Sense-Making and Sense-Giving: Reaching Through the Smokescreen of Sustainability Disclosure in the Stock Market
Financial analysts’ role as information intermediaries between management teams and investors is vital for the efficient allocation of resources on the stock market. The increased focus on sustainability information in corporate reports has affected financial analysts in their important work of interpreting, assessing and communicating value-added information to their clients, i.e. the investors. The challenges they face relate to the ambiguous nature of sustainability information and its difference from traditional financial information. How do analysts reach through this smokescreen? How do analysts make sense of sustainability information, and how do they give sense to this information when they provide investment advices to their investors? In this chapter, these challenges are addressed from a cognitive-frame perspective. We argue that the first part of 2000s was characterized by cognitive dissonance due to both a low social legitimacy and a low cognitive legitimacy, i.e. sustainability was not yet requested by the investors to be attended to and it was regarded too ambiguous to be relevant for being considered in a valuation context. In the latter part of 2010s, we argue that there is only a partial cognitive dissonance. At this time, sustainability information is beginning to be socially legitimate and requested by investors. However, the complexity of the situation remains. This type of information is still not considered as cognitive legitimate due to the ambiguous nature, which renders difficulties for the sense-making and sense-giving processes. The findings have implications not the least in the ongoing quest of developing frameworks, standards and legislation (e.g. the EU directive (2014/EU/95)), that opt for improving the relevance, credibility and comparability of sustainability information.
KeywordsSustainability information Financial analysts Cognitive frames Cognitive dissonance Sense-making Sense-giving Social legitimacy Cognitive legitimacy
- Abhayawansa, S., Elijido‐Ten, E., & Dumay, J. (2018). A practice theoretical analysis of the irrelevance of integrated reporting to mainstream sell‐side analysts. Accounting and Finance, 57(4), 38.Google Scholar
- Arvidsson, S. (2003). Demand and supply of information on intangibles: The case of knowledge-intense companies. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund University Press.Google Scholar
- Arvidsson, S. (November 2018, forthcoming). The 1st SUBREA conference report. Media Tryck, Lund, Sweden. Google Scholar
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (No. 10). London: Penguin UK. Google Scholar
- Clatworthy, M., & Lee, E. (2018). Financial analysts’ role in valuation and stewardship.Google Scholar
- Essland, C., & Olausson, A. (2018). Barriers for responsible investments: Facilitating a greener economy—A multiple case study of asset management companies. Master Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2014). Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large companies (2014/95/EU). Brussels.Google Scholar
- Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
- Hallvarsson, M. (2009). Rimliga Ambitioner Med CSR? [Reasonable Ambitions with CSR?]. In T. Borglund, H. De Geer, & M. Hallvarsson (Eds.), Värdeskapande CSR – Hur företag tar socialt ansvar (pp. 145–156). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts Aka- demiska Förlag.Google Scholar
- Ifvarsson, C. (2000). Sensemaking and management: A theoretical discussion with research implications. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå tekniska universitet.Google Scholar
- Johansson, J. (1998). Direct contacts between financial analysts and traded companies. Licentiate dissertation, Luleå. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-18509.
- Johansson, J. (2004). Recommendation changes in walls of glass: Perceived roles and relative importance of direct contacts. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå tekniska universitet.Google Scholar
- Johansson, J., & Malmström, M. (2013). The business model transparency paradox in innovative growth ventures: Trade-offs between competitive advantages and agency costs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Research, 3(2), 238–263. Google Scholar
- Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability: From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital (just-accepted), 19(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (2009). The politics of the carbon economy. The Politics of Climate Cchange: A Survey, 80–99.Google Scholar
- Ramiah, V., Gregoriou, G., von Müller, C., & Brieger, S. (2016). Handbook of environmental and sustainable finance (pp. 131–145). Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Rosen, H., & Kuehlwein, K. T. (1996). Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Schipper, K. (1991). Analysts’ forecasts. Accounting Horizons, 5(4), 105.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: Toward a theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identity.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy disputes.Google Scholar
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organization.Google Scholar
- Share Action. (2017, February). ShareAction, the UK-based campaign group, and Boston Common Asset Management, the US SRI specialist, are working together on a shareholder engagement programme with banks in Europe and the US on climate change. https://shareaction.org/.
- Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
- Swedish Pension Agency. (2016, September 23). Statistik över hållbara fonder inom premiepensionssystemet.Google Scholar
- UN Sustainable-development-goals. (2018). https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
- UNWCED (United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Report of the United Nation World Commission on environment and development ‘our common future’ (the Brundtland report). (Item 83, 42nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly).Google Scholar
- Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.Google Scholar