From the perspective of communication as constitutive, organization–stakeholder dialogue about corporate social responsibility constitutes the main intersection of organization and environment. Sustainability reporting has emerged as an important tool used by organizations and their stakeholders in the regulation of that intersection. This study examines the evolution of a de facto standard for such reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines, from their inception in 2000 to the current form. The study focuses on the Global Reporting Initiative’s specifications regarding stakeholder engagement; these specifications are conceptualized as institutional messages. Analysis reveals how the changes in features of these messages have helped position sustainability reporting as a new genre of organizational communication. Results are consequential for theorizing the nexus of communication and organization, as seen in the role of micro matters of language constituting a product of communication design that has helped shape organization–stakeholder collaboration worldwide.
AakhusM. (1999). Science court: A case study of designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 2(3), 20-37.
2.
AakhusM. (2003). Neither naïve nor normative reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17, 265-290.
3.
AakhusM. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112-117.
4.
AakhusM.JacksonS. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In FitchK. L.SandersR. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411-435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
AakhusM.LaureijL. (2012). Activity, materiality, and creative struggle in the communicative constitution of organizing: Two cases of communication design practice. Language and Dialogue, 2(1), 41-59.
6.
AhrneG.BrunssonN. (2011). Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. Organization, 18, 83-104.
7.
AhrneG.BrunssonN.SeidlD. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34, 93-101.
8.
BrunssonN.RascheA.SeidlD. (2012). The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33, 613-632.
9.
CaronM.-A.TurcotteM.-F. (2009). Path dependence and path creation: Framing the extra financial information market for a sustainable trajectory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22, 272-297.
10.
de BakkerF. G. A.GroenewegenP.den HondF. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44, 283-317.
11.
den HondF.de BakkerF. G. A.DohJ. (2015). What prompts companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from the Netherlands. Business & Society, 54, 187-228.
12.
ElkingtonJ. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line for 21st century business. Oxford, England: Capstone.
13.
EtzionD.FerraroF. (2006, July). Institutional entrepreneurship through voluntary standard setting: The case of Global Reporting Initiative. Paper presented at the 22nd EGOS Colloquium, Bergen, Norway.
14.
EtzionD.FerraroF. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21, 1092-1107.
15.
FaircloughN. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.
16.
FischerF. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
17.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GlaserB. G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
19.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2000). Sustainability reporting guidelines on economic, environmental, and social performance. Boston, MA: Author.
20.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Boston, MA: Author.
21.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines Version 3.0. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Author.
22.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines Version 3.1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Author.
23.
Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 Sustainability reporting guidelines: Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Author.
LammersJ. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 154-182.
31.
MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
PutnamL. L.NicoteraA. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
SchönD.ReinM. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
35.
SchultzF.CastellóI.MorsingM. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 681-692.
36.
SimonH. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
37.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Szejnwald BrownH. S.de JongM.LessidrenskaT. (2009). The rise of GRI: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18, 182-200.
39.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
TurcotteM.-F.ReineckeJ.den HondF. (2014). Explaining variation in the multiplicity of private social and environmental regulation: A multi-case integration across the coffee, forestry and textile sectors. Business and Politics, 16, 151-189.
41.
WaddockS. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87-108.
42.
WinogradT.FloresF. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
43.
YatesJ.OrlikowskiW. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
