Discourse Analysis: An Emerging Trend in Corporate Narrative Research




Dewan Mahboob Hossain

Correspondence:
Dewan Mahboob Hossain
Associate Professor
Department of Accounting & Information Systems
University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.
Email: dewanmahboob@gmail.com

Abstract


These days, corporate narrative is gaining immense attention from accounting researchers. Corporate narratives are found in different communication media such as annual reports, web sites, sustainability reports and integrated reports. Over the years, both qualitative and quantitative content analyses have remained the most popular research methods for analysing corporate narratives. However, recently, another method, discourse analysis, is gaining the attention of researchers. It is said that in many ways, this method facilitates a more in-depth analysis of the corporate narratives. This paper gives an overview of this method and highlights how this method can be applied in corporate narratives research.

Key words: Corporate reporting, discourse analysis

1. Introduction
Corporate reporting has passed through several stages over the years. Though in the past, companies used to communicate mainly through annual reports, now we see the use of other communication media such as corporate web sites, sustainability reports and integrated reports. These days, other than reporting on financial matters, companies are producing reports on issues such as sustainability, corporate governance, intellectual capital, human resources and others. In many cases, these reports are not prepared only by using traditional accounting methods, i.e., through numerical figures and calculations. In most of the cases, while reporting on these issues, companies use narratives and visuals to convince the readers. That means, companies mainly use language and some pictorial presentations such as graphs, photos and charts. We can see the presence of these narratives in some parts of annual reports. Also we can see massive use of these in their websites, sustainability reports and integrated reports.

Over the years, the content of these narratives has drawn the attention of accounting researchers and several studies have been conducted on these. At the moment, corporate narrative research can be considered as one of the most popular types of accounting research. Merkl-Davies et al. (2014, p. 1) described corporate narrative research as: “research from any discipline which either focuses on corporate narrative reporting as a phenomenon of study (i.e., focus is on the activity of corporate narrative reporting) or which uses corporate narrative documents as a means of studying a variety of organizational phenomena”. For many years, content analysis has remained the most popular research method in corporate narratives research (see Grosser and Moon, 2008; Hossain, Ahmad and Siraj, 2016; Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Haque and Deegan, 2010; Belal et al., 2010; Abhayawansa and Azim, 2014). Through content analysis, the authors mainly highlighted on the quantity and quality of disclosure. More specifically, the content analysis studies focused on ‘what’ is disclosed on a particular issue (Haji and Hossain, 2016). However, in recent years, corporate narrative researchers highlighted the need for going one step ahead.

They emphasized that rather than focusing only on ‘what’ is disclosed, the future studies should also focus on ‘how’ a particular issue is disclosed. As corporate narratives contain language and visual presentations, focusing only on ‘what’ is disclosed may not be helpful to get an in-depth idea about the issue. The nature of language and visuals, in many ways, are not properly highlighted through content analysis. For that reason, an in-depth language/presentation based analysis is needed. Authors such as Jonall and Rimmel (2010), Beelitz and Merkl-Davies (2012), Craig and Brennan (2012), Higgins and Walker (2012), Tregidga, Milne and Lehman (2012) and Scharf and Fernandes (2013) encouraged the researchers to conduct meaning-oriented and language-based analysis of corporate narratives to get a deeper picture of the nature of disclosure. This language based analysis can be done through Discourse Analysis (DA).
This paper gives a general overview of discourse analysis in corporate narrative research. The next section of the article presents a short discussion on content analysis. Then the discourse analysis method is introduced. Here, a special branch of discourse analysis – Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is also introduced. Then some prior corporate narrative studies that used discourse analysis are highlighted. Lastly, the conclusion was drawn by highlighting the importance of discourse analysis in corporate narrative research.

2. Content Analysis
It was mentioned earlier that content analysis is the most popular research method in corporate narrative research. Berg and Lune (2012, p. 349) defined content analysis as “a careful, detailed systematic examination and interpretation of a particular body of material in an effort to identify patterns, themes, biases and meanings”. The definition of Nuendorf (2002) can be helpful for a better understanding of what is content analysis. Nuendorf (2002, p. 1) defines content analysis as “the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics. It includes a careful examination of human interactions; the analysis of character portrayals of TV commercials, films, and novels; the computer-driven investigation of word usage in news releases and political speeches and so much more”. Content analysis involves a systematic analysis of texts, identification of the characteristics of the texts and drawing inferences (Clatworthy and Jones, 2001; Merkl-Davies et al. 2014). It can be said that the most analysed materials in the case of corporate narrative research are annual reports, sustainability reports and web sites. Though Nuendorf (2002) introduced content analysis as a quantitative technique (positivistic), some other experts such as Crowther and Lancaster (2002) and Merkl-Davies et al. (2014) emphasized that it can be qualitative (interpretative or critical) also.
However, the main element of analysis in content analysis is text and language. In content analysis it is believed that language is a ‘route to external or internal events’ and language ‘mirrors’ the ‘social reality’ (Merkl-Davies et al. 2014). That means, in content analysis, the researcher believes that social reality is reflected in the language of a text (Hossain, 2017). Thus, content analysis takes a “representational view” of language (Merkl-Davies et al., 2014; Hossain, 2017) and focuses mainly on ‘what’ is disclosed. This is the main difference between content analysis and discourse analysis.
Discourse analysis, rather than following a “representational view” goes for a “constructivist approach” (Hossain, 2017). Discourse analysts believe that language is used in a particular context and can be used to ‘construct’ (rather than ‘mirror’) a particular reality. That is why, rather than just focusing on ‘what’ reality is mirrored in the language of the text, a discourse analyst focuses on ‘how’ certain reality was constructed by the language. The next section describes discourse analysis in detail.

3. Discourse Analysis (DA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Before discussing what discourse analysis is, it is important to know what is meant by the term ‘discourse’. According to van Dijk (1990, p. 164), discourse represents “text in context”. That means, discourse analysis is the analysis of texts in relation to the context. According to Howitt and Cramer (2011, p. 360): “Discourse is how language operates in real life communicative events. Discourse analysis involves the analysis of speech, text and conversation so its concerns are with analyses beyond the level of sentence”. A discourse analyst believes that through language a particular reality can be constructed by highlighting the communicator’s own ideology (Merkl-Davies and Koller, 2012; Hossain, 2017). The task of a discourse analyst is to ‘deconstruct’ this ‘constructed’ reality.
There are two ways to conduct discourse analysis. It can be done either from a linguistic perspective or a sociological perspective (Widdowson, 2007). As corporate narratives are prepared in a socio-economic context, corporate narrative research is mostly conducted from a sociological perspective. Moreover, in most cases, discourse analysis is qualitative in nature. That is why this is done either from an interpretative or a critical perspective.

3.1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): A Tool for Analysing Power Relations in Corporate Narratives
One of the most popular branches of discourse analysis is called Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This type of discourse analysis is conducted from a critical perspective and analyses the texts from a social point of view.
It was mentioned earlier that Discourse Analysis is mostly qualitative in nature. Most of the researchers follow either an interpretative or a critical perspective. CDA is conducted from a critical perspective and deals with the ‘domination’ created through discourse. Before discussing CDA in detail, it is important to introduce the basic idea of the critical perspective.Critical perspective is a research paradigm that mainly originated from the works of authors such as Karl Marx, Theodor Adorno and others (Neuman, 2000; Hossain, 2017). Critical theories were mainly developed by the scholars in Frankfurt School School (Neuman, 2000). The main themes of theoretical perspective are the inequality and domination existing in society and thus, critical theorists focus on the ‘contradictions’ and ‘exploitations’ existing in society (Cavana et al., 2000; Hossain, 2017). Critical theorists evaluate the taken for granted ideologies created by the dominant groups of the society and call for social transformation (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). Thus, they try to expose the prevailing hidden realities and myths (Hossain, 2017). Critical theorists believe that in our society, in many cases there exists “surface illusion” (Cavana et al., 2000) that creates a problem in understanding reality. They emphasize on the fact that there exist ‘dominating’ and ‘dominated’ groups in society and the dominated (less powerful) groups are exploited by the dominating (powerful) groups. In many cases, dominated groups have the power to construct and control the reality and by doing so they try to fulfill their own interest (Hossain, 2017). Research from the critical perspective serves the following purposes (Henn et al, 2006):
1. Emphasizing on inequality, injustice and exploitation.
2. Pinpointing the issue of distressed and marginalized groups in the society, and
3. Encouraging social transformation.
Thus, a Critical Discourse Analyst works as an advocate of the dominated or less powerful group by ‘deconstructing’ the ‘constructed’ reality (Hossain, 2017). According to Batstone (1995, p. 198-199): “Critical Discourse Analysts seek to reveal how texts are constructed so that particular (and potentially indoctrinating) perspectives can be expressed delicately and covertly; because they are covert, they are elusive of direct challenge, facilitating what Kress calls the “retreat into mystification and impersonality”. In a way, CDA is an attempt to ‘uncover’ the surface illusion that is created through the language by any powerful group in the society.

CDA can be regarded as an important method in case of corporate narratives research because over the years several authors have highlighted the corporations around the world as power seekers (Bowen, 1953; Bottomore, 1993; Bakan, 2004; Beder, 2005; Hartley, 2008; Fleming & Zygidopoulos, 2009). According to Bowen (1953), corporations exercise their powers in many ways as these days capitalism has become a crucial force in the world economy. Business people as well as corporations (represented by those people), in many ways, have become an ‘elite’ group (Hossain, 2017) and thus possess power. They have money and resources. They are income generators. Also, they have a good control over media (Bowen, 1953). By using their power, the corporations try to “create a myth that they are natural guardians of the society and they work for its interest” (Hossain, 2017, p. 13). Corporations attempt to establish a control over the society and they can be characterized as constant power seekers (Bakan, 2004; Fleming & Zygidopoulos, 2009; Hossain, 2017). Over several years, many social activists have raised their concern about this growing dominance of the corporations over the society (Fleming & Zygidopoulos, 2009; Hossain, 2007) and called for a ‘check and balance’ for this power (United Nations, 2004).

Over the years, accounting researchers who conduct their studies from critical perspective, have blamed accounting as a discipline for its continuous support to uphold capitalistic spirit (Jacob, 2011; Higgins and Walker, 2012; Sikka, 2013; Boyce and Greer, 2013). This role of accounting acts as an obstacle in the way of human emancipation (Hossain, 2017). This also helps in the sustenance of corporate power and gaining control over the society. In many ways, accounting discourses and corporate narratives help in justifying the activities of corporations in the society. For example, according to Sikka (2013), accounting highlights the discourses such as profit maximization and cost control in a positive manner. Cost minimization can be a result of low tax payment and low labor cost. Though through highlighting issues such as profit maximization and cost control in the accounting reports the companies can convince the shareholders, these issues (profit maximization and cost control) might have negative effects on the society. If less tax is paid, the government gets less money for the social welfare activities. If less wages are paid to the labors, their life standard becomes low. Thus, accounting discourses may help in creating inequality and injustice in the society.

Though over the past few decades, corporations are also reporting on their social performances, in many ways, these reports have also became tools of manipulation. As these reports are mostly presented in a narrative form, they contain language. Language can be regarded as a tool that helps in gaining power and control (Fairclough, 1989). Ghannam (2011, p. 22) mentions: “Language is a powerful tool which can be used to manipulate people. There is always different ways to say the same thing”. By using the language in a strategic manner in the narratives, the companies try to inject their own ideologies in the minds of the readers (Hossain, 2017).

The critical discourse analysts, by focusing on this issue, attempt to highlight the probable hidden agenda behind the presented language of the powerful group of the society. According to Higgins and Walker (2012), language may help in creating a state of hegemony. Through language, people can be influenced and are encouraged to take some ideologies as ‘right’ and ‘acceptable’ (Hossain, 2017). That is why, by conducting CDA on the languages of corporate narratives, the researchers mainly try to ‘deconstruct’ the ideologies that were ‘constructed’ through the language by the companies. A critical discourse analyst should examine the ‘taken for granted’ ideas and highlight the power relations hidden in the language (Leppanen, 2012, p. 23).

3.2. Fairclough’s Framework for Critical Discourse Analysis
There is no hard and fast rule to conduct CDA (Tonkiss, 2012). However, some famous discourse analysts have given some frameworks that can be used while conducting CDA. The framework proposed by Fairclough (1989; 1995) was considered as appropriate by authors such as Beelitz and Merkl-Davies (2012), Scharf and Fernandes (2013) and Hossain (2017). In this section, Fairclough’s three stage model of CDA is discussed. This model is also known as dialectic-relational approach.

According to Fairclough (1995), texts should be analysed from the perspectives of socio-cultural practices. According to him, use of language is a kind of communicative event and this use of language has three dimensions (Merkl-Davies, Brennan and Vourvachis, 2014):
(1) The text. It covers the linguistic characteristics of the communicative event;
(2) The discursive practice. It involves the way the texts are produced and consumed; and
(3) The wider social practice. According to Merkl-Davies et al. (2014, p. 34), this dimension emphasizes “whether the discourse reproduces or restructures the existing order and what consequences this has for the wider practice”.
Basing on these three dimensions of communicative events, Fairclough (1989) suggests to analyse texts in three levels:

Level 1: Text analysis:
This level of CDA is also called micro-level analysis. Here, the linguistic features of the texts are analysed. The main topics of analysis include the areas such as (Scharf and Fernandes, 2013): (1) the characteristics of the texts, (2) the communication strategies, (3) the construction of thoughts, (4) text-image cohesion, (5) the pattern of presentation, and (6) the cultural meanings of words. At this level only the characteristics of the texts are analysed.

Level 2: Process Analysis
This level of analysis is also known as the meso-level analysis. In the first level, the characteristics of the texts are analysed. Now, at this second level, these texts are analysed in terms of their production and consumption process. The producers and the consumers of the texts are identified and inferences are drawn according to the relationship existing between them. For example, in case of corporate narratives, corporate management is the producer of the texts and different types of stakeholders are the consumers. So, process analysis should be done by keeping the relationship between the corporate management and the stakeholders in mind.

Level 3: Social Analysis
This level of analysis is also called macro-level analysis as here the analysis is done from the wider social context. Here, “objective of analysis is to explain why social actors, events and organizations are represented and arguments are constructed in a specific way” (Beelitz and Merkl-Davies, 2012, p. 105). The analyst should take into consideration the social, economic, political and historical context while analysing the texts (Merkl-Davies and Koller, 2012).
3.3. How to Conduct Discourse Analysis?
It needs to be mentioned here that discourse analysis involves in-depth analysis of text. This can be done in two ways (Widdowson, 2007). Firstly, it can be done from a linguistic perspective. That means, the grammatical and linguistic aspects get importance here. Secondly, it can be conducted from a sociological perspective. Here, it is thought that meanings are ‘socially constructed’ and the way language is used is a kind of social practice (Widdowson, 2007). However, whatever approach the researcher takes, there is no strict rule that needs to be followed in discourse analysis (Tonkiss, 2012).
The researcher needs to collect the relevant texts to be analysed and prepare a corpus. In discourse analysis, corpus is a systematic and organized collection of relevant texts (Wodak and Krzyzanowski, 2008). The researcher then analyses that collection of texts according to the analytical framework that he/she wants to apply.
In case of sample size, it is suggested that smaller sample is preferable. According to authors such as Potter and Wetherell (1987) and Bondarouk and Ruel (2004), sample size is not a very important issue in discourse analysis. According to them, a large sample size may make the analysis unmanageable (Hossain, 2017). Even a smaller sample can have huge variation in linguistic pattern (Bondarouk and Ruel, 2004).
The following section contains summaries of some prior corporate narrative studies that conducted discourse analysis.

4.2. Studies that Focused on the Discourses in Other Corporate Narratives and Reports
Some authors analysed the discourses in some other types (than CSR reports) of corporate narratives. Among these, one of the earliest studies is that of Thomas (1997). The author conducted discourse analysis on the annual letters that are presented in the annual reports. This was a case study on a particular company – The Cross & Trecker. Five year’s annual reports (from 1984 to 1988) were analysed. The author concluded that the company tried to maintain a good image among the shareholders by highlighting their profitability. The annual letters were written skillfully so that investors get attracted to buy the shares.
The study of Gong et al. (2012) was based on a Chinese mobile company. The authors conducted CDA on the visual images of the annual report of this company. They followed Fairclough’s method. The authors found that the visuals were influenced by both capitalist market economy and socialist political ideas.
Leppanen’s (2012) study was based on the CEO letters of five big Finnish companies. The author tried to examine the strategies used in the language in order to rationalize their activities in Russia. It was found that the management of these companies tried to present and justify their activities in Russia in a positive manner.
Beelitz and Merkl-Davies (2012) conducted a CDA on the CEO’s managerial discourse on a negative event in a nuclear power plant in Germany. The authors used Fairclough’s three level analysis. They mainly investigated how, through strategic use of language, the CEO sought legitimacy. According to the authors, the CEO’s explanations lacked transparency and accountability.
Merkl-Davies and Koller (2012) conducted CDA on the Chairman’s statement on a UK based defense company. They also applied Fairclough’s approach. The analytical framework that the authors applied is the metaphors of ‘impersonalization’ and ‘evaluation’.
Recently, Haji and Hossain (2016) conducted discourse analysis on the narratives on different types of capitals in the award winning integrated reports of South African companies. The authors applied Brennan et al.’s (2009) impression management framework. It was found in this study that the disclosures are generic and rhetorical in nature. In many cases, the disclosure lacked substance.

Abhayawansa, S. and Azim, M. (2014). Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: evidence from the Bangladeshi pharmaceutical sector. Asian Review of Accounting, 22(2), 98 – 127.
Ahlering, J. (2008). The face of the firm: articulating identity through CSR related diversity rhetoric. Proceedings of the 2008 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention, October 30 - November 1, Lake Tahoe, NV, 1-14.
Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage Publications.
Bakan, J. (2004). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. Toronto: Penguin.
Bardelli, P. & Pastore, M. (2006). The discourses and practices about corporate social responsibility (DP-CSR), new components of multinational companies’ strategies and element of micro-regularities in the post-Ford model: the illustration with French multinational companies. Working Paper Series, Georgia Tech Center for International Business Education and Research.
Batstone, R. (1995). Grammar in Discourse: Attitude and Deniability. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.). Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 197-213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beder, S. (2005). Corporate propaganda and global capitalism - Selling free enterprise? In Lacy, M. J. and Wilkin, P. (eds). Global Politics in the Information Age (pp. 116-130, UK: Manchester University Press.
Beelitz, A. & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2012). Using discourse to restore organizational legitimacy: ‘CEO-Speak’ after an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 101-120.
Belal, A. R., Kabir, M. R., Cooper, S., Dey, P., Khan, N. A., Rahman, T. & Ali, M. (2010). Corporate environmental and climate change disclosures: empirical evidences from Bangladesh. Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10, 145-167.
Berg, B. L. & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (8th edn.). Boston: Pearson.
Bondarouk, T. & Ruel, H. J. M. (2004). Discourse analysis: making complex methodology simple. In Lenio, T., Saarinen, T. and Klein, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku Finland.
Bottomore, T. (1993). Elites and Society (2nd edn.). NY: Routledge.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. NY: Harper & Brothers.
Boyce, G. & Greer, S. (2013). More than imagination: making social and critical accounting real. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 105-112.
Brennan, N. M., Guillamon-Saorin, E. & Pierce, A. (2009). Impression management: developing and illustrating a scheme of analysis for narrative disclosures – a methodological note. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(5), 789-832.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2000). Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
Clatworty, M. & Jones, M. J. (2001).The effect of thematic structure on the variability of annual report readability. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14(3), 311-326.
Craig, R. J. & Brennan, N. M. (2012). An exploration of the relationship between language choice in CEO letters to shareholders and corporate reputation. Accounting Forum, 36(2012), 166-167.
Crowther, D. & Lancaster, G. (2005). Research Methods a Concise Introduction to Research in Management and Business Consultancy (2ndedn.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Danilet, M. & Mihai, O. (2013). CSR online discourse practices in the Romanian energy sector. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business and Economics,2013 (2013), 1-9.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
Fleming, P. & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2009). Charting Corporate Corruption: Agency, Structure and Escalation. UK: Edward Elgar.
Ghannam, N. (2011). Newspaper ideology: a critical discourse analysis of an event published in six Lebanese newspapers. Unpublished Master Degree Dissertation, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Gong, X., Lodh, S. C. & Rudkin, K. (2012). Visual images within accounting annual report: a critical discourse analysis. Paper submitted for inclusion in the IPA Conference, Cardiff, UK.
Grosser, K. & Moon, J. (2008). Developments in company reporting on workplace gender equality: A corporate social responsibility perspective. Accounting Forum, 32(3), 179- 198.
Haji, A. A. and Hossain, D. M. (2016). Exploring the implications of integrated reporting on organizational reporting practice: evidences from highly regarded integrated reporters. Qualitative Research on Accounting & Management, 13(4), 415-444.
Haque, S. and Deegan, C. (2010). Corporate climate change related governance practices and related disclosures: evidence from Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 55(20), 317-333.
Hartley, R. D. (2008). Corporate Crime. California: ABC-CLIOInc.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M. & Foard, N. (2006). A Critical Introduction to Social Research (2ndedn.). London: Sage.
Higgins, C. & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36, 194-208.
Hossain, D. M., Ahmad, N. N. N. and Siraj, S. A. (2016). Marxist feminist perspective of corporate gender disclosure. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 7, 11-24.
Hossain, D. M., Al Bir, A. T. S, Tarique, K. M. & Momen, A. (2016). Disclosure on green banking issues in the annual reports: a study on Bangladeshi banks. Middle East Journal of Business, 11(1), 19-30.
Hossain, D. M. (2017), Exploring the Main Discourses and Power Relations in The Disclosure on Social Inequality Issues in Corporate Narratives, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. IIUM, Malaysia.
Howitt, D. & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology (3rdedn.).USA: Pearson.
Hrasky, S. (2012). Visual disclosure strategies adopted by more and less sustainability-driven companies. Accounting Forum, 36, 154-165.
Itanen, M. (2011). CSR discourse in corporate reports – exploring the socially constructed nature of corporate social responsibility. Unpublished Master Degree Dissertation, Aalto University, Finland.
Jacobs, K. (2011). Enlightenment and emancipation: reflections for critical accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22, 510-515.
Jonall, K. & Rimmel, G. (2010). CEO letters as legitimacy builders: coupling text to numbers. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 14(4), 307-328.
Leppanen, J. (2012). Studying Corporate Texts- Critical Discourse Analysis of Finnish Companies’ Discourses on Growth in Russia. Unpublished Master Degree Dissertation, Aalto University, Finland.
Merkl-Davies, D. & Koller, V. (2012). ‘Metaphoring’ people out of this world: a critical discourse analysis of a chairman’s statement of a UK defence firm. Accounting Forum, 36, 178-193.
Merkl-Davies, D. M., Brennan, N. M. & Vourvachis, P. (2014). Content analysis and discourse analysis in corporate narrative accounting research: a methodological guide. Found in criticalperspectivesonaccounting.com/wp-contents/uploads/2014/06/paper-cpa-021.pdf on September 27, 2014.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guide book. London: Sage Publications.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4thedn.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ocler, R. (2009). Discourse analysis and corporate social responsibility: a qualitative approach. Society and Business Review, 4(3), 175-186.
Potter, J. & Wetherwell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
Prado-Lorenzo, J., Rodriguez-Dominguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I. & Garcia-Sanchez, I. (2009). Factors influencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision, 47(7), 1133-1157.
Reyes, L. C. (2013). Ford and General Motors corporate sustainability reports: a critical discourse analysis. Found in nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2013final/ReyesL_2013.pdf on September 24, 2014.
Scharf, E. R. & Fernandes, J. (2012). The advertising of corporate social responsibility in Brazilian bank. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(1), 24-37.
Sikka, P. (2013). The hand of accounting and accountancy firms in deepening income and wealth inequalities and the economic crisis: some evidence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, in http://dx.doi.org/10.106/j.cpa.2013.02.003.
Thomas, J. (1997). Discourse in the marketplace: the making of meaning in annual reports. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 47-66.
Tonkiss, F. (2012). Discourse Analysis. In Seale, C. (ed.), Researching Society and Culture (pp. 405-423), (3rdedn.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. & Lehman, G. (2012). Analyzing the quality, meaning and accountability of organizational reporting and communication: directions for future research. Accounting Forum, 36, 223-230.
United Nations (2004). Disclosure of the Impact of Corporations on the Society: Current Trends and Issues. New York: United Nations.
van Dijk, T. A. (1990). The future of the field: discourse analysis in the 1990s. TEXT, 10, 133-156.
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wodak, R. & Krzyzanowski, M. (2008). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Yusoff, H. & Lehman, G. (2009).Corporate environmental reporting through the lenses of semiotics. Asian Review of Accounting, 17(3), 226-246.