IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/sampjp/sampj-10-2018-0272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The greenwashing triangle: adapting tools from fraud to improve CSR reporting

Author

Listed:
  • John Richard Kurpierz
  • Ken Smith

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show a significant overlap in the models accounting research uses for fraud and the models other research disciplines use for greenwashing, and show how researchers and policymakers interested in the application of effective sustainability policy can draw from fraud accounting literature to better understand, and therefore, combat greenwashing. This is illustrated by showing multi-actor information-asymmetry models from other branches of accounting literature and synthesizing them with the fraud triangle model to suggest new avenues for reducing greenwashing and strengthening corporate social responsibility (CSR). Design/methodology/approach - This paper reviews the current literature surrounding the greenwashing aspect of corporate camouflage compares the legal and technical definitions of fraud and synthesizes a new variant fraud triangle that more usefully describes greenwashing. Findings - This paper is able to show that other areas of accounting research in North America have already tackled similar systems of multiple actors in an information-asymmetric environment and that a recurring trait is the emergence of a more robust reporting system. CSR reporting is currently in the process of emerging and could develop more swiftly by copying extant fraud-fighting tools. This is particularly salient given the increasing amount of liability legal regimes are giving to both sustainability activities and sustainability reporting from firms, as evidenced in both guidelines and scandals over the past decade. Research limitations/implications - Sustainability reporting is not unique in comprising a large number of interrelated entities with non-financial information asymmetry between actors. Previous researchers have encountered similar situations in government accounting and public administration and developed network models to study these relationships as a result. In government accounting, this led to the development both of better diagnostic tools for further research and better models for local governments to use to prevent fraud and malfeasance. This paper suggests that using such research methods in the area of CSR will allow for the development of similarly-useful tools and models. Practical implications - Visualizing greenwashing as a form of fraud allows policymakers to use tools from the fraud-fighting literature to improve CSR reporting and produce a more robust regime in the future. As governments increasingly seek to respond effectively to material misstatements with an intent to deceive in sustainability reports, understanding the underlying information asymmetry as it is found in other private-public interfaces is critical. Similarly, researchers can analyze CSR reporting through the lens of fraud researchers to gain novel insights into how information asymmetry in CSR reporting works. Social implications - Greenwashing is not traditionally seen as a form of fraudulent reporting, even though it often meets the same technical test used to determine fraudulent reporting. The realization that the two are structurally similar allows the authors to better understand how CSR reporting works and how CSR reporting can be falsified. By understanding the latter, governments, firms and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can develop tools to prevent CSR reporting from being falsified. Originality/value - This paper suggests a new suite of tools with which to study greenwashing, and with which to fight greenwashing in a sustainability accounting context.

Suggested Citation

  • John Richard Kurpierz & Ken Smith, 2020. "The greenwashing triangle: adapting tools from fraud to improve CSR reporting," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(6), pages 1075-1093, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-10-2018-0272
    DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0272/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0272/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2018-0272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruiqian Xu & Jinchen Liu & Dongning Yang, 2023. "The Formation of Reputation in CSR Disclosure: The Role of Signal Transmission and Sensemaking Processes of Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Francesca Bernini & Fabio La Rosa, 2024. "Research in the greenwashing field: concepts, theories, and potential impacts on economic and social value," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 405-444, June.
    3. Roger L. Burritt & Stefan Schaltegger & Katherine Leanne Christ, 2023. "Environmental Management Accounting – Developments Over the Last 20 years from a Framework Perspective," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(4), pages 336-351, December.
    4. Oana Marina Radu & Voicu D. Dragomir & Ningshan Hao, 2023. "Company-Level Factors of Non-Financial Reporting Quality under a Mandatory Regime: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-32, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-10-2018-0272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.