Sustainable development goals (SDGs) and their realization

Following the Our Common Future report, sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Redclift, Reference Redclift1993: 8). Multiple UN conferences worked to develop what is now known as SDGs, which were ratified at the 2015 General Assembly as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a ‘plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity’ that ‘seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom’ (United Nations, 2015: 1). This Agenda sets 17 aspirational global goals and 169 related targets to guide the world and business leaders on sustainable development and achieving a more sustainable planet (Osborn, Cutter, & Ullah, Reference Osborn, Cutter and Ullah2015; Schramade, Reference Schramade2017).

As well as setting goals, the SDGs provide a common language between companies, investors, and other stakeholders for talking about growth (Schramade, Reference Schramade2017). Moreover, the detailed and complex analysis of business interactions with ecological systems, resources, societies, and habitats, allows internal and external parties to make informed decisions about an organization's contribution to sustainable development (Gray & Milne, Reference Gray and Milne2002).

To realize the SDGs, firms first need to articulate their intentions. Yet, there is wide variation in how organizations engage with the SDGs (Stafford-Smith et al., Reference Stafford-Smith, Griggs, Gaffney, Ullah, Reyers, Kanie and O'Connell2017). After ratification, few companies reported on sustainable development using the SDG terminology (Rosati & Faria, Reference Rosati and Faria2019; Schramade, Reference Schramade2017). Moreover, while there is an explicit agreement that the SDGs comprise environmental protection, social inclusion, and economic development, firms' foci and intentions toward sustainable development remain broad (Bose & Khan, Reference Bose and Khan2022). While some firms display authentic obligations toward the SDGs, the majority in Heras-Saizarbitoria et al.'s (Reference Heras-Saizarbitoria, Urbieta and Boiral2022) study of 1370 firms showed a superficial engagement, leaving those authors to conclude those firms were engaged in cherry-picking positive aspects or greenwashing.

In situations like SDG reporting, an integrative stakeholder approach that considers the inextricably linked descriptive and instrumental aspects of firms' stakeholder relationships is helpful (Hörisch, Freeman, & Schaltegger, Reference Hörisch, Freeman and Schaltegger2014). A general integrative framework is constructive for accommodating firm-level differences in addressing sustainability (Elkington, Reference Elkington1997) and how firms attend to different stakeholdersFootnote ¹. Such accommodations are important for conceptual clarity when ‘people’ matters concern the welfare of several stakeholder groups, including employees/staff, contractors, third-party suppliers, and supplier shareholders. Similarly, while profit concerns are the predominant conceptualization in investor-owned firms, in different organizational arrangements, the relationship with other stakeholder types, like supplier shareholders, requires relationship management. Likewise, the Planet as a stakeholder with whom organizations have a relationship should be managed (Fisk, Reference Fisk2010). However, stakeholder relationships alone are insufficient; mutual sustainable development interest must also be created between organizations and their stakeholders (Hörisch, Freeman, & Schaltegger, Reference Hörisch, Freeman and Schaltegger2014). Yet, while developing mutual interests, firms also undertake efforts to shape how their sustainable development priorities are presented. Thus, we turn to OIM.

Organizational impression management tactics

OIM theory explains how intentionally designed actions are carried out to influence an audience's perceptions of the organization through conscious and unconscious acts (Elsbach, Sutton, & Principe, Reference Elsbach, Sutton and Principe1998). A fundamental tenet of impression management is the intention to shape the construction of reality and subsequently influence other perceptions, behaviors, and decision-making within groups instead of larger social orderings and macro-level structures (Di Domenico & Phillips, Reference Di Domenico, Phillips, Mills, Durepos and Wiebe2012). OIM occurs when ‘the management selects the information to display and present that information in a manner intended to distort readers’ perceptions of corporate achievements’ (Godfrey, Mather, & Ramsay, Reference Godfrey, Mather and Ramsay2003: 96). OIM is one option available to firms in the face of mounting pressure to acknowledge external forces, like sustainable development, by seeking stakeholder support but without committing the company to substantial changes to their current strategy (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, Reference Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley and Gilstrap2008; Talbot & Boiral, Reference Talbot and Boiral2015). OIM studies have revealed that impressions perform a role in restoring legitimacy, gaining buy-in and acceptance of controversial decisions, and as part of broader efforts to create a particular image or accomplish a specific goal (Bolino et al., Reference Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley and Gilstrap2008). Furthermore, impression management is sometimes used in conjunction with other managerial responses like substantial responses that seek to reduce pollution by making significant changes in production, process, or product design (Wu, Monfort, Jin, & Shen, Reference Wu, Monfort, Jin and Shen2022). For a broad review on impression management and its combination with other managerial responses, see Bolino, Long, and Turnley (Reference Bolino, Long and Turnley2016).

OIM tactics are multiple (Mohamed, Gardner, & Paolillo, Reference Mohamed, Gardner and Paolillo1999), including proactive or prospective ones that characterize an organization's accomplishments, such as giving accounts or legitimizing management's choices to change tact compared to existing norms (Arndt & Bigelow, Reference Arndt and Bigelow2000). Defensive tactics, like neutralizing, excuse-giving, apologizing, and justifications (Elsbach, Reference Elsbach1994; Elsbach, Sutton, & Principe, Reference Elsbach, Sutton and Principe1998; Merkl-Davies & Brennan, Reference Merkl-Davies and Brennan2007) are well-recognized assigning undesirable results qualities to specific actions or stakeholders (Amin Mohamed & Gardner, Reference Amin Mohamed and Gardner2004). Impression management tactics are associated with convincing stakeholders to accept changes to existing arrangements. Arndt and Bigelow (Reference Arndt and Bigelow2000) study showed how defensive tactics, including excuses, justification, disclaimers, and concealment, can be associated with attempts to abandon well-established structures. At the same time, positive tactics are employed to present changing goals as assertive and forward-thinking. In the context of founder-business angel interactions, Parhankangas and Ehrlich (Parhankangas & Ehrlich, Reference Parhankangas and Ehrlich2014) reported a similar pattern. They found that a combination of moderate use of positive language about the new ventures, assertive tactics that humble and blast the competition, and high levels of conforming opinions was associated with positive assessments toward new ventures by business angels. See Table 1 for a description of selected OIM tactics.

Table 1. Selected organizational impression management (OIM) tactics

Organization impression management tactics and SDGs

Extant studies of OIM tactics regarding climate change shows that firms engage in information campaigns to influence shareholders and broader stakeholders. Firms employ a diverse range of impression tactics. While some broadly support climate science and advocate precautionary action, others are defensive and pursue political strategies to fight regulatory intervention and misinform stakeholders (Aké & Boiral, Reference Aké and Boiral2023; Levy & Egan, Reference Levy and Egan2003; MacKay & Munro, Reference MacKay and Munro2012). Furthermore, like other controversial issues, organizational OIM responses about sustainable development shift as external pressures increase. Sometimes impressions are attempts to reduce or deflect contradictory external pressures (Cho, Laine, Roberts, & Rodrigue, Reference Cho, Laine, Roberts and Rodrigue2015; Levy & Kolk, Reference Levy and Kolk2002; MacKay & Munro, Reference MacKay and Munro2012), while others are attempts at legitimizing organizational activities (Boiral, Brotherton, & Talbot, Reference Boiral, Brotherton and Talbot2020; Cho, Michelon, & Patten, Reference Cho, Michelon and Patten2012; Milne, Kearins, & Walton, Reference Milne, Kearins and Walton2006). Such attempts are often associated with neutralization techniques aimed at legitimizing the impact of business operations on the physical environment, including self-proclaimed excellence, promotion of a systemic view, denial and minimization, denouncing unfair treatment and deceptive appearances, economic and technological blackmail, and blaming others (Talbot & Boiral, Reference Talbot and Boiral2015).

While this body of research articulates a repertoire of OIM tactics employed toward sustainable development, most of these insights have been built on the empirical analyses of using OIM tactics toward particular stakeholders, namely shareholders, existing customers, or advocacy organizations. This focus is surprising considering the increasing attention paid to stakeholders' role in addressing global sustainable development challenges (Talbot & Boiral, Reference Talbot and Boiral2015). Furthermore, it points to the need for closer attention to impression management- multiple stakeholder interactions (Gagné, Berthelot, & Coulmont, Reference Gagné, Berthelot and Coulmont2022). Since the use of OIM tactics toward sustainable development is known to shift in response to the external pressure from stakeholder groups, then we need to understand, in multistakeholder situations, what OIM tactics firms employ. Such insights seem especially important when the broader range of organizational types involved in addressing climate change and other global problems are considered (Haigh & Hoffman, Reference Haigh and Hoffman2012; Howard-Grenville et al., Reference Howard-Grenville, Buckle, Hoskins and George2014; Schiller-Merkens, Reference Schiller-Merkens2020). Hybrid organizations whose multiple goals mean their OIM is oriented toward multiple stakeholders have been identified for their potential to contribute toward achieving the UN SDGs. In that vein, The UN identified co-operatives as member-owned firms with such commitments (ICA, 2016, Reference ICA2017; International Labour Organization, 2016). Hence, this paper is interested in how agri-food co-operatives convey sustainable development impressions through their annual reports as a vehicle to build new theory about OIM tactics.

Co-operatives and their role in realizing SDGs

Co-operatives are people-centered organizational arrangements owned and controlled by their members, who can be customers, producers, or employees, and whose economic and social goals are shared among the members (Mazzarol et al., Reference Mazzarol, Clark, Reboud and Limnios2018). Enshrined in the Rochdale principles, co-operatives operate (at least normatively) on ideals of (i) open voluntary membership, (ii) democratic control, (iii) member economic participation, (iv) autonomy and independence, (v) education, training and information, (vi) cooperation among co-operatives, and (vii) concern for the community. The multistakeholder nature also makes them a helpful organizational arrangement for exploring OIM tactics for sustainability development.

The benefits of joint ownership are improved outcomes for the members without necessarily aiming to maximize benefits for any individual shareholder. The membership, control, and ownership principles meant that the management must engage members as shareholders and suppliers. Likewise, members must act in the interests of the co-operative as well as their individual interests. Connecting and containing member voting rights to supply ensures that decision-making remains with the membership (Fulton, Reference Fulton1999; Jussila, Goel, & Tuominen, Reference Jussila, Goel and Tuominen2012). Increased member engagement in decision-making is associated with member commitment (Apparao, Garnevska, & Shadbolt, Reference Apparao, Garnevska and Shadbolt2019; Puusa, Tuominen, Tuominen, & Havukainen, Reference Puusa, Tuominen, Tuominen and Havukainen2018), which is a critical and demanding task and a basis for a strong and well-functioning co-operative. Member commitment is significant for co-operatives as members have multiple connections as owners, patrons, investors, and community citizens with common goals on which the enterprise was founded (Limnios, Mazzarol, Soutar, & Siddique, Reference Limnios, Mazzarol, Soutar and Siddique2018). Apparao, Shadbolt, and Garnevska (Reference Apparao, Shadbolt and Garnevska2020) suggested that commitments in a co-operative could be divided into commitment to patronage and commitment to governance. Commitment to patronage is based on the fact that co-operative relies on long-term and repeated exchange relationships with their members to achieve a collective benefit more significant than the sum of individual members' inputs (Jussila, Goel, & Tuominen, Reference Jussila, Goel and Tuominen2012). Commitment to governance is based on members' participation in cooperative governance, a distinctive characteristic of this organization (Gray & Kraenzle, Reference Gray and Kraenzle1998). Committed members are willing to sacrifice to contribute to organizational success and increase engagement in strategic management (Apparao, Shadbolt, & Garnevska, Reference Apparao, Shadbolt and Garnevska2020).

The fifth, sixth and seventh Rochdale principles specify employees, other co-operatives, and the community in which co-operatives are embedded as other stakeholders. Employees are often the members' daily interface with the co-operative. Members' trust in employees is associated with stronger intra-organizational relationships between members, employees, and management, indicating the importance of the employee-as-stakeholder role (Jensen-Auvermann, Adams, & Doluschitz, Reference Jensen-Auvermann, Adams and Doluschitz2018). Consideration of other community stakeholders is a central feature of studies that have shown the role of co-operatives in generating local employment and fostering greater social integration (Ortiz-Miranda, Moreno-Pérez, & Moragues-Faus, Reference Ortiz-Miranda, Moreno-Pérez and Moragues-Faus2010; Purtik, Zimmerling, & Welpe, Reference Purtik, Zimmerling and Welpe2016)

Most recently, concern for the Planet has emerged as part of the seventh principleFootnote ² (Iyer, Reference Iyer, Altman, Jensen, Kurimoto, Tulus, Dongre and Jang2020). The Blueprint for a Cooperative Decade reports that sustainability is one of five priorities co-operatives have adopted to achieve their vision of strengthening the co-operative model and growing the global movement (ICA, 2016). The ICA's Coops for 2030 project pledged commitment to the SDGs. They report on the progress of co-operatives toward achieving the 17 goals, with assistance from 80 co-operatives from 31 countries who signed up (ICA, Reference ICA2017).

Yet, the peer-reviewed evidence about co-operatives' concern for the Planet as a stakeholder remains scant (Ajates, Reference Ajates2020b). Agri-food co-operatives pooling supply, processing, and marketing resources in the agricultural sector predominate the published evidence. They create and use reports, including sections in annual reports and other strategic documents, to make overt strategic statements to improve their ecological activities (Ofa & Garnevska, Reference Ofa and Garnevska2021). In such objects, co-operatives make statements about committing to eco-friendly farming and production practices (Ji, Jia, & Xu, Reference Ji, Jia and Xu2018; Sanyang & Huang, Reference Sanyang and Huang2008) and improving their environmental performance (Wiskerke, van Huylenbroeck, & Kirwan, Reference Wiskerke, van Huylenbroeck and Kirwan2013; Zhong et al., Reference Zhong, Zhang, Jia and Bijman2018). Nonetheless, it is rare for agri-food co-operatives to assess the three dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way (Marcis et al., Reference Marcis, Bortoluzzi, de Lima and da Costa2019). Furthermore, agri-food co-operatives are part of industrialized agricultural production systems and are often implicated in the greenwashing efforts of their more vital partners (Ajates, Reference Ajates2020a). Hence, they provide a relevant multistakeholder context for exploring OIM tactics for sustainable development.

Traditional concerns for people and profit

The Concern for People and Profit themes were closely related to co-operative principles and were consistently the most common across both before, during, and after SDG ratification, which was expected (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. OIM Tactics concerning People and Profit

Regarding people, the most common impression management tactics used were giving accounts, which were prevalent across all years. The CEO and chairperson statements acknowledged the members' and other stakeholders' changing needs regarding both topical matters (e.g., new legislative requirements, mental health initiatives) and medium-term issues (e.g., challenges to the social license to operate) while at the same time acknowledging the importance of enduring co-operative values (e.g., phrases like ‘here for the long-term’ and ‘intergenerational business’). Giving accounts about relationships with local communities was an OIM tactic that some co-operatives used across the period, but not all used it. This tactic was used when reporting on schemes supported or run by the co-operatives to address local issues, such as well-being, healthy food, and community activities.

Similarly, giving accounts was the most common OIM tactic regarding the traditional concern for profit across the period we explored. Acknowledgments were articulated in messages about the returns paid to members as the owners and about the ongoing profitability of the business considering economic and institutional changes.

Beyond giving accounts, we also identified two other OIM tactics that were used occasionally. We recognized that some co-operatives used statements that made justifications about concern for profit, such as balancing the demands of members and staff considering low pay-outs to the members or restructuring staff. The other impression management tactic related to the co-operatives' past activities and their need to listen and better recognize their members' and employees' needs. We labeled this category as a ‘making concessions’ impression management tactic. Unlike the tactics of making apologies or making excuses, which are defensive tactics already established in the literature (Bolino et al., Reference Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley and Gilstrap2008, Reference Bolino, Long and Turnley2016), the tactic of making concessions was more like a neutralization tactic (Boiral, Brotherton, & Talbot, Reference Boiral, Brotherton and Talbot2020; Talbot & Boiral, Reference Talbot and Boiral2015) in that it recognized the need for the co-operative to behave differently and acknowledge that more action on the part of the co-operative was required. Only some co-operatives used the concession-making tactic with concern for people, and those that did employ it used it concerning members as shareholders. Giving support and apologies were the other tactics associated with concerns for people and profit, but these instances were few.

Growing concern for the planet

The relationship between co-operatives and the physical has garnered recent attention (Wanyama, Reference Wanyama2014). In the reports we analyzed, we identified broad parallels between this debate and the emerging concern for the Planet (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. OIM tactics concerning the Planet

Giving accounts about responsibility for the physical environment shifted in the analyzed period. At the start of the period, there were several accounts about the physical environment, but four co-operatives only made them. By 2017, immediately following SDG ratification, the number of co-operatives giving accounts about the Planet increased to eleven. We also noted that statements about the environment dropped toward the end of the period. This pattern coincided with some of the larger co-operatives producing environmental sustainability reports that complemented their annual reports and other strategic documents (Ofa & Garnevska, Reference Ofa and Garnevska2021), which the CEOs and chairs acknowledged in their annual reports.

Moreover, while the number of co-operatives giving accounts about concern for the Planet increased, the content used in those tactics remained consistent. Production processes related to water degradation through nutrient run-off into waterways and aquifers and wastewater, assisting their members in reducing the environmental impact of their businesses, and improving energy efficiency were the specific content in those messages. New Zealand is an industrialized country where agriculture remains the leading contributor to climate pollution throughout the studied period (NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, 2016). Hence, the content used in the acknowledgment tactics is unsurprising.

Regarding the emerging concern for the Planet, we also recognized that some co-operatives used statements that made concessions about their past activities or their need to do more to address concerns for the physical environment. We labeled this category as a ‘making concessions’ impression management tactic. Like the concessions made about concern for people, the concessions about the Planet recognized the need for the co-operatives to change considering shifting macro-factors (physical changes from global warming, social license to operate, shifting consumer expectations, supply-chain transparency, and regulatory requirements). They acknowledged that more action on the part of the cooperates was required. Only some co-operatives used the concession-making tactic concerning the Planet, and those that did articulate them in one of two ways. Some made concessions about their role in reducing environmental impact, and some made concessions about their role in responding to national and international calls for change. Finally, there were two isolated examples where justification and support tactics were employed.

Integration of people, profit, and planet concerns

The final theme that emerged from our analysis was the impressions that integrated people, profit, and Planet concerns. By an integrative manner, we mean how the relationships between the three concerns were explicitly connected. These 29 statements appeared in the reports of six of the 14 co-operatives. (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. OIM Tactics concerning the integration of people, profit, planet

In most instances, the OIM tactic was to give accounts. Those statements reaffirmed the rationale for and the long-term orientation of the co-operative business model. These statements stressed reciprocity between the co-operatives and the social and ecological systems in which they participate. In other instances, the tactic justified meeting up to members' and regulators' changing expectations.