
technological blackmail
Emphasis on economic and technological constraints of
environments, which may threaten the
survival of business.
Talbot & Boiral (2015) Blaming others Search for scapegoats, relativization of the company's impact and focus on organisations or sectors considered to be more polluting
1.1 Progression of inter-rater reliability and development of codes
For Yara’s 2011 report our inter-rater reliability equaled 43.06%, the low nature of this result prompted a discussion of the codes. We discussed every part of the report that we had coded: why we had chosen to apply the different codes,
whether we agreed or disagreed on the interpretation of the code, and whether the code was a good fit for the coded segment. This discussion resulted in the
dismissal of the following codes:Talk, DecisionsandActionsby Cho et al., (2015). The main reason for the dismissal was diverging interpretations and lack of agreement about coded segments. In addition, these codes were overlapping with Sandberg and Holmlund’s (2014) analytical categories, but were less detailed. Due to some difference in the use of the codes “Self-proclamation of excellence” (Talbot & Boiral, 2015) and “Praise” (Sandberg & Holmlund, 2014) we discussed when these should be applied. To make sure we understood the codes from the different authors properly, we re-read the articles before coding the next report by Yara.
Following the analysis of Yara’s 2012 SR, our inter-rater reliability was 47.67%. We found that our main difficulties arose from the different use of the following codes:Self-proclamation of excellence, Praise, Description type 1and Description type 2(Hahn & Lülfs, 2014; Sandberg & Holmlund, 2014; Talbot &
Boiral, 2015). Our discussion regarding the ‘Self-proclamation of excellence’ and
‘Praise’ codes resulted in the removal of the former code. This was mainly because we found ‘Praise’ to be more precise and easier to differentiate from the
‘Description Type 1’ and ‘Description Type 2’ codes, than ‘Self-proclamation of excellence’ was. In addition, we deemed Sandberg and Holmlund’s (2014) Organisational Impression Management (OIM) category to be more relevant for our thesis.
Further, we analyzed Yara’s 2013 SR. Our inter-rater reliability for this report was 67.50%, which is still far lower than ideal. The codes which we had the most disagreement about were ‘Description Type 1’ and ‘Description Type 2’. We decided to remove these codes altogether and replace them with Sandberg and Holmlund’s (2014) original code “Description”. Talbot and Boiral’s (2015)
“Coercive Action Type 1” and “Coercive Action Type 2” were also added. This was due to the nuance offered by these codes, which we noticed the possible usefulness of whilst analysing the 2013 report.
After analyzing Yara’s 2014 and 2015 SR and comparing our codings, our inter-rater reliability was calculated to 67% and 74.57%. Note that the slightly higher reliability achieved for the 2015 report might be due to the fact that it was only 17 pages long, compared to the 42 pages of the 2014 report. Whilst the 67%
is not a score we are satisfied with, we clearly saw the improvements of removing the ‘‘Description Type 1’ and ‘Description Type 2’ codes, compared to the
previously attained reliability scores. However, due to some differences in how we coded ‘Praise’ and ‘Description’ we saw the need to further differentiate between these codes. We added the following points to the code description in order to decide whether a segment should be coded as praise:the organisation present itself as noble/with high morals (i.e. acts of goodwill); the organisation praises its own existence and the benefits that comes with its existence(social,
environmental, societal, local community);the organisation presents itself itself as superior to other actors; The organisation presents itself as knowledgeable and experienced(i.e. an authority that can be trusted). In order to improve the inter-rater reliability further we therefore decided to adjust and/or add a more detailed description to all the codes in Atlas.ti. The examples that we collectively thought captured the code best were also included in the code description (see table 2). These examples were taken from the articles that our codes were retrieved from.
Yara’s 2016 and 2017 SRs were both coded before calculating the inter-rater reliability. For 2016 the reliability was 71.04%, whilst for 2017 the reliability was 73.51%.
Before coding the 2018 report, we made a decision regarding whether we should code the participation in sustainability-related events as actions. We decided that sustainability-related events that the organisation or employees in the
Management Group have attended are not coded. However, if the organisation has
initiated/created the sustainability-related event it will be coded. Additionally, we decided to expand the scope of the ‘Description’, ‘Admission’, ‘Defense’and
‘Praise’codes. As such, ‘Description’ is also used anytime an organisation provides information regarding the sustainability-related procedures, practices, and initiatives they have in place. Similarly, ‘Admission’, ‘Defense’,and‘Praise’
is also used anytime information is presented in a manner consistent with the code description, i.e. it does not need to specifically relate toactions, but could also refer to descriptions etc. This adds to the original scope of the codes, which only covers the neutral presentation of theactionstaken by the organisation (see table 2).
The inter-rater reliability for the 2018 report by Yara was calculated to 69.51%, which was a decline from the > 70% we had achieved since 2015. This prompted a new discussion regarding which information that should be coded and not. The discussion was necessary because we did not differ much in how we coded the same segments, rather, our ill-alignment resulted from a difference in how we included segments. Following the discussion, we agreed on the following
‘rules’ going forward: 1. Sustainability-related tables in the appendix should be coded asone codeif all the indicators are missing from the text; 2.
Sustainability-related prizes won by the organisation are not coded. However, rankings relating to sustainability, such as for CDP should still be coded, and; 3.
Excerpts from paragraphs that are presented as ‘quotes’ as part of a visual aspect on a page, or on a stand-alone page, should not be coded.
The rationale for coding sustainability-related tables as one, is that we often coded a different row or section of the table to signify importance. As such, we found it better to simply include the entire table in one code. The reasoning behind excluding sustainability-related prizes is that there is a vast amount of differences regarding this category within and between sectors. As such, it is difficult to get sufficient knowledge for us to accurately judge whether these are relevant for inclusion or not. Excerpts from the text that are presented as a visual aspect is excluded because we differed much on the extent to which we coded these segments.
For Yara’s 2019 SR we had an inter-rater reliability of 80.00%, which is the highest score so far. Due to the improvement in reliability we had achieved throughout our coding of Yara’s reports, we decided that it was appropriate to begin coding separate organisations individually. As such, the inter-rater
reliability scores obtained from sampling random reports from various
organisations will be presented in table 3. Note that table 3 is a summary of all the inter-rater reliability tests we have completed, therefore it also includes the
reliability-scores obtained from Yara’s reports.
Table 2: Finalised set of codes
Author(s) Code Description Examples
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
marginalisation Rendering negative aspects non-relevant, unimportant or negligibly. By using the marginalisation strategy, companies potentially seek to legitimize a negative incident by
rendering it non-relevant, unimportant, or negligible.
Typical language: Judgmental phrases and adjectives (no + adjective, minor, small, insignificant)
‘‘No significant environmental damage has been caused in the past.’’ The non-compliances were all minor.’’ "The bank received and corrected a small number of violation notices in 2010, including several nonmonetary notices of violation.’’
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
Abstraction Generalizing negative aspects as being prevalent throughout
(typically) a whole industry. The abstraction strategy is characterized by generalizing the existence of a negative aspect as being prevalent
Typical language: Vagueness and ambiguity (some, various
…)
‘As an automaker, we are part of an industrial sector that consumes large volumes of material.’’
throughout
(typically) a whole industry and hence distancing the reporting
corporation from the negative aspect Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
Indicating facts Mentioning existence of a negative aspect. A very common strategy is to simply mention the
existence of a negative aspect as a fact without
providing explanations or justifications for it.
The company quantifies the occurrence of the negative incident but does not evaluate it and leaves its judgment to the report’s readers.
Although this can be regarded as a
comparably pure and unbiased form of disclosure it might be challenging for the readers to
Typical language:
Quantification of negative aspects, "We regret to report the deaths of seven company associates and nine contractors in 2010.’
estimate the reported fact especially if no benchmarks (such as industry standards and references) are given to evaluate the figures provided by the company.
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
rationalisation instrumental
Instrumental rationalisation legitimizes the aspect or practice in question by
highlighting the benefits, functions, or purposes (mostly the effectiveness or efficiency)
In instrumental rationalisation companies try to explain negative corporate impact such as rising CO2 emissions by reaching corporate aims such as production enlargements.
Typical language: Explanation of factual reasons (due to, caused by …)
‘‘The rise in cloud computing is requiring more data center capacity, which in turn is causing the use of more energy.’’ (Microsoft: 33)
‘‘Due to an above-average sales increase in the premium segment, Daimler had to pay a CAFE penalty of US$11.8 million for model year 2010.’’
(Daimler:66)
Hahn &
Lülfs
rationalisation theoretical
Emphasizing some form of “normal” or
Typical language: Explanation of inevitability.
(2014) “natural” behavior or development. In such a case of theoretical rationalisation, legitimation is grounded in “the way things are” (i.e., the occurrence of the respective aspect is an inevitable fact).
‘‘Complaints are bound to happen in an organisation with more than 76 million
customers worldwide.’
‘‘Industrial growth inevitably has an impact on biological diversity, which is the basis for healthy food, clean water and a balanced climate.’’
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
Authorisation Referring to authorities. The Authorisation strategy aims at legitimization by referring to authority. These authorities can be natural persons (such as the CEO of a company) or impersonal
references (such as regulations)
Typical language: Specific mentioning of legitimizing authority or benchmark
‘‘Some academic research suggests an impact on prices (both up and down) from speculative activity, but most of the peer-reviewed,
academic literature suggests that the fundamentals of demand and supply are the dominant drivers of
commodities prices.”
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
Coercive Action: Vague
The company provides ideas, intent, or measures for how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the
future.The examples emphasize that the
Vague(Type 1): (imprecise provision of ideas, intent, or measures how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the future) Inexact, imprecise adjectives and phrases.
Vague(Type 1) indicates
company judges the negative effect or impact as being so important to take corrective action.
Hence, the
company—at least implicitly—takes responsibility for the occurrence of the negative aspect.
examples where corrective action is only eva-
sively described such as:
‘‘To more effectively monitor undisclosed subcontracting, we have taken steps to enhance
our Standards for Suppliers, audit reporting and training processes”
“These incidents were reported externally, as appropriate, through our management systems, and in each case we took remedial action and analyzed the events in order to avoid a recurrence.’’
Hahn &
Lülfs (2014)
Coercive Action:
Detailed
The company provides ideas, intent, or measures for how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the
future.The examples emphasize that the company judges the negative effect or impact as being so important to take corrective action.
Hence, the
company—at least implicitly—takes
Detailed(Type 2) (concrete provision of ideas, intent, or measures how to tackle or avoid the negative aspect in the future).
Detailed(Type 2) quotes empha-
size examples where the specific corrective action is clarified and precisely named as displayed here:
‘‘Wastewater discharged from compressors exceeded
local limits. New filters have been installed in the sewage
responsibility for the occurrence of the negative aspect.
system, and a specialist has been hired to improve the wastewater control system.’’
‘‘We terminated two supplier relationships, one because of inadequate environmental standards, the other due to socially unethical practices.’’
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2014)
Praise The OIM tactic of praise entails a company presenting its actions in an overly favorable manner. This means that the company foregoes a neutral tone in favor of more, actively shaping the impression others hold of it by
presenting its actions in a successful light.
(i.e. noble/high morals etc)
Typical language:
- Praises its own existence and the benefits that comes with its existence (social,
environmental, societal, local community)
- Presenting itself as superior to other actors.
- Present itself as knowledgeable and
experienced (i.e. an authority that can be trusted)
“We believe our 50 years of experience in Alaska, Canada, Norway and Russia have given us extensive knowledge of how to work responsibly and safely in arctic and sub-arctic conditions.”
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2014)
Admission The OIM tactic of admission entails a company readily admitting that it has
“One in three people do not have enough water to meet their needs, according to the World Health organisation.
not acted in a way that supports the impression it tries to portray. Thus, the company readily admits that it has failed to act sustainably.
This situation is expected to intensify as cities and
populations grow and demand for water increases. [. . .] some of our industry’s operations use quantities of water that can be significant – for example, refining processes. Extracting one barrel of bitumen from oil sands takes two to three barrels of water [. . .].”
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2014)
Defense When a company
has failed to act sustainably, it can also use the OIM tactic of defense, that is, it tries to justify why it has not acted sustainably so that its inaction will be perceived as acceptable. The goal of the use of this tactic is to excuse an unsustainable action so that it does not disturb the
impression of the company as a sustainable actor.
Defense arguments applied by companies:
- No need to take action when acting unsustainably
- Not possible to act sustainably
- Not part of the company’s responsibility to act
sustainably
“Renewable energy will grow rapidly but it will take many years to meet large-scale demand. Traditionally it has taken around 30 years for a new energy source to capture 1 percent of the global market.
Biofuels [. . .] are there now.”
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2014)
Subjective Writing Style
A subjective writing style is obtained when a company
“As global energy demand rises, natural gas can balance economic growth with efforts
describes matters using only its point of view; the account is colored by the company’s opinions and/or one-sided arguments in its favor.
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will be essential to achieving and sustaining a low-carbon energy future.”
- This does not take into account divergent views on renewable energy sources etc.
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2014)
Positive Writing Style
A positive writing style entails an imbalance between favorable and unfavorable information for a company. A company using a positive writing style presents itself and its actions in a way that immoderately emphasizes
favorable aspects as opposed to
unfavorable aspects and, as such, fails to give equal attention to both realms.
Another way for a company to use a positive style is to boost the favorable aspects and gloss over the unfavorable
For example words like:
“comprehensive” “rigorous”
On the other hand, when talking about employee layoffs, companies use the neutral expression “leaving”, thus presenting employees as active decision-making parties.
aspects of its operations. This entails the company giving greater positive emphasis to the favorable aspects reported through the use of positively charged vocabulary while presenting unfavorable aspects in a way that makes it appear less negative than it really is.
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2015)
Vague Writing Style
A vague writing style entails a company giving unspecific
information about its actions. The use of a vague style obscures what the company is actually saying, thereby making it incomprehensible to the reader. Instead of presenting precise figures that give a clear understanding of what has been accomplished, a company can use different expressions
Instead of presenting precise figures that give a clear understanding of what has been accomplished, a company can use different expressions to obscure results. In the analyzed reports, phrases, such as “a number of”, “many”,
“some”, “almost”, “more than”
and “up to” were used.
to obscure results. A company can use a vague style by using rhetorical
expressions that sound impressive but have little or no tangible meaning upon closer
examination. Empty phrases may present a great impression of the company but are ambiguous and confusing for the reader. A vague style can also entail vocabulary with unclear meaning. A company can use words that at first seem to have a clear meaning but that on closer inspection do not give the reader a clear understanding of the company’s actions.
Sandberg &
Holmlund (2015)
Emotional Writing Style
An emotional
writing style prevails when the company makes the text personal and tries to evoke feelings from
Phrases like: “We are saddened by”
the reader. Thus, the writing style
emphasizes emotion over cognition.
A company can also use an emotional style by outwardly showing emotion, thus making the reporting more personal by
portraying itself as a feeling being. By showing its own emotions, the company can evoke emotions in the reader
Talbot &
Boiral (2015)
Promotion of a systematic vision
Extended vision of the life cycle of the products, emphasis on economic, social and environmental benefits of the company's activities
“When they are utilized (aluminum products) in place of heavier steel wheels, trucks realize significant fuel
economy and GHG emission reductions over the life of the vehicle. We estimate that for every kilogram of weight saved, a truck will save 20-40 kilograms of CO2 emissions over its lifetime.”
Talbot &
Boiral (2015)
Denial and minimisation
Trivialization of the potential impact of global
The first argument used is to relativize industry emissions compared to the global carbon
warming/climate change and minimising corporate
responsibility. The objective of this neutralization technique is to minimise the problem of climate change and the impact of emissions.
Two arguments are mainly used to legitimize a company’s operations.
footprint or to that of other more polluting industries.
The second argument consists in denying or minimising the importance of external pressures on climate change issues or relativizing the environmental impacts of this activity. This strategy allows companies to defend the legitimacy of their operations by downplaying the
importance which is generally accorded to climate change and corporate responsibility in this area
Talbot &
Boiral (2015)
Denouncing unfair
treatment and deceptive appearances
Criticism of simplistic
interpretations of the environmental impact of
businesses, need to provide context information on the subject. In general, they claim that stakeholders have insufficient knowledge of industrial processes and organisational realities to seriously evaluate the
companies’ efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. The charges against the energy-intensive industry are claimed to be unjustified or disproportionate if one takes into account the
companies’ actions aimed at minimizing environmental impacts.
According to the companies that express this view, the complexity of climate change and the lack of
understanding of these issues by the public and the media unfairly affect the image projected by large emitters.
Talbot &
Boiral (2015)
Economic and technological blackmail
Emphasis on economic and technological constraints of
environments, which may threaten the survival of business.
This neutralization technique allows an organisation to justify its lack of climate commitment or to make excuses should it fail to meet its reduction target.
Two justifications are used to explain the inability to further reduce emissions.
1: additional reductions will be difficult to achieve given the technical and technological limitations related to the production processes.
Companies argue that further improvements are impossible without the development of new technologies. In addition, some companies report having the best available technology economically
achievable.
2. Proposed by some large emitters
concerns the lack of financial resources and the economic risks associated with environmental investments.
Talbot &
Boiral (2015)
Blaming others Search for scapegoats,
relativization of the company's impact and focus on organisations or sectors considered to be more polluting.
It allows a large emitter to justify its industrial activity by emphasizing the fact that more
reprehensible practices are observed in other companies or sectors, which are considered to be even more polluting.
This technique allows the company to divert attention from the problems observed in its practices or to
improve the image of the company while underlining its commitments
In addition to our finalized set of codes, we saw the need to include specific codes related to Covid-19 in the 2020 reports. We developed three codes building on codes we already had included in our finalised set. “Covid-19:
Acknowledgement” builds on the code “admission”, and is considered to be a neutral code together with “admission”, “description”, and “coercive action:
detailed”. “Covid-19: Minimisation” is developed similarly to “denial and minimisation”, and “Covid-19: Rationalisation” is built on the existing code
“rationalisation: instrumental”. Further explanations of the Covid-19 codes can be seen in the table below.
Table 3: Description of Covid-19 codes
Name of Code Description Example
Covid-19:
Acknowledgment
The organisation acknowledges that Covid-19 has caused the decrease of emissions.
They do not attribute the major decrease to their own targeted measures.
“Due to Covid-19, our internal emissions and the number of business trips were significantly reduces in 2020”
(Storebrand, 2020, p.37)
Covid-19: Minimisation The organisation underplays the effect Covid-19 has had on their emissions. This is done through two types of arguments:
1. The organisation fails to mention Covid-19 in relation to
moderate/major
decreases in emissions.
2. The organisation minimises the effect
“Reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from our own operations. Carbon intensity reduced from 0.29 in 2019 to 0.08 in 2020” (Gjensidige, 2020, p.134)
Covid-19 has had on their decreased
emissions, and attributes the decrease, or parts of it, to their own
reduction-efforts.
Covid-19:
Rationalisation
Rationalization:
Covid-19 legitimizes increased emissions (or emission indicators, such as water, waste,
electricity) by
highlighting restrictions, initiatives and preventive measures the
organisation
implemented in response to the pandemic.
Typical language:
Explanation of factual reasons (due to, caused by …).
“Extraordinary measures related to the corona and fear of unpackaged goods have affected many improvements that have been implemented in the past”
(Norgesgruppen, 2020, p. 154-155)
Table 4: Summary of inter-rater reliability scores
Organisations & Year Nanna Vilde Nr. of Agreements
Reliability Score Yara International AS
2011 87 122 45 43,06%
2012 86 86 41 47,67%
2013 95 92 63 67,50%
2014 80 84 54 67,00%
2015 30 29 22 74,54%
2016 91 92 65 71,04%
2017 97 99 56 73,51%
2018 84 80 57 69,51%
2019 73 83 48 80,00%
Stolt-Nielsen AS
2015 7 7 7 100%*
2020 39 33 28 77,78%
Gjensidige AS
2015 14 14 14 100%*
2020 122 120 89 73,61%
Orkla
2010 23 23 17 74,42%
Norsk Hydro
2016 84 83 59 71,17%
2017 95 99 78 80,41%
* = this reliability score is high because this report was very short, which resulted in few codes.
2.0 Sample
To be able to provide a comparison of organisations within an industry, we decided that a minimum of two (2) organisations should be included per industry.
However, whenever possible, the aim was three (3) organisations per industry. A factor which influenced the number of organisations per industry was the amount of organisations with available reports in the time period 2010-2020, which varied significantly. For instance, we had to contact many organisations via email in order to request access to their SRs. With the exception of one (1) organisation, we received no replies to our inquiries. As such, availability of reports caused some limitations regarding which organisations and industries we could include in our analysis. Time constraints was another factor that affected the total number of organisations in our sample. The final count of 15 organisations spread across six industries is therefore slightly lower than we had originally planned. A complete overview of the organisations we have analysed, including their industry of affiliation is presented in table 4.
Table 5: Organisations and industries in the sample
Organisation Industry
DNB
Finance Nordea
Sparebank1 SR-Bank Storebrand
Tryg Insurance
Gjensidige Statkraft
Energy Norsk Hydro
Mowi Aquaculture
Salmar
Norgesgruppen
Consumer goods Orkla
Reitangruppen Wilh. Wilhelmsen
Shipping Stolt-Nielsen
3.0 Choice of Organisations for Inter-Rater Reliability After having coded Yara International AS, we wanted to randomise which organisations that would be tested for inter-rater reliability. To ensure that we randomly chose organisations, we used an online dice-roller with a D20 dice (https://rolladie.net/roll-a-d20-die). The online dice-roller rolls a 20-sided dice, as many times as specified. In our case, we chose to roll the dice four times. Before rolling the die, we listed the organisations in our sample, and assigned them a number based on the order we added them into the document (see table 5). The result of the die-roll was: 11, 8, 12, and 6, which equals the following
organisations: SN, Gjensidige, Orkla and Norsk Hydro.
Before reading the reports by SN and Gjensidige, we decided amongst ourselves to test the middle (2015) and last report (2020). With Orkla and Norsk Hydro, we did a die roll again. This time we used a D12 dice
(https://rolladie.net/roll-a-d12-die), which is a 12-sided die. To ensure the
inclusion of 2010, we simply made 2010 equal 1 (see table 6 below) We chose to roll it three times. The result of the die-roll was: 1, 7 and 8. This equalled 2010, 2016 and 2017.
Table 6: Organisations and Die-numbers
Organisation Number on the die
Yara 1
SB1 2
DNB 3
Nordea 4
Storebrand 5
NH 6
Statkraft 7
Gjensidige 8
Tryg 9
WW 10
SN 11
Orka 12
RG 13
NG 14
Salmar 15
Mowi 16
Table 7: Years and Die-numbers
Years Number on the die
2010 1
2011 2
2012 3
2013 4
2014 5
2015 6
2016 7
2017 8
2018 9
2019 10
2020 11
