Biodiversity accounting: uncover

environmental destruction in Indonesia

Syarifuddin Syarifuddin and Ratna Ayu Damayanti

Abstract Syarifuddin Syarifuddin and

Purpose – This study aims to reveal the impression which is delivered in the biodiversity report of local Ratna Ayu Damayanti are
governments in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. It is crucial since the region has biodiversity that both based at Universitas
seems to get no specific attention in preserving its sustainability. Hasanuddin, Makassar,
Design/methodology/approach – Discourse analysis was used as a method to reveal fact and Indonesia.
developing discourse. Analysis method to be developed was Eder cognitive discourse analysis, which
was conducted by observing the narration in the biodiversity report.
Findings – The findings of this study indicate that the informant’s impression of the biodiversity report
was made to attract investors by showing information related to local natural resources, thus allowing
investors to exploit nature as needed. Nature and humans in the view of policymakers cannot be
separated.
Research limitations/implications – The implication of this research for further research is to focus
more on the neutralization motives of the biodiversity reports preparers and the implications of community
participation to save the environment.
Practical implications – This study shows practice and policy of accounting in the organizational
biodiversity as written in its report. Discourse and impression which are stated to the stakeholders need to
be changed to show the seriousness of the region in biodiversity conservation.
Originality/value – Many types of research studies have been conducted related to biodiversity
accounting so far, but this paper views it from a different aspect. This paper discusses the intention and
purpose of the report to show its spirit.
Keywords Indonesia, Discourse analysis, Accountability, Environmental accounting, Biodiversity
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Biodiversity is a diversity of the whole life on Earth. The species of plants, animals,
microorganisms, the variety of gene in species and several ecosystems on this planet are
parts of Earth which are biologically diverse. Biodiversity is essential for itself, and it
becomes highly valuable as a human depends on its existence (Australian Government,
Department of Environment (AGDE) and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council,
2010, p. 3; Gaia and Jones, 2015). Thousands of species are used by humans globally, and
they are the basis of resource which is required for daily activities.
However, in this decade, it is claimed that the activities of human drive the species to the
extinction, and it has been at the alarming level. The loss of genetic and systemic
biodiversity is the most critical threat of global environment, along with climate change (Van
Liempd and Busch, 2013) and the excessive use of the natural resource, though it is done
for human survival, can decrease the existence of resource itself (Shandra et al., 2010). The
system in the use of the natural resource is an object on depletion, degradation, or
excessive use, which is not by its preservation (Gunnar and Kristina, 2013). As it is known, Received 8 November 2018
Revised 30 April 2019
the condition is getting worse because natural resources not only increase economic 16 August 2019
growth (Khan, 2014; Jones and Solomon, 2011) but in developing countries people’s lives Accepted 17 August 2019

DOI 10.1108/SRJ-11-2018-0291 VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020, pp. 809-825, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 809
 are highly dependent on nature, for example, forests are a source of food, fiber, and
medicines (Shandra et al., 2010; Wheeler et al., 2012).
Although the importance of biodiversity has been emphasized from several perspectives
and the Year 2010 has been stated as The International Year of Biodiversity by United
Nations, the biodiversity awareness is still not enough (Union for Ethical Bio Trade, 2016).
The lack of this awareness is considered one of the most severe obstacles for biodiversity
conservation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Therefore, academics can take a
role by researching biodiversity accounting.
In the literature, research on biodiversity accounting is relatively new but is overgrowing.
Environmental accounting research is advancing with the emergence of Jones’ (1996,
2003) great work. Biodiversity accounting research by Jones (1996) suggests the concept
of natural inventory. This study triggered the development of biodiversity accounting
research in recent years. As is known, several researchers, then, tried to assess natural
assets/biodiversity assets that need to be updated (Cuckston, 2013; Tregidga, 2013;
Freeman and Groom, 2013; Ferreira, 2015), or reveal biodiversity assets in sustainability
reports both in the context of companies and public organizations (Buhr and Reiter, 2015;
Gaia and Jones, 2015; Hossain, 2017; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013; Weir, 2018). Even
academics have seen managerial impressions conveyed from these disclosures (Boiral,
2016; Jones, 2011; Cho et al., 2012; Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006).
However, the research is mostly limited to developed countries, even though as it is known
developing countries tend to be vulnerable to natural exploitation which results in global
climate change and degradation of natural assets (Khan, 2014 in Kalimantan; Siddiqui,
2013 in Bangladesh). Therefore, through this paper, it is hoped that developing countries
can obtain more significant benefits by operating biodiversity accounting.
Considering the importance of biodiversity, the motivation of this paper is to explore the
awareness of Indonesian local government in presenting the biodiversity reporting,
specifically by observing the impressions contained in their report. Accounting reporting
and disclosure related to biodiversity play a key role in communicating relevant information
(Martennson, 2009) and influencing the concern of government and community towards the
environment. Hence, government awareness can be seen through the impressions of the
report. Issues related to the impression are crucial because so far research on biodiversity
has emphasized more on the economic calculation of biodiversity loss.
Local government is the main focus since it contributes as the major actor in environmental
destruction while implementing the operational activities of public service. Besides, they
control a wide range of public land with its biodiversity and are responsible for making plan
and policy which affect biodiversity.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical
framework of this paper, where it uses impression theory as the main theoretical premise to
understand the operationalization of biodiversity reporting. Furthermore, the research
method and design are presented in the third section by using the discourse analysis of
Eder’s cognitive framework. Thus, the fourth section describes the discussion of findings,
which are a reflection of the results of the study. The paper then closes with a conclusion
that summarizes the main contributions of research and opportunities for future research.

The development of environmental discourse

In the past decades, the concern on the planet and our environment rapidly increased. It
affects scientific discourse about the environment in which this discourse provides
undeniable proof about the description of the environment which develops in the society
(Demeritt, 2002, p. 768). As a consequence, an idea that nature is not taken for granted or

PAGE 810 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

the unchanged fact, but it is a social construction which must be viewed differently, has
been increasingly important.
As is known, discourse is a cultural and social product that functions to build a social life
that recursively produces, reproduces, and changes the meaning, ideology, and social
structure of unequal power relations between men, women, as well as the majority and
minority groups (Van Dijk, 2011; Fairclough, 2001; Phillips and Hardy, 2002). Berger and
Luckmann (1991, p. 69) stated that “humans as social beings, establish a system
themselves, which transforms their world-openness into a world-closeness to be able to live
together. The relationship we have with our fellow men and with nature is not a given thing, a
fact defined by our environment. Our understanding is rather shaped by the social order we
establish ourselves with our daily social interactions.” Therefore, in facing environmental
issues, such as global warming and other natural disasters, social constructionism offers a
different perspective. It aims to describe how people interpret an environment which is
socially defined.
In this case, scientific discourse expands from the religious reflection about nature based
on philosophical consideration of Heraklit, Aristoteles and Descartes (Nash, 1989) until
current research according to anthropocentric and ecocentric attitudes on the environment
(Kortenkamp and Moore, 2001; Karpiak and Baril, 2008). Although they show the different
way in understanding nature, predicting, or behaving on it, they seldom discuss the
concepts of an environment which are shaped in the mindset of human. It needs to be
understood that anthropocentric view assumes that environment is meaningful only
because it is beneficial for human (instrumental value), while ecocentric view relates
intrinsic value to all aspects besides human in every decision making (Buhr and Reiter,
2015).
In this regard, for the past decades, the transformation of environmental discourse occurred
as stated by Elkington (1997, 2004) and Eder (1996). They categorize it into three waves of
different discourse transformation in which they implied and approved notion that there is a
cycle pattern in popularity and domination of the environment. They also agreed that
political action and communication had influenced the transformation of environmental
discourse for decades through increased sophistication in thinking and social interaction in
society.
As a material consideration for analysis, we first need to discuss environmental discourse
because what is used in this study is discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is analysis that
does not examine just one sentence or one paragraph, but the entire text, including the
relationship between the discourse with the context, such as the situation behind the news,
and why the author describes the context in a certain way (Fairclough, 2001). Therefore, the
current wave of environmental discourse becomes essential to discuss.
The transformation wave of environmental discourse occurred from 1961 to 2001, in which
the first wave achieved its success when Earth Day was stipulated in 1970. The first wave is
known as “Silent Spring,” which means that environmental impact must be limited. Rachel
Carson, as the initiator of the environmental revolution in his book in 1962, stated that every
person starting from the fertilization process to their death undergoes the contact with
dangerous chemicals. This era results in legislation and defensive attitude from business as
Elkington (1997) observed while Eder (1996) marked this phase as an environmental
problem because there was an imbalance between ecological and economic problems.
The second wave is known as “Going Green,” which reached the peak of its success in
Earth Day of 1990. According to Elkington (1997), this era brings awareness of people that
several productions and new technology, which is environmentally friendly, are required.
The business industry must lead and be more competitive in this field. Eder (1996) views
this phase as a condition where the regulatory approach dominates environmental actions
and discourse.

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 811

 The third transformation wave is known as the “Sustainability” Era, which was started in
1999. In this era, the understanding of sustainable development starts growing and affects
the considerable change in company governance and the whole globalization process. This
era emphasizes the focus on novelty, namely the role of government and civil society
(Elkington, 2004). In this phase, cultural normalization and integration into established
ideological thinking occur, which is a pattern related to the importance of environmental
problems. Eder sees that contemporary environment is a turning point of modern cultural
evolution to new cultural orientation, in which ecology replaces industrialism which becomes
the underlying culture of modernization all this time (Buhr and Reiter, 2015, p. 4). Besides,
this phase changes the political characteristics into a character which leads to
environmental politic.
Eder (1996) argues that the environmental observer in 1980s stated the discourse of protest
by positioning environment as the main agenda and communicating it to solve an
environmental problem. It makes the discourse about environmentalism transformed into a
political ideology. Thus, ecological communication becomes “a medium of political conflicts
and public debate, which changes the political culture of modern societies” (Eder, 1996,
p. 165). According to environmentalism, this modern environmentalism is capable of being
related and integrated with several different ideologies. Environmental communication and
domination from environmental ideology can create a market which brings the discourse of
environment in every organizational activity (Buhr and Reiter, 2015).
Furthermore, this environmental discourse is capable of providing strength and legitimation
for an organization to survive by maintaining a public image. As a result, the organization, in
facing competition in the market, continually produces goods or service by communicating
“green” image (Winsemius and Guntram, 2002). Eder (1996) argues that “green” discourse
becomes the main symbol and underlying philosophy of modern society. Therefore, the
organizational accountability report must reflect the green impression. Based on it, the
researcher will evaluate the discourse of the local government communication approach
with impression management theory.

Impression management as a lens of theory

Impression management is a general phenomenon which has been found in several social
institutions, culture and organization. It can be traced to the work of Goffman (Provis, 2010),
which shows that individual in social situation seeks to deliver a specific impression to the
third party about themselves, in particular interpretation, they play a role. Psychological
literature asserts that the individual seeks to control what other people think about
themselves (Schlenker, 1980). When viewed from accounting, there are some quite
extensive researches related to the management of this impression, such as earnings
management or presentation management (such as accounting narration, photo and
graphic) (Jones, 2011).
Furthermore, impression management is viewed as a series of specific tactics related to
how people show themselves to others. In the perspective of this theory, impression
management includes the multi-dimensional domain, which includes several tactics which
can be used honestly or to deceive (Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006;
Bolino et al., 2008). In short, the individual uses the impression management to make the
image that they are useful in front of other people in a right or wrong way.
Likewise, it also happens in an organization where they seek to influence other people’s
perceptions of their institution by using self-presentation techniques. Self-presentation or
impression management is a field of study in social psychology, which learns how
individuals show themselves to others to be well received. Schlenker (1980, p. 6) defines
impression management as “conscious or unconscious attempts to control the image
projected in real or imaginary social interactions.”

PAGE 812 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

Impression management can be performed in several forms, verbally and non-verbally
(such as facial expression and clothes). Although people are not always aware of
impression which they deliver, specific strategic behavior can be assumed. According to
Schlenker and Weigold (1992, pp. 134-135), impression management is affected by the
agenda of other people, a namely interpersonal purpose which is open or closed and their
plan to achieve the purpose. Impression management is basically an individual “theory”,
but it can be widely applied to organization to explain the reaction of company which faces
the legitimation threat (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Cho et al., 2012) and to explain several
methods which can be performed by the director to defend itself when explaining the
change in corporate performance in annual report (Boiral, 2013).
In the case of biodiversity report, local government gives the impression as reflected in the
accountability report, which it makes. Most of the researches about the biodiversity
accountability emphasize the scarcity of information delivered by the organization.
Therefore, the need for a more detailed report becomes important (Van Liempd and Busch,
2013; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013; Jones and Solomon, 2013). However, according to critical
literature about the sustainability reporting, it needs to question whether or not the
information which is reported by organization can be reliable and contribute to a higher
accountability (Gray, 2006, 2010; Milne et al., 2006, 2009; Boiral, 2013; Tregidga et al.,
2014).
Moreover, the sustainability report, in general, can be used as a tool to manage impression
among the stakeholders, instead of being information transparency about the practice and
sustainable performance of an institution (Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Cho et al., 2012).
According to the literature about impression management, the organization uses several
tactics to influence the perception of stakeholders to protect or improve their image (Bansal
and Clelland, 2004; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006; Bolino et al., 2008). This communication
tactic is highly essential when an organization faces social pressure which may threaten
their social legitimation, such as external criticism related to environmental impact (Bansal
and Clelland, 2004; Bansal and Kistruck, 2006; Cho et al., 2012). Bansal and Kistruck
(2006) and Bansal and Clelland (2004) have explored the tactics of impression
management which are used by the company to improve their social legitimation related to
an environmental problem and how the stakeholders can respond to their tactics.
The impression management, in general, is used to restore the suitability between
organizational image and social expectation or to provide moral justification on unethical
behavior (Fooks et al., 2012). This moral justification is similar to neutralization technique
which is used as mischief to explain the wrong behavior in an organization, such as the
rejection of behavior, accident, victim, and the reduction of loyalty (Bolino et al., 2008).
Although extensive literature about impression management and neutralization technique,
in the beginning, are focused on individual analysis, this research develops by applying this
approach on organizational context, including the management related to environmental
problem and ethics (Lim, 2002; Bolino et al., 2008). The use of neutralization technique at
the organizational level can be defined as an information delivery which aims to rationalize
and legitimate unethical behavior, negative effect or problem which can ruin the image of an
organization, manager or employees, through several types of argument which can be
socially acceptable. In this case, the neutralization technique is a tactic of impression
management, which is used when an organization or individual must deliver negative
information or aspect to compromise. In this case, impression management is performed to
influence the impression of stakeholder.

Methodology
The design of this research is qualitative, based on the combination of observational and
textual analysis. In this case, biodiversity report of local government as the research object
was documented by providing the detailed code on the discourse in the report. Based on

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 813

 the idea of sequential analysis of Keller (2011), this research applies an inductive approach
to collecting and analyzing data to understand the phenomenon better. This study uses
postgraduate students who have taken or are temporarily taking environmental accounting
subjects from several batches to read local government biodiversity reports that are
disclosed on their website. This research was conducted in four local governments located
in South Sulawesi Province, namely Makassar City, Gowa Regency, Maros Regency, and
Luwu Regency. These four cities were chosen because three of them are big cities with
rapid economic growth compared to other regions in South Sulawesi Province. While one
area (Luwu Regency) is a rural area which is rich in biodiversity and one of the places to
implement the transmigration program so that the possibility of environmental damage can
occur. Observations on biodiversity reports have been carried out from 2013 to 2017, since
the obligation for the government to report until the article is made. However, from the four
local governments, only Gowa District had biodiversity reports during the observation
period.
Data analysis in this research used discourse analysis by checking text in its role as media
of practice and social interaction. Discourse analysis was used to explore problem-related
to biodiversity and its perception. Discourse analysis, in the beginning, is described as a
study about the relation between language and context where it is used, but it is currently
used as a tool to interpret and understand the social change (Fairclough, 2006). Discourse
analysis currently stands as a discipline which consists of theory and text analysis and is
used in almost of all disciplines in humanities and social science (Van Dijk, 2011).
According to Fairclough (2006), the approach of discourse analysis can be categorized into
two main groups, which are various at their “objectivity” level in handling the social problem,
namely non-critical and critical approaches. The non-critical approach is more descriptive,
while critical approach focuses on relevant social problem and allows for the knowledge
improvement and complex social problem (Fairclough, 2006; Van Dijk, 2011). The
approach which was used by the researchers in particular while working with critical
discourse analysis allowed for a better understanding of social inequality and showed how
the social division is reflected or even made in language. One of the assumptions which
underlie this approach is the language which is used to implement a specific view or reality
theory (Fairclough, 2001). In other words, the used language is a reflection from a particular
organization, as well as the part of that organization itself. Therefore, language cannot be
seen separately, but it is closely related to the organization.
To create the structure of discourse analysis and to identify the used environmental
philosophy, the researchers used three tools of the cognitive framework by Eder (1996),
namely moral responsibility, empirical objectivity and aesthetics assessment. Each of these
tools relates to social, factual and subjective worlds. The use of this tool in detail is
explained further in the analysis step. Besides, the researchers also conducted an in-depth
interview to the involved parties in compiling biodiversity report to discover these language
units further to reveal what is not visible by language analysis or standard grammatical
analysis. This step is required to get an explanation of the real context and situation
(Eder, 1996).

Data
Data collection was conducted particularly by observing the biodiversity report of local
government in Gowa Regency in 2016 (other data were not available). The researchers
used unstructured observation method, so the researchers can develop their observation
power in observing a research object. The benefit of this observation is that researchers are
more capable of understanding the context of data in the whole social situation so that it will
obtain a holistic or comprehensive view.

PAGE 814 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

As informants, students read the impressions conveyed in the biodiversity report. They
conducted textual analysis by evaluating the regional commitment to biodiversity
conservation, as stated in their report on the website. The evaluation was carried out using
Eder’s cognitive evaluation instrument, which consisted of three assessment points of view.
The three assessments are from the perspective of moral responsibility, empirical
objectivity, and the aesthetic point of view of the report. Each assessment framework
contains an open questionnaire which will be observed in depth by students.
The students involved in this study were 93 masters of accounting students at Hasanuddin
University, consisting of 32 men and 61 women. They are, on average, 25 years old. The
advantage of student informants is that they are accustomed to reading and accessing the
organization’s website. Also, this accounting master’s student represents potential
stakeholders such as employees, academics, entrepreneurs and even people who care
about the environment. These students come from various regions in Indonesia with diverse
economic and educational backgrounds. They explored the impressions of the report
based on Eder’s cognitive discourse guidelines. According to Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(1989), using many informants in an inductive approach helps to prove the theory further so
that generalizations can be improved. In this case, the study focuses on finding patterns
from the informants’ responses to the reading of meaning.

Analysis steps
In building the structure of discourse analysis, Eder’s cognitive framework bridges the
contents of the report with the social, factual, and subjective world. These three Eder tools
are combined in such a way with different emphases so that the informant gets a big picture
of the “green” image and legitimacy of the report presented.
This study uses the impression of students as data. Analysis of the data obtained from the
reading results is then used to develop the theory. Consistency of the inductive style is
always maintained; therefore, the researcher undertakes an iterative process to develop
categories and theories, which consist of three major stages.
The first stage is that the researcher captures the informant’s first impression. Previously,
the researcher had familiarized themselves with the discourse of Eder’s cognitive
framework and observed the local government’s biodiversity report website. The
researcher elaborates on Eder’s framework into several questions. The description of the
question is as follows: the question relates to the moral responsibility of reporting, which is
related to the relationship between humans and nature. The core topics of the question can
be described as follows: How is the relation between human and natural characteristics
described? What is human activity explained? What role is played by a human in the natural
image? What is the implied constellation?
Meanwhile, the question of empirical objectivity includes the content and form of the report.
The question is as follows: What is delivered in the biodiversity report? How is the report
compiled? What kind of narrative structure guides the biodiversity report? How is it
designed? Next, questions related to aesthetics concerning the natural impression
contained in the report. The question can be described as follows: How is the term of nature
used? Is it defined? If the answer is yes, how is the way to define it? How is nature
described? What figure is delivered? What values are presented? How are limited natural
resources explained?
At this stage, the researcher collects data and compiles themes by providing coding for
further analysis. To provide comprehensive results, researchers identified as many
categories as possible, which produced 36 categories. The two researchers worked
together to isolate generalizable, unique, understandable, and non-overlapping meanings.
It is in line with the workings of O’Reilly et al. (1991) when developing constructs where
overlapping categories are combined and ambiguous clarified through in-depth interviews.

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 815

 For example, “the environmental achievements and initiatives” show commitment category,
and “the level of detail [. . .] providing transparency and accountability” category are
combined and relabeled so that environmental commitment is prominently displayed,
therefore from 36 categories narrowed down to 26 categories. However, at this point,
positioning in previous studies was not seen.
The second stage is the refinement of categories. At this stage, the researcher gives the
code based on the categories that have been selected, resulting in 16 categories. These
categories are then edited, others are further refined, and several new categories emerge
after going through a process of in-depth interviews and coding. The final results that
appear in the form of eight unique categories can be seen in Table II. To ensure
consistency and accuracy of the coding process, the two researchers reviewed all the
codes for each answer result based on the final coding scheme.
The third stage is the development of theory. At this stage, the two researchers make
separate notes or patterns that emerge through data analysis; it is in line with the method
recommendations of Miles and Huberman (1994). After discussing the existing notes and
theories, by combining the results of the analysis of the two researchers, the final results
shown in Tables IV, V and VI. The results of this analysis are a reading process based on
discourse from Eder’s cognitive framework.

Finding and discussion

Research context
Nowadays, the reality in Indonesia shows that the legislation which regulates natural
biological resource and its ecosystem at the national scale is not yet adequate. In fact, as it
is known, Indonesia is only 1.32 per cent of the whole width of land on Earth and it becomes
habitat for 10 per cent of flowering plants, 12 per cent of mammals, 16 per cent of reptiles
and amphibians, 17 per cent of birds, 25 per cent of fishes, and 15 per cent of insects
worldwide. In Indonesia, there are 36 per cent endemics of 515 big mammals in the world,
18 per cent endemics of 33 primates, 40 per cent endemics of 78 crooked beak birds, and
44 per cent endemics of 121 butterflies in the world (Ministry of Environment of the Republic
of Indonesia, 2016). Legislation which regulates the conservation of biological natural
resources and its ecosystem is the heritage of the colonial government in a variety of styles,
and no longer following the pace of legal development and the needs of the nation. Since
1967, there has been a change of legislation which relates to aspects in the conservation of
the natural biological resource and its ecosystem at the national scale, but the effort
of sustainable use in the regulation is not yet fully developed as needed (Ministry of
Environment of the Republic of Indonesia, 2016).
Therefore, in 1990, Indonesia issued Law No. 5 the year 1990 concerning the conservation
of the natural biological resource and its ecosystem as an implementation of government
concern on the environment. This legal basis regulates the protection of the life support
system and biodiversity in Indonesia. Furthermore, this law is amended with the Law No.
32 year 2009 concerning protection and management of the environment. To optimize the
implementation of it, the government issued ministerial regulation governing biodiversity
conservation for the regions in 2009. Based on it, each region should maintain the
biodiversity of its region.
The whole law in principle is primary and includes the whole aspect of biological natural
resource conservation and its ecosystem, while its implementation is regulated with
Government Regulation. Based on the existing regulation, the biodiversity report mandated
to local government in Indonesia as a form of its accountability (Table I).
This research used four samples of local government, namely, Luwu Regency, Gowa
Regency, Maros Regency and the City of Makassar. However, due to the limitation of data,

PAGE 816 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

 Table I
Management of Freshwater Quality Soil Management
Liquid Waste Control Water Resource Management
Ground Water Quality Forest Management
Seawater Quality Wetland Protection
Air Contamination from Moving Source Coastal Area Protection
Air Contamination from Non-moving Source Water Resource Protection
Air Contamination from Fire Biodiversity Protection in the Protected Area
Management and Control of Biodiversity Protection outside the
Contaminated Soil Protected Area
Management of Dangerous and Poisonous Waste Protection of Rare Species
Control of chemical substances from
Agricultural Industry

this research only conducted the discourse analysis on biodiversity report of Gowa
Regency named “kehati” which stands for keanekaragaman hayati or biodiversity, for 2016
(available data). Since the issuance of law and Government Regulation in 2009, the
government of Gowa Regency made the report which is considered complete just once.
Gowa Regency is one of the large local governments in South Sulawesi Province,
Indonesia. This region has many biodiversities. The natural resource which is available in
this region, mineral in particular (sand, mountain rock, red stone), is used to support the
development in other cities which are managed by private investors and society
traditionally. As we know, mining threatens the existence of regional biodiversity. Besides,
the position of Gowa Regency, which is adjacent to other cities like Makassar, becomes
vital to be the settlement of citizens. As a result, many lands in Gowa local government are
converted into settlement area, and it threatens biodiversity, so does the mining.
The biodiversity report of Gowa Regency consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 is about an
introduction, which describes background, target and purpose, and legal basis of the
importance of this report. Chapter 2 is about the general condition of local government in
Gowa, namely geographical location, zone border, demography, socioeconomic condition,
culture and map of the general condition in the region. Chapter 3 is about policy and
institution on biodiversity management. This section contains report related to Regional
Regulations about biodiversity, layout, and description about biodiversity in Gowa Regency,
such as landscape and diversity of an ecosystem, species, and genetic. This biodiversity
report was made just once since the stipulation of reporting about biodiversity in 2009.

Viewing problem of biodiversity report

The final results of categorizing student responses to the impressions conveyed by local
governments illustrate that the report does not favor biodiversity protection. In this case, the
Gowa government does not explicitly describe the environmental problems faced, and
there is no government commitment to environmental problems. Table II shows the low
quality of local government biodiversity reports.
Moreover, biodiversity report in Gowa local government, based on the observation of
researchers, tends to focus on stakeholders who are investors. In the report, the local
government seeks to show local natural resource to attract investors. It is shown by their
slogan, namely “the potency of the local natural resources.” This slogan affects the view of
preparers when compiling a biodiversity report. Description of biodiversity report is stated in
Table III.
Based on the observation, this report meets the minimum standard of a biodiversity report.
However, the report is not yet well structured. There is repetition in some tables, and

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 817

 Table II Results by students
Rank Characteristics identified Percentage of informants who identified characteristic

1 Detailed quantified information 62

2 There is a commitment to the environment 2
3 There is a general description of the environment 12
4 Information describing environmental problems 5
5 Identify actions to protect the environment 5
6 Commitment to investing in environmental matters 34
7 Describe an approach to environmental improvement 2
8 Information on the website is simple and clear 10
9 A statement of commitment is clearly stated 2
10 Linked to the central government website 16
11 There is an overview of stakeholder relationships 14
12 Pictures about the environment are available 62
13 Information about stakeholder feedback is available 12
14 Commitment to the environment is explained in detail 7
15 Up to date information 8
16 Explain specific environmental problems in the area 5
Source: Student responses to the biodiversity report of Gowa Regency

Table III Description of biodiversity report

Target
Aspect Reality stakeholder

Theme Graphic design “Biodiversity Potency in Gowa Regency” 198 pages; very plain; black To central
and color; Artwork; there are lots of photos government
Graphs and tables Eight graphs; 16 tables To investor
Order of contents: sections and topics Letter: “Biodiversity Potency in Gowa Regency” To investor
Introduction
General Condition
Policy and institution of biodiversity management
References
Appendix
Description of text Each topic under “Biodiversity potency in Gowa Regency” is organized into To investor
(1) description of how local government in Gowa Regency interacts with the
environment; (2) natural potency; (3) regulation to access nature
Source: Biodiversity Report of Gowa Regency (kehatigowa.blogspot.com, 2017)

information is left blank. Meanwhile, the report is very normative and provides an impression
about the opportunity to be obtained by investor to explore the natural resource in Gowa
Regency. The fact shows that biodiversity report of Gowa Regency does not entirely reveal
the data required by the stakeholders. General description from this report is an available
report which highly implies the fulfillment of interest in central government and effort to
attract investor.
In the first topic of research, observation of discourse on biodiversity report in local
government uses three cognitive frameworks by Eder (1996). Eder framework is used to
explore the report assessment further on three aspects, namely moral responsibility,
empirical objectivity, and aesthetics. Based on the first cognitive framework discourse, it
shows that the report focuses only on specific stakeholders, which are central government
and investor. The discourse result from the management impression is shown in Table IV.
From the information in Table IV, management’s impression is more likely to be intended for
the benefit of investors and for the use of biodiversity rather than the desire to protect it.
Biodiversity is considered as an opportunity to make the economy in the region better for
the government, instead of being a part of human life. Moral responsibility given by the

PAGE 818 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

 Table IV Moral responsibility framing device
Aspect Content Target Stakeholder

Existing regulation Minimum references to government regulation. Central Government

Government regulation seems to be taken for granted
Interaction with Adherence of Gowa local government in implementing Central Government
government regulation of central government
Voluntary activity Voluntary activity by the society in maintaining Central Government
biodiversity balance is only political narration, without
any visible form
Responsibility Description of community responsibility in maintaining Central Government
(commitment) nature is also a political language which is not apparent
and focused
Self-imposed Environmental policy; keeping that natural potency can Central Government
guidance be utilized continuously by society
Guidance from the It is a guideline in general for investor and society who Investor
community, other want to manage the natural resource
stakeholders
Source: Processed data

government is only oriented to attract investors in using biodiversity resource in the region.
Besides, there is no visible effort of the government to maintain and be responsible for
nature as a subject.
Based on the impression management theory, it can be said that the government in Gowa
Regency is not yet oriented to community and nature since they are not made parts of the
report. The slogan “potential for the local natural resources” in the Regency of Gowa gives
the impression of what investors and governments can do about natural resources for
commercial purposes.
The researchers then continue to the discourse of the other cognitive framework, namely
empirical objectivity. Based on finding in the field, empirical objectivity, and impression
purpose of this report is shown in Table V.
Finding in Table V describes report and impression from biodiversity disclosure by local
government in Gowa. This report does not yet reflect information integration related to
biodiversity operation in Gowa Regency. For example, the government discloses the
species, which is almost extinct, but it does not explain real effort to protect the related
species. Although there are efforts of protection and preservation of biodiversity in the
report, the explanation is not comprehensive, so there is no apparent relevance between
problem which is faced and solution to be offered.
Besides, the 2016 biodiversity report tends to prioritize socio-economic conditions rather
than reports on the patterns of regulation of biodiversity conservation in the region. Also,
most of the information in the report is not available or “blank.” It gives the impression that
the government has made reasonable efforts in environmental management, especially
biodiversity.
The last cognitive framework discourse is aesthetics from biodiversity report. Based on
finding in the field, the aesthetic of biodiversity report is shown in Table VI.
Aesthetic aspect in Table VI shows the discourse that nature for the government of Gowa is
potential to be used for human, not something which must be maintained. Meanwhile,
sustainability terminology which they understand in the relation between nature and human
is to fulfill the economic need. It means that nature needs to be preserved to provide
benefits for the economic life of a human. Furthermore, the relation between nature and staff
is visible as a relation between subject and object in which nature is an economic resource
which can be used for the economic growth in the region.

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 819

 Table V Empirical objectivity framing device and impression
Aspect Reality Impression

Management of freshwater quality available The government neutralizes negative information which can ruin
Liquid waste control available its image by not disclosing the related information
Groundwater quality N/A
Seawater quality N/A
Air contamination from the moving source N/A
Air Contamination from the non-moving incomplete
source
Air contamination from fire N/A
Management and control of contaminated soil N/A
Management of dangerous and poisonous N/A
waste
Control of chemical substances from the incomplete
agricultural industry
Soil management N/A
Water resource management uncoordinated
Forest management incomplete
Wetland protection N/A
Coastal area protection uncoordinated
Water resource protection N/A
Biodiversity protection in the protected area available
Biodiversity protection outside the protected N/A
area
Protection of rare species N/A
Source: Processed data (2018)

Table VI Aesthetic judgment framing device

Aspect Meaning Report Content Position in Report

Explanation about Nature is something When a region has more ecosystems, it Chapter I. Introduction, page 11, line 6-
nature which exists to be used has more opportunity to use this 8, paragraph 2
ecosystem diversity. The ecosystem
can contribute its benefits in the form of
goods and service
Terminology about Potency which can be The higher the biodiversity in a region, Chapter I. Introduction, page 11, line
environmental used from nature the higher the use opportunity since 13-16, paragraph 3
sustainability there are more choices and reserves (in
forms of goods and service) which can
be used
Relation with staff Nature is something Biological resource and its ecosystem in Chapter III. Policy and institution of
which exists to be the area of Gowa Regency have KEHATI management, page 45, line 42-
economically managed provided considerable benefits directly 44
and indirectly to the regional
development and income for society
Purpose of Economic growth The applicant accesses the biodiversity Chapter I. Introduction, page 11, line
biodiversity component through bargaining power 22-23, paragraph 4
management
Source: Processed data (2018)

Based on the finding in Table VI, the whole thought orientation in local government about
biodiversity leads to the economic factor. Therefore, the visible management impression
from the report of local government on biodiversity is that nature is something which exists
to be exploited, not to be preserved. This management impression is a reflection of a
cognitive understanding of staffs in local government officials.

PAGE 820 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

Discussion
The lesson that can be drawn from the findings of the Gowa local government biodiversity
report is that the information presented in the report does not describe the information
needed by stakeholders. It causes a lack of public awareness because regulation of the
existing report comes from central government, which is top-down. As is well known, Durant
et al. (2011) stated that the coordination of biodiversity information needs between users
and prepares of the report is very important where this coordination can be done both
through institutional and regulatory arrangements. Besides, Bansal and Kistruck (2006)
highlight that the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding information on environmental
issues only encourage organizations to make symbolic commitments and focus on
impression management rather than report substance.
Based on the result of observation, in local government in Indonesia, they must make the
reports of biodiversity and environmental activities based on the regulation in country, in the
form of the information report of environmental management performance in region and
online report of biodiversity profile; they must report it in hard copy to the Ministry of
Environment regularly. However, only some regions implement the rule, including Gowa
Regency. Besides, many data in the report are not available, or the officers do not
implement the activities. From the aspect of impression management theory, according to
Boiral (2016), the organization is conducting a neutralization technique when it has to
release information related to negative aspects. The neutralization technique is a strategy in
impression management that is used to restore conformity between organizational image
and community expectations or to provide moral justification for unethical behavior such as
rejection of responsibility, rejection of mistakes (Fooks et al., 2012; Bolino et al., 2008). Thus,
Talbot and Boiral (2014) have identified various neutralization techniques used by large
emission producing industries to rationalize the impacts of their emissions, such as
proclaiming industry excellence, or rejecting and minimizing information.
Another object of concern is the philosophy of environment; local government in Gowa
tends to embrace the anthropocentric philosophy when making biodiversity report in which
human is the main focus which is full of the instrumental values. The instrumental value of
biodiversity depends on how far these values are useful for human (Justus et al., 2009). All
aspects highly depend on the preference of human. Different biodiversity aspect can be
beneficial for human due to some reasons. Human appreciates biodiversity for economic
purposes, such as its contribution in supporting life on Earth, for pleasure, spiritual
satisfaction, or aesthetics which they get from that, and so on. Besides, research finding
also shows that biodiversity report which contains information about sustainable
development effort with environmental insight is not yet implemented, as it should be in the
development of Indonesia. In this case, a biodiversity report is only a report that is merely
political or perfunctory.
In addition, this study also found that biodiversity awareness of report preparers is based
on anthropocentric philosophy. Such awareness gives the impression that accountability for
biodiversity is maintained as long as it provides benefits to the economic life of the
community, as shown in this study. Such reports only focus on rhetoric on biodiversity
issues to give a positive impression to stakeholders rather than increase transparency
through the release of balanced information, both positive and negative aspects as a whole.
As Boiral (2013) said that the information and images contained in the sustainability report
are a simulacrum, camouflage on the real issues of sustainable development and reflecting
the organization’s ideal outlook to influence stakeholder perceptions positively.

Conclusion, implication and suggestion

The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the biodiversity report of local
governments in Indonesia prioritizes information on economic aspects, in this case,

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 821

 informing about the potential of exploitable areas. This report is far from the government’s
partisanship in protecting nature and biodiversity. This illustration shows that in Indonesia,
nature is still an object and not a subject that must obtain a place that is equal to humans
and other nature.
After disclosing fact about the form of biodiversity report in Gowa Regency from several
aspects, the researchers can conclude some points. First, though the disclosure given by
the local government in Gowa is only for one period, the researchers can track the use of its
environmental philosophy supported with the result of the interview. The embedded
environmental philosophy for the performers and report writers is anthropocentric
philosophy in which human is the center of attention of the whole universe. The use of the
term “sustainable development” in Gowa Regency (and another concept related to the
environment) has a different meaning. Environment and sustainable development are
dominant discourses based on anthropocentric philosophy. The rhetorical stance itself is
shown in report narration, which asserts that environmental discourse is central to society
for the sake of regional economic sustainability.
Second, based on the moral aspect, it was evident that the presented information implies
natural reporting for human interest. Biodiversity report of local government provides the
rhetoric impression that there is still available potency of natural resource which can be
processed by human, not how much the concern of human on the sustainability of nature
and its biodiversity. In other words, the impression is that human comes to extract
the potency of natural resource, which is not yet explored. Meanwhile, from the empirical
objective aspect, it seems that some information is not delivered. This impression shows
that action to minimize information is better than full disclosure since it can affect the image
of an organization. However, the fact shows that most of the information in the report is not
available or “blank.” It can be said that the government seeks to neutralize negative
information by not disclosing the data which may ruin its image.
Third, the aesthetic aspect of the report shows the same pattern in which the report aims to
attract investors to invest in Gowa Regency, which is rich in natural potency. The visible
impression is that nature and human are separated objects.
This study has practical implications for stakeholders, namely that the neutralization of
information can prevent stakeholders from developing a more critical view of biodiversity
reporting in general. It is because the local government manipulates information that is
conveyed to stakeholders. Local governments influence stakeholders through report
rhetoric to obscure the issue of the real biodiversity problem.
Furthermore, another implication is that more research is needed to understand
neutralization techniques in impression management that are used to reveal information
about other biodiversity issues. Impression management identified in this study does not
have to be specific concerning biodiversity, but can also be used to analyze information
disclosure on other issues. For example, management’s impression of the report compiler
makes specific statements and general rhetoric to hide information related to negative
issues. This type of study can also lead to the discovery of impression management
techniques that can influence the level of awareness of stakeholder on a particular issue.

References
Australian Government, Department of Environment (AGDE) and Natural Resource Management Ministerial
Council (2010), “Australia’s biodiversity conservation strategy 2010-2030, water, population and
communities”, Canberra, available at: www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d233f869-fae7-
4311-89d1-11556179db29/files/biodiversity-strategy-2010-brochure.pdf (accessed 24 January 2017).

Bansal, P. and Clelland, I. (2004), “Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic
risk in the context of the natural environment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 93-103.

PAGE 822 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

Bansal, P. and Kistruck, G. (2006), “Seeing is (not) believing: managing the impressions of the firm’s
commitment to the natural environment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 165-180.
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1991), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge, Penguin Books, London.
Boiral, O. (2013), “Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter account of a and a? GRI reports”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1036-1071.
Boiral, O. (2016), “Accounting for the unaccountable: biodiversity reporting and impression
management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 4, pp. 751-768.
Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H. and Gilstrap, J.B. (2008), “A multi-level review of impression
management motives and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1080-1109.
Buhr, N. and Reiter, S. (2015), “Ideology, the environment and one world view: a discourse analysis of
noranda’s environmental and sustainable development reports”, Environmental Accounting, pp. 1-48,
doi: 10.1016/S1479-3598(06)03001-9.
Cho, C.H., Michelon, G. and Patten, D.M. (2012), “Impression management in sustainability reports: an
empirical investigation of the use of graphs”, Accounting and the Public Interest, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 16-37.
Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), “Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020”, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Cuckston, T. (2013), “Bringing tropical Forest biodiversity conservation into financial accounting
calculation”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 2-2.
Demeritt, D. (2002), “What is the “social construction of nature”? A typology and sympathetic critique”,
Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 767-790.
Durant, S.M., Craft, M.E., Hilborn, R., Bashir, S., Hando, J. and Thomas, L. (2011), “Long-term trends in
carnivore abundance using distance sampling in Serengeti national park Tanzania”, Journal of Applied
Ecology, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1490-1500.
Eder, K. (1996), The Social Construction of Nature, Sage Publications, London.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone, Oxford.

Elkington, J. (2004), “Enter the triple bottom line”, in Henriques, A. and Richardson J. (Eds), The Triple
Bottom Line: Does It All Add up?, Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 1-16.

Elsbach, K.D. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Members responses to organisational identity threats:
encountering and countering the business week rankings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 442-476.
Fairclough, N. (2001), Language and Power, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Limited, London.

Fairclough, N. (2006), Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Ferreira, C. (2015), “The contested instruments of a new governance regime: accounting for nature and
building markets for biodiversity offsets”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2336
Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C. and Lee, K. (2012), “The limits of corporate social
responsibility: techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 283-299.

Freeman, M.C. and Groom, B. (2013), “Biodiversity valuation and the discount rate problem”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 3-3.

Gaia, S. and Jones, M.J. (2015), “UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a stakeholder
perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2367.

Gray, R. (2006), “Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation?
Whose value? Whose creation?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 793-819.
Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability . . . and how would
we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, accounting”, Organisations and
Society, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 823

 Gunnar, R. and Kristina, J. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: corporate disclosure and preparers’
views”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 746-778.
Hossain, M.M. (2017), “Accounting for biodiversity in Australia: the case of the Murray-Darling basin
authority”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 29 No. 1.
Jones, M.J. (1996), “Accounting for biodiversity: a pilot study”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 281-303.
Jones, M.J. (2003), “Accounting for biodiversity: operationalising environmental accounting”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 762-789.
Jones, M.J. (2011), “The nature, use and impression management of graphs in social and environmental
accounting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 75-89.
Jones, M.J. and Solomon, J.F. (2013), “Problematising accounting for biodiversity”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 668-687.
Jones, M.J. and Solomon, J. (2011), “Special issue: accounting for biodiversity”, special issue call for
papers from accounting”, Auditing and Accountability Journal, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/
products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id¼3056 (accessed 10 October 2011).
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H. and Maguire, L. (2009), “Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus
instrumental value”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 187-191.
Karpiak, C.P. and Baril, G.L. (2008), “Moral reasoning and concern for the environment”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 203-208.
Keller, R. (2011), “The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD)”, Human Studies, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 43-65.
Khan, T. (2014), “Kalimantan’s biodiversity: developing accounting models to prevent its economic
destruction”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 150-182.
Kortenkamp, K.V. and Moore, C.F. (2001), “Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: moral reasoning about
ecological commons dilemmas”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 261-272.
Lim, V.K. (2002), “The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 675-694.
Martennson, M. (2009), “Recounting counting and accounting: from political arithmetic to measuring
intangibles and back”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 835-846.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Milne, M.J., Kearins, K. and Walton, S. (2006), “Creating adventures in wonderland: the journey metaphor
and environmental sustainability”, Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 801-839.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! the ideological role of sustainable
development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1211-1257.
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia (2016), “Annual report”, Jakarta, available at: www.
menlh.go.id/

Nash, R. (1989), The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics, University of WI Press, Madison,
Wis.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a Q-Sort
approach to assessing Person-Organizational fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 487-516.
Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. (2002), Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Provis, C. (2010), “The ethics of impression management business ethics”, A European Review, Vol. 19
No. 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01584.x.

Rimmel, G. and Jonäll, K. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: corporate disclosure and preparers’
views”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 746-778.

Schlenker, B.R. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity and Interpersonal
Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.

PAGE 824 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020

Schlenker, B.R. and Weigold, M.F. (1992), “Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and
management”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 133-168.

Shandra, J.M., McKinney, L.A., Leckband, C. and London, B. (2010), “Debt, structural adjustment, and
biodiversity loss: a cross-national analysis of threatened mammals and birds”, Research in Human
Ecology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 18-33.

Siddiqui, J. (2013), “Mainstreaming biodiversity accounting: potential implications for a developing

economy”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 5-5.
Talbot, D. and Boiral, O. (2014), “Strategies for climate change and impression management: a case
study among canada’s large industrial emitters”, Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-
2322-5.
Tregidga, H. (2013), “Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerging governance regime”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 6-6.
Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Kearins, K. (2014), “(re) presenting ‘sustainable organizations”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 477-494.
Union for Ethical Bio Trade (2016), “Biodiversity barometer”, available at: http://ethicalbiotrade.org/dl/
Baro-2016-web.pdf
Van Dijk, T.A. (2011), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Van Liempd, D. and Busch, J. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Denmark”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 833-872.
Weir, K. (2018), “The logics of biodiversity accounting in the UK public sector”, Accounting Forum,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2018.09.005
Wheeler, Q.D., Knapp, S., Stevenson, D.W., Stevenson, J., Blum, S.D., Boom, B.M., Borisy, G.G., Buizer,
J.L., De Carvalho, M.R., Cibrian, A., Donoghue, M.J., Doyle, V., Gerson, E.M., Graham, C.H., Graves, P.,
Graves, S.J., Guralnick, R.P., Hamilton, A.L., Hanken, J., Law, W., Lipscomb, D.L., Lovejoy, T.E., Miller,
H., Miller, J.S., Naeem, S., Novacek, M.J., Page, L.M., Platnick, N.I., Porter-Morgan, H., Raven, P.H.,
Solis, M.A., Valdecasas, A.G., Van Der Leeuw, S., Vasco, A., Vermeulen, N., Vogel, J., Walls, R.L., Wilson,
E.O. and Woolley, J.B. (2012), “Mapping the biosphere: exploring species to understand the origin,
organization and sustainability of biodiversity”, Systematics and Biodiversity, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Winsemius, P. and Guntram, U. (2002), A Thousand Shades of Green: Sustainable Strategies for
Competitive Advantage, Earthscan Publications, London.

Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Corresponding author
Ratna Ayu Damayanti can be contacted at: ratna.ayu@fe.unhas.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 16 NO. 6 2020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 825