{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02315963606286187, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016542597187758478, 'mean_word_length': 5.914285714285715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legitimizing Potential “Bad News”: How Companies Disclose on Their Tension Experiences in Their Sustainability Reports

The practice of corporate sustainability is beset with compromise; it involves inevitable tensions across competing social, environmental, and economic objectives, across a wide range of divergent stakeholders and across time. The purpose of this study is to determine whether, and why, companies are reporting on tensions decisions in their sustainability reports. This study relies on a group of the largest companies in Canada and analyzes sustainability reports and interviews with sustainability managers. The study finds that 92% of all reporting companies in the sample had encountered sustainability tensions but had failed to disclose these discussions explicitly in their reports. Evidence of these accounts are nevertheless present in the implicit (or latent) content of the reports, surrounded by “legitimizing talk”—affirmations of the companies’ commitment to, and demonstration of sustainability principles. These findings highlight the negative light in which many companies perceive tensions (as “bad news”) and the potential legitimacy threat that their disclosure poses.