Reputation risk management on the discourse of Samarco corporate reports
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.158709Keywords:
Reputation risk management, RRM, Legitimacy, SamarcoAbstract
The objective of this research is to investigate the influence of reputation risk management (RRM) on the disclosure of corporate reports, especially sustainability reports. The study analysed reports of Samarco - mining company responsible for the Fundão dam in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil, object of the accident occurred in November 2015. The period comprised 2010 to 2016, the latter covering the disaster and its social and environmental impacts. The content analysis of the reports suggests the use of social and environmental reports as an RRM tool by analyzing selected reputation elements and applying an image restoration typology. The findings contribute to the understanding of the determinants of socio-environmental disclosure, broadening the spectrum of legitimacy theory, adding the reputation component and risk management to reputation.
Downloads
References
environmental disclosures and reputation risk management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(3), 1287-
1297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.027.
Bebbington, J, Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk
management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337-361. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513570810863932.
Benoit, W.L. (1995). Accounts, Excuses and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Bice, S. (2014). What Gives You a Social Licence? An Exploration of the Social Licence to Operate in the
Australian Mining Industry. Resources, 3(1), 62-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3010062.
Camargo, B. V., & Justo, A. M. (2013). IRAMUTEQ: um software gratuito para análise de dados textuais. Temas
Psicol. Ribeirão Preto, 21(2).
Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study
of Total S.A’.s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/09638180802579616.
Cho, C., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W. & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organised hypocrisy, organizational façades, and
sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aos.2014.12.003.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimating effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical
foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 281-311. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513570210435852.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures
of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3),
312-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435861.
Deephouse, D.L., & Carter, S.M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and
organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x.
Eugenio, T., Lourenço, I. C., & Morais, A. I. (2010). Recent developments in social and environmental accounting
research. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(2), 286-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111011051775.
Friedman, A.L., & Miles, S. (2001). Socially responsible investment and corporate social and environmental
reporting in the UK: an exploratory study. British Accounting Review, 33(4), 523-548. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1006/bare.2001.0172.
Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2), 5-13. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540024.
Gray, R., Owen, D.L., & Adams, C.A. (1996) Accounting and Accountability: changes and challenges in corporate
social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall, London.
Kuruppu, S., & Milne, M. (2014). Managing reputation and maintaining legitimacy: Understanding a company’s
responses to sustainability. Working paper, University of Canterbury, NZ.
Kuruppu S., Milne M., & Tilt C. (2019). Gaining, maintaining and repairing organisational legitimacy: when to
report and when not to report. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(7), 2062-2087. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1282.
Larkin, J. (2003). Strategic Reputation Risk Management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 19(2-3), 99-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.004.
Miles, M. P., & Govin, J. G. (2000). Environmental Marketing: A source of reputational, competitive and financial
advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299-311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006214509281.
Milne, M. J., & Patten, D.M. (2002). Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining
the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 372-405.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435889.
Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
10(4), 297-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3.
Patten, D. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(92)90042-Q.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4 ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pellegrino, C., & Lodhia, S. (2012). Climate change accounting and the Australian mining industry: exploring
the links between corporate disclosure and the generation of legitimacy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36,
68-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.022.
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077-1093.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.274.
Samarco (2011). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2010. Belo Horizonte.
Samarco (2012). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2011. Belo Horizonte.
Samarco (2013). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2012. Belo Horizonte.
Samarco (2014). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2013. Belo Horizonte.
Samarco (2015). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2014. Belo Horizonte.
Samarco (2017). Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade 2015-2016. Belo Horizonte.
Serra, C. (2018). Tragédia em Mariana: a história do maior desastre ambiental do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Record.
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management
Review, 20(3), 571–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
Thomaz, J. C., & Brito, E. P. Z. (2010). Reputação Corporativa: Construtos Formativos e Implicações para a
Gestão. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 2(14), 229-250. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-
65552010000200004.
Toms, J.S. (2002). Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate environmental reputation:
some UK evidence. British Accounting Review, 34(3), 257-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2002.0211.
Unerman, J. (2008). Strategic reputation risk management and corporate social responsibility reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 362-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863941.
Wanderley, L. J., Mansur, M. S., Milanez, B., & Pinto, R. G. (2016). Desastre da Samarco/Vale/BHP no Vale do
Rio Doce: aspectos econômicos, políticos e socio ambientais. Ciência e Cultura, 68(3), 30-35. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.21800/2317-66602016000300011.
Wink, P. K. S. (2012). Reação aos acidentes ambientais: evidências em uma empresa de mineração do mercado
brasileiro. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências Contábeis), Centro de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas da
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.