ALTERNATIVE THEORIES TO EXPLAIN BRITISH PETROLEUM'S RESPONSE FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REPORTING

Formal environmental reporting is increasingly of interest to many groups of users of corporate information. The short run monetary considerations of catastrophic events appear to be fairly well developed and guided by... [ view full abstract ]

Formal environmental reporting is increasingly of interest to many groups of users of corporate information. The short run monetary considerations of catastrophic events appear to be fairly well developed and guided by financial standards and regulators, but the overall qualitative and quantitative long-run impacts are difficult to assess. Further, there can be a large variance in how reporting entities and other groups communicate information. While many companies may invest significant resources in environmental reporting, management response to crisis can appear overly defensive or directed away from issues at hand. British Petroleum’s (BP) Gulf of Mexico oil spill demonstrates the case where management’s response is far from congruent with its formal statement of environmental reporting. This paper explores alternative and sometimes competing theories of why information gaps develop. Specifically, does the management response attune itself in a posture of legitimacy, adapting activity to changing perceptions, or is the response guided by one or more stakeholder user groups? If dominant factors can be isolated, and if an appropriate vehicle for disclosure could be identified, would such information be useful to standard setters, regulators, and the general public?