Received: 6 April 2020 | Revised: 6 April 2021 | Accepted: 20 May 2021

DOI: 10.1111/beer.12361

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Antecedents of corporate misconduct: A linguistic content

analysis of decoupling tendencies in sustainability reporting

Marcus Conrad | Dirk Holtbrügge

Department of International Management,

Friedrich-­Alexander University Erlangen-­
Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany
Correspondence
Marcus Conrad, Department of International
Management, Friedrich-­Alexander
University Erlangen-­Nürnberg, Lange Gasse
20, 90403 Nürnberg, Germany.
Email: Marcus.conrad@fau.de
Abstract
Corporate social irresponsibility and corporate misconducts are a severe threat to
the endeavours to establish more responsible business practices. Therefore, aca-
demia and practice alike try to find ways to anticipate these behaviors. In this regard,
linguistic analysis can provide an approach to detect decoupling tendencies of firms,
that is to identify firms that fail to walk the talk. This paper examines how the sustain-
ability reports of eight manufacturing firms in the automotive and aircraft industries
differ in regard to their linguistic composition. By applying the Linguistic Inquiry and
Word Count software, we emphasize how sustainability reports of decouplers and
implementors differ in morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The analysis
reveals that decouplers, among other factors, communicate in a less cognitively com-
plex way. As they use shorter sentences, more informal language, less past and fu-
ture references, and fewer conjunctions, we derive that decouplers are characterized
by a lower linguistic sophistication. Moreover, decouplers’ reports can be classified
by their linguistic hubris, which is defined by fewer emotional references, more self-­
references, less references to risk and anxiety, and heavy reliance on male language.
The paper contributes to the debate on decoupling and corporate social irrespon-
sibility, identifies linguistic antecedents of corporate misconduct, and enriches the
domain of CSR reporting with a linguistic perspective. It supports the understanding
of managers, policymakers and stakeholders of firms to evaluate whether a firm may
fail to walk the talk.

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N is obviously a gap between what companies claim to do and what

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a major issue for
firms worldwide (e.g., Bu et al., 2013; Jamali & Mirshak, 2007). Large
Multinational Corporations (MNCs) especially pursue many CSR ac-
tivities and communicate them via extensive CSR reporting, which
is often acknowledged by stakeholders and complemented with a
plethora of awards. At the same time, however, frequent corporate
misconducts are observed, which clearly contradicts the CSR efforts
of MNCs and suggests an irresponsible firm behavior. Thus, there
they actually do (Garcia-­Torea et al., 2020; Webley & Werner, 2008).
Hence, both stakeholders and academia are interested in detecting
indicators and patterns that allow identifying antecedents of corpo-
rate misconducts in order to establish more sustainable and respon-
sible business practices.
One of the most recent examples of corporate misconduct is at
Volkswagen (VW). The world’s biggest automobile manufacturer in-
tentionally deceived more than 11 million customers, its sharehold-
ers and society up until September 2015 by installing a defeat device

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-­NonCommercial-­NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-­commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

538 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer
 Business Ethics, Env & Resp. 2021;30:538–550.

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
in its diesel vehicles that allowed much higher toxic emissions and
pollutants in daily traffic compared to at the testing grounds. VW was
always very involved in proactively communicating its CSR activities
as well as its sustainability awards. The firm stated that “by 2018, the
Volkswagen Group is aiming to be the world’s most environmentally
compatible automaker”, and constantly emphasized the need for the
reduction of carbon emissions (Volkswagen, 2014, p. 86). Moreover,
the term “award” can be found 104 times in the 156 pages of their
2014 sustainability report, emphasizing prizes and awards that were
received for their sustainable and environmentally-­friendly product
portfolio. In 2018 and 2019, another MNC was convicted of a cor-
porate misconduct: Boeing. The second biggest aircraft manufac-
turer worldwide caused the death of hundreds of passengers due
to fraudulent safety procedures in its 737 Max aircrafts, resulting in
two lethal crashes. Boeing also published detailed sustainability re-
ports including references to its sustainability awards, e.g., its 2018
Campbell Award “for integrating the highest standards of environ-
ment, health and safety (EHS) performance into all levels of business
operations (Boeing, 2018, p. 5).”
Research and industry experts argue that these intentionally
induced corporate misconducts of VW and Boeing were primarily
caused by internal flaws within the two organizations, such as their
technology-­
obsessed and high-­
pressure, performance-­
driven cor-
porate cultures, ineffective corporate governance, and authoritarian
leadership styles. All these reasons for corporate misconduct were de-
termined ex-­post (Clemente & Gabbioneta, 2017; Coldwell, 2019; Cruz
& de Oliveira Dias, 2020; Elson et al., 2015; Johnston & Harris, 2019;
Meck, 2016; Schneider, 2016; Siano et al., 2017). It would be interest-
ing, however, to identify antecedents of corporate misconduct before
they occur. We argue that linguistic analysis of sustainability reports
provides a suitable approach to detect gaps between self-­defined CSR
policies and CSR practices, and ultimately allows for the detection of
corporate social irresponsibility. Based on these considerations, we
derive the research question “How can linguistic patterns affect the
ability to detect decoupling in sustainability reporting?”
The first steps in this direction were taken by Crilly et al. (2016)
and Newman et al. (2003) who emphasize the predictive power of
language in communication. The authors argue that a linguistic anal-
ysis of official documents allows differentiating between firms that
actively execute their CSR communication, and hence walk the talk,
and those that do not, by decoupling their policies from practical
execution (Cetindamar & Ozkazanc-­Pan, 2017; Crilly et al., 2012;
Frostenson et al., 2012; Haberstroh et al., 2017; Jamali et al., 2017;
MacLean et al., 2015). Research argues that communication by de-
couplers that is often deceptive in nature is expressed differently
than communication by entities that intend to walk their talk. For
example, it was found that decouplers use less past references,
more inclusive conjunctions, more I-­references, and a more negative
emotional tone (Crilly et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2003; Tausczik &
Pennebaker, 2010). However, previous studies are confronted with
multiple shortcomings. First, the analyzed linguistic categories often
seem eclectic and do not follow a systematic structure. Second, only
a few categories can be linked to decoupling and results of different
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
539
studies are often incoherent. Third, an overall linguistic pattern for
decoupling that goes beyond the pure analysis of individual catego-
ries is missing in the existing research.
By performing a linguistic content analysis, this study contributes
to the debate on decoupling and corporate social irresponsibility, iden-
tifies linguistic antecedents of corporate misconduct, and enriches
the domain of CSR reporting from a linguistic perspective. More spe-
cifically, we detect linguistic patterns that allow the differentiation
between implementors and decouplers. By applying the Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software, we compare the sustainabil-
ity reports of the eight biggest automotive and aircraft manufacturers
worldwide and analyze whether there are linguistic differences in the
use of the morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimen-
sions that can be connected to truthful communication (implementors)
or fraudulent deviations (decouplers). We believe our study supports
the future endeavours of managers, policymakers, NGOs and stake-
holders of firms to proactively determine and anticipate corporate
misconducts by analyzing corporations’ sustainability communication,
which may reduce corporate social irresponsibility in the future.
2 | TH EO R E TI C A L FR A M E WO R K
2.1 | Corporate misconduct and corporate social
irresponsibility
Corporate misconduct refers to illegal, unethical, or socially irre-
sponsible activities by corporations that directly harm their stake-
holders (Greve et al., 2010). While some authors take a narrow
approach, emphasizing that a breach of law must occur (MacLean
& Behnam, 2010; Murphy et al., 2009), others include the inten-
tion or ignorance of “unacceptable or improper behavior” (Davies
& Olmedo-­Cifuentes, 2016, p. 1428) as corporate misconduct. As
such misbehavior clearly contradicts a firm’s postulated social re-
sponsibility, e.g., in its CSR reports, a corporate misconduct can be
considered irresponsible behavior. The connected concept of cor-
porate social irresponsibility has gained considerable academic at-
tention in recent years (see Murphy & Schlegelmilch, 2013; Nardella
et al., 2020) and is often considered a contradiction to the positively
connoted CSR concept (Lange & Washburn, 2012). Corporate social
irresponsibility is defined as “a socially irresponsible act […] to accept
an alternative that is thought by the decision maker to be inferior to
another alternative when the effects upon all parties are considered.
Generally this involves a gain by one party at the expense of the
total system” (Armstrong, 1977, p. 185). This irresponsible behav-
ior, often emphasized by the discrepancy between corporate actions
and words, is defined as decoupling.
2.2 | Decoupling
The classical notion of policy-­practice decoupling was introduced
by Meyer and Rowan (1977) and refers to a pure symbolic adoption
 |
540
of policies without substantively implementing them. Rooted in
institutional theory, policy-­practice decoupling can jeopardize an
entity’s legitimacy and sanctions for the decoupler may occur. We
rely upon the classical notion of policy-­
practice decoupling and
refer to this phenomenon as “gaps between (organizations’) formal
structures and their ongoing activities” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977,
p. 341) and “the organizational misalignment between surface
structures and actual activities” (Haack et al., 2012, p. 819).
Decoupling has been analyzed from a wide range of perspec-
tives in business ethics literature. For example, Wickert et al. (2016)
analyze the effects of firm size and organizational costs on decou-
pling and summarize that MNCs have more difficulties to realize CSR
activities compared to small firms. Cetindamar and Ozkazanc-­Pan
(2017) link decoupling to the disparity between communicated goals
and their actual operationalization for venture capital investors,
and recently, Haberstroh et al. (2017) emphasize the phenomenon
of moral decoupling from the consumer’s perspective, e.g., when
this group decouples its (buying) decision from immoral business
practices of the firm. However, decoupling does not necessarily link
to intentional misconduct, as corporate misconduct might also be
caused by a plethora of factors that make it inevitable. Examples
are the need for adaptation to fast-­changing environments, or the
upper echelon’s and middle managers’ lack of knowledge about how
to turn claims into reality (Christian Aid, 2004; Crilly et al., 2016;
Matten & Moon, 2008). Moreover, Frostenson et al. (2012) analyzed
decoupling in the codes of conduct of two retail companies and
emphasized that the phenomenon of decoupling cannot always be
connected to managerial hypocrisy. Recently, Tashman et al. (2019)
added that emerging market MNCs also increasingly use sustainabil-
ity reporting as a global legitimation strategy. However, the institu-
tional void between the home and the host countries does not only
motivate CSR reporting but also promotes CSR decoupling, or in
other words, ceremonially adopting sustainability reporting for pure
legitimation purposes.
If corporations deceive stakeholders intentionally with their
statements and hide their harmful activities behind flowery words,
this is considered intentional decoupling which jeopardizes the cor-
poration if detected. This intentional decoupling also applies to sus-
tainability reporting as Christensen et al. (2013, p. 374) emphasize:
“Corporate talk is cheap and […] CSR communication is shallow, ma-
nipulative and insincere, [when] decoupled from the daily practices
of the organization”. It is necessary “to walk the talk” (p. 373) and to
avoid intentionally-­induced maleficence. Graafland and Smid (2019,
p. 232) add that sustainability communication is just “ceremonial if
companies decouple policies from implementation […].” MacLean
et al. (2015) emphasize the link between decoupling an ethics pro-
gram’s adoption from implementation and refer to the crucial role
of personal perceptions and behaviors, revealing “potent individual-­
level consequences of decoupling” (p. 361).
While existing studies emphasize the reasons for and conse-
quences of decoupling from multiple business ethics perspectives,
they are not able to provide us with indicators or patterns that allow
us to judge whether a corporation shows a high tendency towards
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
intentional decoupling or not. However, language and the analysis
of linguistic cues can serve as a predictor of the true intentions of
the authors of a written document. Research argues that decep-
tive and fraudulent communication differs significantly from enti-
ties that intend to walk the talk (DePaulo et al., 2003; Hart, 2014;
Langacker, 2008).
2.3 | Linguistic analysis
Linguistics as “the scientific study of language” (Crystal, 2011, p.
283) serves as a promising avenue to shed light on the phenome-
non of decoupling. This methodology assumes that language is not
a neutral tool through which our reality is described and reported,
but a constitutive and cognitive process that shapes organizations
and perceptions of reality (Christensen et al., 2013). As language
represents our cognition, linguistic analysis can support research
and organizations’ stakeholders to differentiate between fraudulent
and honest communication (Crilly et al., 2016; DePaulo et al., 2003;
Hart, 2014; Langacker, 2008).
Linguistic analysis of decoupling has been applied across vary-
ing scholarly disciplines like psychology, communication and man-
agement. For example, Tausczik and Pennebaker (2010) revealed
that deceptive communication is moderately descriptive, distanced
from oneself and more negative in tone. Crilly et al. (2016) found
evidence that the use of the future tense, a negative emotional tone
and inclusive language correlate with deceptive communication, and
thus, indicates decoupling. Larcker and Zakolyukina (2012) revealed
that fewer emotional and fewer anxiety-­related words connect with
deceptive CEOs, whereas Goel and Gangolly (2012) found multiple
linguistic indicators that have been associated with financial decou-
pling, like the use of complex sentence structures, the use of a pos-
itive tone, the use of uncertainty markers and the use of adverbs.
However, as explained earlier, previous studies are confronted
with multiple shortcomings as these are often eclectic, disjointed,
and do not follow a systematic linguistic structure. The needed
structured and systematic approach to linguistics can be derived
from Crystal (2011). This linguistic approach contains the four di-
mensions of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, which
can be linked to 18 different indicators for decoupling. Applying
Crystal’s approach allows a comprehensive, structured and coherent
analysis without any prior or later exclusion of specific indicators.
The first dimension, labeled as morphology, “refers to the study of
the internal structure of words, and of the systematic form–­meaning
correspondences between words” (Booij, 2012, p. 7) and can be
connected to categories like gender, tense, numbers or the number
of a person, e.g., We versus I. Secondly, syntax deals with the rules
governing the combination of words in sentences’ (Crystal, 2011,
p. 314) and is linked to categories like the length of a sentence or
conjunctions. In general, morpho-­syntactic categories (Booij, 2012)
analyze the smallest units of language: words with their number and
person, gender and tense, numbers and letters, as well as sentences
with their conjunctions and length. Third, semantics is defined as

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
the “the study of literal, decontextualized, grammatical meaning”
(Frawley, 1992, p. 1) and deals with the meaning of signs. It con-
tains the lexical stock of words and idioms for fundamental concepts
and ideas that each language provides and can be connected to the
emotional tone of a text with its overall emotion as well as to key-
words that represent risk, danger or anxiety. Fourth, pragmatics
emphasizes the context, situation and relationship between actors
(Crystal, 2011) and allows for the analysis of informal language in
a text or the use of quotes. Pragmatics also considers the context
of communication, i.e., “the participants involved, the situation in
which the discourse occurs, and the social structures that have an
influence on how the participants interpret texts” (Pollach, 2003, p.
281). It takes into account that the same term can have different
meanings in various situations. For example, formal language and
frequent quotations may be appropriate in a certain situation (e.g.,
an academic study) and less suitable in another (e.g., an interview
on TV).
2.4 | Sustainability reporting
Sustainability reporting by MNCs is an “attempt to boost their cred-
ibility through varied means of CSR communication” (Aqueveque
et al., 2018, p. 1). Although sustainability reporting has become a
mandatory activity for most big corporate entities in the European
Union (EU) since 2015 (Mion & Adaui, 2020), and stakeholders of
MNCs outside the EU request information about a corporation’s
social and environmental activities, several cases of deviation have
been observed. Brine et al. (2007) and Karaye et al. (2014), among
others, criticize that CSR reports can only be considered soft-­law,
that is statements that are not legally binding. This means CSR re-
ports only represent intentions of firms, which can differ from prac-
tical execution. Weaver et al. (1999) agree that corporations often
introduce sustainability strategies but decouple their intentions and
statements from the later realized actions, even when having no or
only minimal CSR compliance can be “deadly to the firm” (Joyner &
Payne, 2002, p. 299). Based on linguistic analysis, Crilly et al. (2016)
emphasize the problematic relationship between sustainability re-
ports and realized actions. By definition, the authors label MNCs
that consistently realize their sustainability policies as implementors,
whereas those that do not walk their talk are defined as decouplers.
Hence, it can be argued that the systematic linguistic analysis of
sustainability communication by MNCs –­represented in the written
form of a CSR report –­allows for the evaluation of whether a firm is
likely to practice its policy or is prone to decouple.
3 | M E TH O D O LO G Y
This study executes a linguistic content analysis on sustainability re-
ports in order to detect deception markers and decoupling patterns.
The analysis is based on the methodology of Crilly et al.’s (2016) CSR
reports analysis, Newman et al.’s (2003) linguistic analysis, as well as
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
541
the linguistics approach of Chung and Pennebaker (2008). Linguistic
content analysis is well established in academic research (Bowman
& Haire, 1976; Crilly et al., 2016; Guthrie & Mathews, 1985; Milne
& Adler, 1999; Moir, 2001; Patten & Crampton, 2004) and is based
on counting specific words, phrases or structures within a text or a
set of texts. As Lock and Seele (2015, p. 30) argue: “Communication
sciences and business ethics are neighboring disciplines, which allow
the transfer of quantitative content analysis from communication
sciences to business ethics”. Thus, this approach is reliable and valid
with regard to our focus on the morphology, syntax, semantics, and
pragmatics of a text.
The linguistic content analysis is conducted with the Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software developed by Pennebaker
et al. (2015), Pennebaker et al. (2015). The program has existed
for over a decade and has been continuously improved in order to
better serve the academic purposes of linguistic analysis. Newman
et al. (2003, p. 667) state that the program is “even more accurate at
detecting deception than untrained human judges.” For this study,
the 2015 version was used. The LIWC analyzes texts by counting
defined words and assigning these words to specific categories.
Specifically, it uses pre-­
defined dictionaries in order to analyze
documents for specific text characteristics, such as the amount of
numbers, use of tenses, keywords, and other linguistic categories of
morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.
3.1 | Sample and decoupler classification
The sample contains sustainability reports from Volkswagen (VW)
and Boeing, as well as reports from each of their three largest com-
petitors (see Table 1 in the Results section). The reports were consid-
ered on a group level, which for VW Group, for example, includes the
brands of Volkswagen, Audi and Seat, among others. Comparisons
between those eight companies were chosen due to the similarities
in their business environments. All firms in the sample manufacture
road or air vehicles –­in this case automobiles and aircrafts. These
products are classified by high technical sophistication as well as
high resource and capital intensity. All firms in this sample are under
constant media scrutiny due their importance for global mobility
and the special considerations in these industries with regard to
environmental concerns like climate change and carbon emissions.
Moreover, all firms in the sample can be classified by sophisticated
technical structures and tasks, as most employees are engineers or
from closely-­related fields. Two of the analyzed MNCs were recently
accused and convicted of intentional corporate misconduct related
to their manufactured vehicles, namely, VW for its defeat device
and Boeing for its fraudulent safety procedures. Therefore, these
two firms are defined as decouplers in our sample. We believe that
many similarities exist between the corporate misconduct at VW
and the corporate misconduct at Boeing. First, their commonalities
in leadership and management styles, organizational structures and
corporate values can be considered reasons for the occurrence of
these corporate misconducts. Second, these intentionally induced
 |

26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
542 CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE

TA B L E 1 Overview of analyzed
Word
companies and CSR reports
Industry Company Classified as… Year count

Aircraft Airbus Implementor 2016/2017 156,917

2017/2018 173,183
2018/2019 176,896
Boeing Decoupler 2017 12,747
2018 12,543
2019 8,234
Bombardier Implementor 2017 10,515
2018 11,688
2019 12,023
Lockheed Martin Implementor 2017 20,209
2018 20,527
2019 27,631
Auto-­motive General Motors Implementor 2012/2013 39,887
2013/2014 42,447
2014/2015 46,329
Hyundai Implementor 2013 31,227
2014 45,991
2015 45,207
Toyota Implementor 2013 83,912
2014 97,261
2015 81,527
Volkswagen Decoupler 2013 147,284
2014 122,513
2015 138,728
Average word count = 65,226

corporate misconducts are very similar in nature, as both MNCs de-
liberately manipulated their products to boost growth, profit and
shareholder value. Third, both companies were convicted for their
wrongdoing and agreed to at least partial admission of culpability
(Coffee Jr, 2020; Tafoya, 2020).
The two decouplers of VW and Boeing are compared with their
three biggest competitors where no similar misconduct has occurred.
Hence, we argue that we can classify those six firms as implemen-
tors. From these eight MNCs, we consider the following sustainabil-
ity reports for our analysis: the Dieselgate of VW was discovered in
September 2015, therefore the three most recent reports published
prior to the misconduct going public from VW and its three biggest
competitors were used. The Boeing 737 Max scandals occurred in
October 2018 and March 2019 respectively, therefore the three
most recent reports published prior to the first misconduct going
public from Boeing and its three biggest competitors were used.
commands. In the beginning, all CSR reports were prepared for
word-­count and specific searches that were tested with python. We
then used the LIWC for the analysis of the following measures (18
indicators from the LIWC) that were aggregated to the four afore-
mentioned linguistic dimensions of morphology (I / we / male / fe-
male / focus-­future / focus-­past / number / quantitative), syntax
(conj (inclusive) / differ (exclusive) / WPS (words per sentence)), se-
mantics (negemo (negative emotions) / posemo (positive emotions) /
tone / risk / anxiety), and pragmatics (informal / quote). After having
analyzed all documents with the LIWC software, the values were
transferred to SPSS 26 to conduct a two-­t ailed t-­test between our
sub-­samples of decouplers and implementors. We believe that this
methodological approach is reasonable and insightful, as it allows
the detection of significant differences between two pre-­defined,
unrelated sub-­groups in our sample.

3.3 | Reliability and validity

3.2 | Procedure of analysis
To ensure that one specific report from one firm was not an outlier
All reports were downloaded from the respective corporation’s in terms of its linguistic composition, we decided to include the latest
homepage and analyzed with the LIWC, SPSS 26, and python search three reports from each firm dated before the respective corporate

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
misconduct occurred to ensure temporal reliability. This robustness
check was executed via a t-­test and revealed no significant differ-
ences at a 0.05 confidence level.
Moreover, we conducted a further robustness check and con-
trolled for potential cultural bias (e.g., Evans & Levinson, 2009) by
comparing the reports of VW and Boeing with two competitors with
the same country of origin, namely, BMW and Lockheed Martin. A
t-­test revealed significant differences for the majority of indicators
analyzed. Thus, we conclude that potential differences between de-
couplers’ and implementors’ CSR reports are not biased by cultural
differences.
4 | R E S U LT S
Table 1 provides an overview of the documents that were analyzed
with the LIWC. In total, 24 reports published between 2013 and
2019 were analyzed. Twelve reports belong to the aircraft industry,
12 belong to the automotive industry, and each MNC is represented
by three reports from three different years. The lengths of the docu-
ments range from roughly 8,000 to 173,183 words –­with an average
length of 65,226 words.
A summary of our results can be found in Table 2. Overall, for 16
out of 18 different indicators, significant differences between de-
couplers and implementors were detected. The only exceptions are
with the indicator’s usage of we-­form and the use of numbers.
Relating to the first linguistic dimension, morphology, we found
that decouplers’ reports contain 0.8% of I-­form in the whole ana-
lyzed text, whereas implementors’ reports only contain 0.25%. This
difference is highly significant on a 0.01-­level. As previously men-
tioned, there are no significant differences for the second indicator
in that category, which relates to the We-­form (0.89% for decou-
plers, 2.25% for implementors). With regard to gender, decouplers’
reports contain 0.19% male and 0.06% female language whereas im-
plementors’ reports contain 0.09% male and 0.08% female language.
The differences for both indicators are highly significant on a 0.01-­
level. Also, relating to the indicator usage of tenses, highly significant
differences (0.01-­level) were detected. Decouplers use 0.51% future
references whereas this value is 0.76% for implementors. In addition,
past references are more often used by implementors with 1.12%
compared to 1.01% for decouplers. Numbers and quantitative mea-
sures however yielded mixed results. The amount of numbers used
is only significant on 0.26-­level (5.88% for decouplers, 7.47% for
implementors). The second indicator in this category, quantitative
measures, was highly significant with values of 1.62% for decouplers
and 1.65% for implementors.
With respect to syntax, significant differences could be detected
for inclusive and exclusive language and their respective conjunc-
tions. Decouplers use 3.73% of inclusive and 0.80% of exclusive lan-
guage, whereas implementors score higher for both indicators with
5.18% and 1.14%, respectively. Moreover, the length per sentence
differed significantly on a 0.05-­level, as decouplers’ reports were
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
543
roughly three words shorter at an average of 25.10 words compared
to implementors’ reports with 28.12 words.
In terms of semantics, decouplers have less negative (0.49%)
and less positive (2.11%) emotions than implementors (0.78% and
3.51%), both being significantly different on a 0.01-­level. Also, the
overall emotional tone differed significantly on a 0.01-­level, as de-
couplers’ reports are written in a more downbeat (56.15%) style
compared to implementors’ documents (74.56%). Risk and anxiety
words were analyzed next, and both are less frequently found in
decouplers’ communication (0.49% and 0.12%) compared to signifi-
cantly higher values for implementors’ (1.06% and 0.31%).
For the last dimension of pragmatics, informal language was
detected significantly more frequently in decouplers’ CSR reports
(1.60%) than in implementors’ reports (0.73%). The difference is
highly significant on a 0.01-­level. Ultimately, the use of quotes dif-
fers significantly on a 0.05-­level between decouplers and implemen-
tors. The latter use quotes in 0.48% of the text, whereas the value is
0.63% for decouplers.
In summary, our analysis reveals that decouplers clearly differ-
entiate from implementors in all four of the studied linguistic di-
mensions of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics by using
more I form, more male and less female language, less future and
less past references, less quantitative measures, less conjunctions,
shorter sentences, less emotions, a more negative tone overall, less
reference to risk and anxiety, more informal language, and finally
more quotes.
5 | D I S CU S S I O N
Corporate social irresponsibility and corporate misconduct are a se-
vere threat to the endeavor to establish more responsible business
practices. Therefore, academia and industry alike are trying to find
ways to anticipate these behaviors. Based on the academic observa-
tions that language can be an indicator for decoupling (Cetindamar
& Ozkazanc-­Pan, 2017; Crilly et al., 2012; Frostenson et al., 2012;
Haberstroh et al., 2017; Jamali et al., 2017; MacLean et al., 2015),
this paper examined how the sustainability reports of eight manu-
facturing firms in the automotive and aircraft industries differ with
regard to their linguistic composition. Guided by the research ques-
tion “How can linguistic patterns affect the ability to detect decou-
pling in sustainability reporting?”, we argue that the detection of
specific linguistic patterns can be antecedents for corporate social
irresponsibility and corporate misconduct.
As our findings indicate many linguistic differences between
truthful and deceptive communication, we support the results of
previous studies that decouplers and implementors communicate
significantly differently (Crilly et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2003;
Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). In the following chapter, our find-
ings will be discussed in more detail. First, we focus on the linguistic
dimensions of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics and
their potential for detecting decoupling. Afterward, we emphasize
 |544

TA B L E 2 Results of statistical analysis

Indicator (from Decoupler Decoupler Implem. Implem. Two-­tailed Linguistic predictor for
Linguistic dimension Linguistic category LIWC) Unit (mean) (SD) (mean) (SD) t-­test decoupling

Morphology Number and person I % 0.80 0.76 0.25 0.40 0.01*** More i form
We % 0.89 0.61 2.25 1.83 0.23 –­
Gender Male % 0.19 0.17 0.09 0.10 0.01*** More male language
Female % 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.01*** Less female language
Tense Focus-­future % 0.51 0.30 0.76 0.28 0.01*** Less future references
Focus-­past % 1.01 0.52 1.12 0.39 0.01*** Less past references
Letters versus numbers Number % 5.88 1.19 7.47 3.15 0.26 –­
Quantitative % 1.62 0.79 1.65 0.60 0.01*** Less quantitative
measures
Syntax Conjunc-­tions Conj (inclusive) % 3.73 1.82 5.18 1.53 0.05** Less inclusive and less
Differ (exclusive) % 0.80 0.40 1.14 0.44 0.01*** exclusive language

Length of a sentence WPS (words per Raw 25.10 2.31 28.12 3.92 0.05** Shorter sentences
sentence) number
Semantics Positive and negative emotions Negemo (negative % 0.49 0.21 0.78 0.36 0.01*** Less negative emotions
emotions)
Posemo (positive % 2.11 0.98 3.51 1.05 0.01*** Less positive emotions
emotions)
Emotional tone Tone Formula 56.15 15.13 74.56 15.64 0.01*** More negative tone
(out of overall
100)
Risk and anxiety Risk % 0.49 0.27 1.06 0.55 0.01*** Less reference to risk
Anxiety % 0.12 0.06 0.31 0.21 0.01*** and anxiety

Pragmatics Slang and informal language Informal % 1.60 1.11 0.73 0.75 0.01*** More informal
language
Quotes Quote % 0.63 0.15 0.48 0.20 0.03** More quotes

Significance levels: *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.
CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE

26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
the predictive power of linguistic patterns by exemplifying the phe-
nomena of linguistic sophistication and linguistic hubris.
5.1 | Detecting decoupling via linguistic dimensions
5.1.1 | Morphology
The first dimension considered was the subject of a sentence, often
expressed in the first person singular or plural. Our results indicated
that decouplers use significantly more I-­form than implementors.
We argue that self-­focused communication is expressed by fewer
references toward others or the collective We-­Form. Generally, the
frequent use of words like “I”, “me” and “myself” might indicate that
a person is primarily focused on their own actions and thoughts
whereas words like “we”, “us”, “ourselves” might indicate a shift of
focus and responsibility to the group, also at the organizational level.
We believe that CSR reports are official statements of MNCs, which
consist of multiple individuals, groups and stakeholders, and hence
the frequent usage of the I-­form is generally not appropriate and can
be considered a possible detector for decoupling. Ott et al. (2011)
support our argumentation by stating that “I” has the most deceptive
explanatory power compared to all other words used, whereas “we”
can be considered truthful. However, our results are not significant
for the We-­Form, although implementors use 2.5 times as many We-­
references as decouplers. Future studies need to further elaborate
on this aspect.
Second, our results indicate that decouplers use more male and
less female language. Generally, women were found to be more re-
sponsible and care-­t aking which is expressed in their language. For
example, female language results in different text bodies compared
to male language, and was proven to result in higher CSR compliance
(Newman et al., 2008; Ruegger & King, 1992; Setó-­Pamies, 2015).
In this regard, it was found that men are more likely to deviate from
the truth than women (Hancock et al., 2007) and hence male lan-
guage can be linked to lower levels of CSR compliance. Overall, fe-
male managers seem to be more prone to ethical compliance and
their more care-­t aking and empathetic language indicates that a firm
rather walks the talk.
When examining the tense of a sentence, we found that de-
couplers use less future and less past references. Crilly et al. (2016)
claim that the use of specific tenses is an indication of decoupling.
However, they state that decouplers tend to use the future tense
and future references in their reports more often than implemen-
tors. Implementors like to point out what they have achieved in the
past, whereas decouplers make future promises without being able
to refer to past achievements (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). We argue
that the usage of past references is connected to more experience,
more differentiated evaluations and less wishful thinking. As de-
couplers often do not possess these traits, they use less past refer-
ences. However, it seems that decouplers are not only less focused
on past activities, but also do not emphasize possible future oppor-
tunities. This could be linked to either the fear that stakeholders
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
545
might criticize them for unfulfilled promised activities, or to a lack of
knowledge about what to promise and how to realize it in the future.
Therefore, we argue that a lack of past and future references can
serve as an indicator for decoupling.
Lastly considered is the morphology of a text in relation to
numbers. A high degree of numbers implies a quantitative focus,
which can be linked to a strong economic orientation toward turn-
over, profits, ratios or key performance indicators (Kristof, 2003;
Strauss, 2003). Our results indicate no significant difference in the
use of numbers between decouplers and implementors. Although
implementors’ sustainability reports contain slightly more quantita-
tive measures than those of decouplers, we argue that numbers and
quantitative measures cannot be considered a detection marker for
decoupling.
Overall, our findings show that morphology has an unobtrusive
predictive power toward CSR compliance, even though the We-­
Form and the numbers indicators did not yield significant results.
Although this linguistic dimension does not indicate clear decep-
tion markers for all analyzed indicators (contrary to the other
three dimensions), morphology can serve as a valuable detector
for decoupling.
5.1.2 | Syntax
Conjunctions are an important element of the syntactic structure
of language. They connect different thoughts with each other and
can be inclusive or exclusive. Inclusive conjunctions are, for exam-
ple, “and”, “as well as”, “additionally” and “with”, whereas exclusive
conjunctions are “or”, “but”, “nevertheless”, “versus” as well as words
like “only”, “not” or “if” (Pennebaker & King, 1999). Contrary to Crilly
et al. (2016) and Newman et al. (2003) who state that inclusive lan-
guage is mainly used by decouplers and that decouplers therefore
use fewer exclusive words, our results indicate that decouplers
do not only use less exclusive but also less inclusive language. We
argue that decouplers also use less inclusive words, as this could be
connected to sophisticated, cognitively complex evaluations that
require time and effort –­something that a decoupler may not be
willing to invest or is not able to do. Making realistic evaluations of
a plethora of factors to be included into one’s own reasoning re-
quires a high cognitive complexity, which decouplers do not seem
to provide in their communication. Staying ordinary and arbitrary in
language yields fewer conjunctions overall and hence allows for de-
tecting decoupling tendencies.
Our results further indicate that decouplers use shorter sen-
tences. A reason for this may be that the intention of realizing CSR
commitments expresses itself in more complex formulations which
result from careful and detailed thinking and, therefore, more words
per sentence. Hauch et al. (2012) agree with this observation and
Clinton (2008) confirms that decouplers use sentences with fewer
words per sentence. As CSR needs differentiated and detailed ex-
planations as part of a complex cognitive process, longer sentences
compared to decouplers’ statements can be expected.
 |
546
Overall, we believe that syntax has a very high predictive power
for decoupling as both indicators were able to detect fraudulent
communication.
5.1.3 | Semantics
Our results indicate that decouplers use significantly less negative
and significantly less positive emotion words. Moreover, the emo-
tional tone indicator is significantly lower. A potential explanation
for this finding can be that decouplers feel burdened by decep-
tive statements and hence use fewer emotions in a text (DePaulo
et al., 2003; Vrij, 2000). Newman et al. (2003) and Hauch et al. (2012)
find a negative correlation between emotion words and decoupling
as well. Furthermore, the emotional tone of decouplers in general is
more “downbeat” than “upbeat” (Pennebaker, Booth, et al., 2015). “A
number around 50 suggests either a lack of emotionality or differ-
ent levels of ambivalence” (Pennebaker, Booth, et al., 2015, p. 22).
The decouplers in this study have an emotional tone indicator that
is almost 20 points lower than that of implementors, which allows
us to link this value to decoupling. Overall, our results indicate that
emotionality, or rather the lack thereof, constitutes a valuable detec-
tor for decoupling tendencies.
Our findings also show that decouplers use less words connected
to risks and anxiety than implementors. Companies that consider
CSR as one of their core values tend to reflect actively and explicitly
about risks of their actions and initiatives (March & Shapira, 1987).
Considering possible consequences of one’s actions can result
in a risk evaluation or in anxiety if not executed (Raghunathan &
Pham, 1999). Firms that care less about their social impact may
refer less often to words that connect to risk and anxiety as they
do not burden themselves with possible negative consequences.
Consequently, the second indicator in the linguistic dimension of se-
mantics can also be connected to decoupling.
5.1.4 | Pragmatics
Informal language is shown to be used significantly more by decou-
plers according to our results. A potential explanation for this re-
sult is that formal language is highly appropriate and expected in an
official corporate context whereas a lack thereof indicates that the
corporation does not take their words and statements too seriously.
A lack of seriousness or even the existence of apathy indicates that
an entity perceives a topic as (partly) irrelevant and hence avoids
the initiation of any cognitively complex decision-­making or thought
processes. Ultimately, this could result in decoupling between ac-
tions and words, as statements are chosen without evaluating the
possibility of realizing these statements. Consequently, we argue
that informal language serves as a detector for decoupling.
Another finding is that decouplers’ sustainability reports in-
clude more quotes than those of implementors. Research dis-
covered that fraudulent webpages are constantly quoting other
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
individuals, and liars often use statements of others as pretext
(Grazioli & Jarvenpaa, 2000). Frequent quotations diffuse respon-
sibility inside and outside the organization and may be used as an
excuse for promises that cannot be kept, even if the corporation
quotes its own executive. Moreover, group-­
based decisions and
statements are less likely to result in negative outcomes, which con-
tradicts the idea of constantly quoting a few individuals like the CEO
and other members of the upper echelon (Whyte, 1991). Thus, the
frequent usage of quotations is a form of avoiding common state-
ments of responsibility and connects to decoupling.
5.2 | Detecting decoupling via linguistic patterns
After performing the indicator-­and dimension-­wise analysis of the
selected CSR reports, we explored whether implementors and de-
couplers can also be characterized by different linguistic patterns.
This is based on the assumption that an analysis of language at a
purely atomic level which focuses on single dimensions is not suf-
ficient to capture its entire meaning. Instead, this should be accom-
panied by a holistic consideration of multi-­dimensional linguistic
patterns.
First, our results indicate that decouplers generally use less com-
plex language than implementors and hence have a lower linguistic
sophistication. This is emphasized by less future and less past refer-
ences, less inclusive and less exclusive language, shorter sentences,
and more informal language, i.e. indicators that can be connected to
cognitive complexity. Decouplers are considered to communicate
with a lower cognitive complexity as they lack the cognitive decision-­
making and thought processes that implementors go through when
critically evaluating how to behave in a socially and environmen-
tally responsible way. Research confirms our finding by stating that
untruthful communication comes to the fore by simpler language
(Newman et al., 2003). Hauch et al. (2012, p. 3) state that “truth-­tellers
are believed to use […] more complex explanations of what occurred,
liars are believed to engage less in such explanations.” Summarizing,
we argue that there is evidence for decoupling when less cognitively
complex linguistic structures appear within CSR communication.
The second pattern that emerged from our analysis is linguistic
hubris. The term relates to the frequently discussed concept of exec-
utive or CEO hubris (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Li & Tang, 2010).
Tang et al. (2015, p. 1352) argue that “CEO hubris led firms to par-
ticipate in fewer socially responsible activities and more socially
irresponsible ones”. Recently, Akstinaite et al. (2020) revealed that
“linguistic markers have considerable potential to reveal how the
complex phenomenon of hubris manifests through subtle differ-
ences in CEOs’ language use.” Based on these considerations, we
argue that linguistic hubris can be considered a second emerging
linguistic pattern. Our findings indicate that this pattern is char-
acterized by decouplers’ use of more male than female language,
more individual and quotation references than collective terms, less
emotional references, and a lack of emotionality overall. We argue
that these indicators of linguistic hubris are part of a hierarchical,

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
patriarchal, meritocratic and technocratic language style. The de-
couplers’ CSR reports are written in a distant tone with few emo-
tional elements whereas implementors’ reports are more “upbeat”
and empathetic. Moreover, decouplers show signs of hubris by fre-
quently using self-­references expressed via the I-­Form or quotes,
and references to collective efforts and achievements are less fre-
quent. An overly self-­confident corporation is also likely to use fewer
references to risk and anxiety as these aspects are considered less
relevant to decouplers. Finally, CSR reports of implementors have
almost equal proportions of male and female language whereas de-
couplers tend heavily towards male language. Male language can be
connected to hubris as demonstrated by a plethora of studies that
link men with overconfidence and narcissism –­factors that can be
considered problematic with regard to CSR compliance (Barber &
Odean, 2001; Grijalva et al., 2015; Huang & Kisgen, 2013; Tang et al.,
2015). Summarizing, we argue that there exists evidence for decou-
pling when linguistic hubris is apparent within CSR communication.
6 | CO NTR I B U TI O N S , LI M ITATI O N S A N D
I M PLI C ATI O N S
In this study, a linguistic content analysis of sustainability reports of the
eight biggest automotive and aircraft manufacturers worldwide was
conducted. Based on the concept of policy-­practice decoupling and
a model of linguistics that includes the four dimensions morphology,
syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, we were able to identify indicators
and patterns that connect to decoupling tendencies. Our study
revealed significant linguistic differences between decouplers and
implementors in all four linguistic dimensions. In particular, syntax,
semantics, as well as pragmatics were revealed to be reliable detection
indicators for decoupling in sustainability reporting. Thus, our study is
in line with previous studies that claim that linguistic content analysis
is a valuable tool for detecting decouplers (Crilly et al., 2016; DePaulo
et al., 2003; Lock & Seele, 2015; Newman et al., 2003).
This study enriches the current understanding of linguistic analy-
sis with the derivation of patterns in language that can be connected
to decoupling, which can therefore serve as linguistic antecedents
for corporate misconduct and corporate social irresponsibility.
Specifically, our analysis revealed that decouplers clearly differ-
entiate themselves from implementors linguistically because they
communicate in a less cognitively complex way. As they use shorter
sentences, more informal language, less past and future references,
and fewer conjunctions, we derive that decouplers are character-
ized by less linguistic sophistication. Moreover, decouplers’ reports
are written with linguistic hubris, which is determined by fewer ref-
erences to female language, fewer emotions, fewer references to
risk and anxiety, as well as by a lack of overall emotionality. Overall,
these findings allow us to state that the general cognitive-­linguistic
complexity and linguistic hubris serve as detection indicators of de-
coupling tendencies in written statements.
The concept of policy-­practice decoupling with an ex-­ante per-
spective is enriched by this study by offering linguistic antecedents
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
547
to detect fraudulent communication before it manifests in the form
of corporate misconduct. More precisely, in addition to linguistic cat-
egories like tense, conjunctions, emotions, quotes etc. that were em-
phasized in previous studies, the overall pattern of a text concerning
linguistic sophistication and linguistic hubris is determined to serve as
an ex-­ante indicator for decoupling.
Moreover, we enrich research in the domain of CSR reporting
with a linguistic perspective. Business Ethics is interested in reveal-
ing whether and under which circumstances MNCs walk the talk in
their CSR reporting. This study revealed that CSR reporting must not
only be analyzed from a CSR perspective focused on CSR theories,
reporting standards or institutional pressures, but also from neigh-
boring disciplines. We agree with Lock and Seele (2015, p. 30) that
“communication sciences and business ethics are neighbouring dis-
ciplines” that should not neglect, but rather enrich each other with
interdisciplinary perspectives.
These results provide a detection measure for decoupling in (sus-
tainability) reporting before it becomes publicly visible in the form
of a corporate misconduct. Moreover, the findings support multi-
ple stakeholder groups in forming accurate judgements about cor-
porations, as our results allow them to determine ex-­ante whether
a corporation meets its defined and required (ethical) standards.
Investors may have an indication that aids them in anticipating cor-
porate misconduct and hence avoid the loss of monetary resources,
employees can at least partly ensure they work for a firm that meets
their own social and environmental standards, and ultimately, NGOs
and other public entities may have a detection indicator to avoid
praising fraudulent, decoupling corporations (again) with multiple
sustainability awards –­as highlighted in our introduction. Ultimately,
this study supports managers, policymakers, stakeholders and so-
cietal groups to anticipate wrongdoing, maleficence and corporate
social irresponsibility in corporations before it occurs.
We believe that stakeholders’ linguistic awareness will be im-
proved by our study as one antecedent of corporate misconduct was
detected in the form of linguistics. Our results can also support the
upper echelon of organizations to reflect on their own communica-
tion in order to recognize intentions to mislead. One may argue that
the consequences of such awareness will lead to more sustainable
and more responsible business practices in future. We also believe
that our study emphasizes the necessity for managers to address
sustainability reporting from a broader perspective as well, espe-
cially by including communication and linguistics into CSR. A pure
practical focus on hard factors like compliance with sustainability
standards or the amount of financial investment into sustainable
projects can no longer be considered sufficient (also see: Garcia-­
Torea, 2019) as also softer factors like language need to be included.
Despite the contributions to theoretical and practical knowl-
edge, some limitations should be mentioned. Originally, the LIWC
categories were developed for studies in the clinical and psychologi-
cal contexts which consist of different language and word structures
than sustainability reports (Newman et al., 2003). Although the
LIWC was later applied in the business and management literature
(e.g., Akstinaite et al., 2020; Crilly et al., 2016; Goel & Uzuner, 2016;
 |
548
Larcker & Zakolyukina, 2012), it remains unexplored how individ-
ual communication differs from organizational communication in
that regard. Due to the fact that we ensured this variable remained
constant across the sample, as we only analyzed organizational
communication, we believe that the results are not affected by this
shortcoming. However, futures studies should shed light on this in-
teresting research avenue.
Moreover, cultural differences on CSR and CSR reporting could
have an influence on how the linguistic composition of a sustainability
report is constructed (Lee & Riffe, 2017; Matten & Moon, 2008). In this
study we addressed this caveat: firstly, by a t-­test that revealed signifi-
cant differences for the majority of the analyzed indicators when com-
paring our decouplers with implementors with the same country of
origin, and secondly, by emphasizing that the eight MNCs in our sample
are operating worldwide and globally. They have subsidiaries in more
than one hundred countries around the globe, have a workforce that
is extremely international and often generate more than half of their
sales abroad. Therefore, we believe that the risk of culturally-­specific
communication differences is not fully applicable in our study because
we analyzed culturally-­diverse, globally-­active MNCs. Nevertheless,
we encourage future studies to analyze how different CSR perceptions
(e.g., “implicit” versus “explicit”, Matten & Moon, 2008) may influence
CSR reporting in specific cases, e.g., for SMEs.
While we purposefully restricted our sample to two similar man-
ufacturing industries and firms with similar characteristics, future
studies may extend the scope of industries and analyze, for example,
corporate misconducts in financial services, infrastructure projects
and healthcare. This would allow researchers to test the validity of
our results in other contexts and include additional factors, such as
industry culture and government involvement.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
Data derived from public domain resources, in this case: corporate
sustainabilitiy webpages.
REFERENCES
Akstinaite, V., Robinson, G., & Sadler-­Smith, E. (2020). Linguistic markers
of CEO hubris. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(4), 687–­705. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1055​1-­019-­0 4183​-­y
Aqueveque, C., Rodrigo, P., & Duran, I. J. (2018). Be bad but (still) look
good: Can controversial industries enhance corporate reputation
through CSR initiatives? Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(3),
222–­237. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12183
Armstrong, J. S. (1977). Social irresponsibility in management.
Journal of Business Research, 5(3), 185–­ 213. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-­2963(77)90011​-­X
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overcon-
fidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 116(1), 261–­292. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335​53015​
56400
Boeing. (2018). 2018 Environment report.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–­234. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s1532​7957p​spr10​03_2
Booij, G. (2012). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic mor-
phology. Oxford University Press.
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1976). Social impact disclosure and corpo-
rate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1, 11–­21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-­3682(76)90004​-­0
Brine, M., Brown, R., & Hackett, G. (2007). Corporate social responsi-
bility and financial performance in the Australian context. Autumn,
2007, 47–­58.
Bu, M., Liu, Z., Wagner, M., & Yu, X. (2013). Corporate social responsibil-
ity and the pollution haven hypothesis: Evidence from multination-
als' investment decision in China. Asia-­Pacific Journal of Accounting
& Economics, 20(1), 85–­ 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081​
625.2013.759175
Cetindamar, D., & Ozkazanc-­Pan, B. (2017). Assessing mission drift at
venture capital impact investors. Business Ethics: A European Review,
26(3), 257–­270. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12149
Christian Aid. (2004). Behind the mask: The real face of corporate social
responsibility. Christian Aid.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational
talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–­ 393. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505​
08413​478310
Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Revealing dimensions of
thinking in open-­ ended self-­descriptions: An automated mean-
ing extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 96–­132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006
Clemente, M., & Gabbioneta, C. (2017). How does the media frame
corporate scandals? The case of German newspapers and the
Volkswagen diesel scandal. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(3),
287–­3 02. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564​92616​689304
Coffee, J. C. Jr (2020). Corporate crime and punishment. The Crisis of
Underenforcement. Berrett-­Koehler Publishers.
Coldwell, D. (2019). Negative influences of the 4th industrial revolution
on the workplace: Towards a theoretical model of entropic citizen
behavior in toxic organizations. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2670. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerp​h1615​2670
Crilly, D., Hansen, M. T., & Zollo, M. (2012). Faking it or muddling
through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pres-
sures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–­1448. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0697
Crilly, D., Hansen, M. T., & Zollo, M. (2016). The grammar of decoupling:
A cognitive-­linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and
stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2),
705–­729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0171
Cruz, B. S., & de Oliveira Dias, M. (2020). Crashed Boeing 737-­max:
Fatalities or malpractice? GSJ, 8(1), 2615–­2624.
Crystal, D. (2011). Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Vol. 30. John
Wiley & Sons.
Davies, G., & Olmedo-­Cifuentes, I. (2016). Corporate misconduct and
the loss of trust. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1426–­1447.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-­11-­2014-­0729
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K.,
& Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
74–­118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.129.1.74
Clinton, D. CMA, C. P. A. (2008). Can we detect fraud earlier? Strategic
Finance, 90(4), 51.
Elson, C. M., Ferrere, C. K., & Goossen, N. J. (2015). The bug at
Volkswagen: Lessons in co-­ determination, ownership and board
structure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27(4), 36–­43. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12144
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language univer-
sals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive sci-
ence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–­ 4 48. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0140​525X0​999094X
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frostenson, M., Helin, S., & Sandström, J. (2012). The inter-
nal significance of codes of conduct in retail companies.

CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(3), 263–­ 275. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-­8608.2012.01657.x
Garcia-­Torea, N. (2019). Two versions for the same story: Restatements
and assurance of sustainability reporting. Social and Environmental
Accountability Journal, 39(1), 77–­79.
Garcia-­Torea, N., Fernandez-­Feijoo, B., & De La Cuesta, M. (2020). CSR
reporting communication: Defective reporting models or misapplica-
tion? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
27(2), 952–­968. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1858
Goel, S., & Gangolly, J. (2012). Beyond the numbers: Mining the annual re-
ports for hidden cues indicative of financial statement fraud. Intelligent
Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 19(2), 75–­89.
Goel, S., & Uzuner, O. (2016). Do sentiments matter in fraud detection?
Estimating semantic orientation of annual reports. Intelligent Systems
in Accounting, Finance and Management, 23(3), 215–­239. https://doi.
org/10.1002/isaf.1392
Graafland, J., & Smid, H. (2019). Decoupling among CSR policies, pro-
grams, and impacts: An empirical study. Business & Society, 58(2),
231–­267. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076​50316​6 47951
Grazioli, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2000). Perils of Internet fraud: An em-
pirical investigation of deception and trust with experienced
Internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics-­Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(4), 395–­410. https://doi.
org/10.1109/3468.852434
Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild:
The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational mis-
conduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53–­107. https://doi.
org/10.5465/19416​52100​3654186
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D.,
Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A
meta-­analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0038231
Guthrie, J. E., & Mathews, M. R. (1985). Corporate social accounting in
Australasia. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 7,
251–­277.
Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D., & Wickert, C. (2012). Talking the talk, moral
entrapment, creeping commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in
corporate responsibility standardization. Organization Studies, 33(5–­
6), 815–­8 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708​4 0612​4 43630
Haberstroh, K., Orth, U. R., Hoffmann, S., & Brunk, B. (2017). Consumer
response to unethical corporate behavior: A re-­ examination and
extension of the moral decoupling model. Journal of Business Ethics,
140(1), 161–­173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­015-­2661-­x
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). On
lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-­
mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1–­23. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01638​53070​1739181
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar, and ideology: Functional and cognitive
perspectives. Bloomsbury.
Hauch, V., Masip, J., Blandon-­Gitlin, I., & Sporer, S. L. (2012). Linguistic
cues to deception assessed by computer programs: A meta-­analysis.
In Proceedings of the EACL 2012 workshop on computational ap-
proaches to deception detection in Avignon, France, April 23–­27, 2012
(pp. 1–­4). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hayward, M. L., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid
for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(1), 103–­127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393810
Huang, J., & Kisgen, D. J. (2013). Gender and corporate finance: Are male
executives overconfident relative to female executives? Journal of
Financial Economics, 108(3), 822–­839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfine​
co.2012.12.005
Jamali, D., Lund-­ Thomsen, P., & Khara, N. (2017). CSR institutional-
ized myths in developing countries: An imminent threat of selec-
tive decoupling. Business & Society, 56(3), 454–­ 486. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00076​50315​584303
|
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
549
Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR):
Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business
Ethics, 72(3), 243–­262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​1-­0 06-­9168-­4
Johnston, P., & Harris, R. (2019). The Boeing 737 MAX saga: Lessons for
software organizations. Software Quality Professional, 21(3), 4–­12.
Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study
of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal
of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297–­311.
Karaye, Y. I., Ishak, Z., & Che-­Adam, N. (2014). The mediating effect of
stakeholder influence capacity on the relationship between cor-
porate social responsibility and corporate financial performance.
Procedia -­Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 528–­534. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.142
Kristof, K. M. (2003, August 26). “Study ties biggest CEO raises to largest
layoffs”. Available at: http://artic​les.latim​es.com/2003/aug/26/busin​
ess/fi-­execp​ay26 (accessed 15 March 2020)
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: An introduction. Oxford
University Press.
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of cor-
porate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2),
300–­326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0522
Larcker, D. F., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2012). Detecting deceptive discus-
sions in conference calls. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(2), 495–­
540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-­679X.2012.00450.x
Lee, S. Y., & Riffe, D. (2017). Who sets the corporate social responsibility
agenda in the news media? Unveiling the agenda-­building process of
corporations and a monitoring group. Public Relations Review, 43(2),
293–­3 05. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.007
Li, J., & Tang, Y. I. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The
moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(1), 45–­68. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036912
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2015). Quantitative content analysis as a method
for business ethics research. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24,
24–­4 0.
MacLean, T., & Behnam, M. (2010). The dangers of decoupling: The rela-
tionship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and
institutionalized misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6),
1499–­1520. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57319198
MacLean, T., Litzky, B. E., & Holderness, D. K. (2015). When organiza-
tions don’t walk their talk: A cross-­level examination of how decou-
pling formal ethics programs affects organizational members. Journal
of Business Ethics, 128(2), 351–­368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055​
1-­014-­2103-­1
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and
risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404–­ 1418. https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A concep-
tual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate so-
cial responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–­424.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
Meck, G. (2016). Auto Macht Geld: Die Geschichte der Familie Porsche
Piëch. Rowohlt Verlag GmbH.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83,
340–­363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of so-
cial and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–­ 256. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513​57991​0270138
Mion, G., & Adaui, C. R. L. (2020). The effect of mandatory publication of
nonfinancial disclosure in Europe on sustainability reporting quality:
First insights about Italian and German companies. In Non-­financial dis-
closure and integrated reporting: Practices and critical issues (pp. 55–­80).
Emerald Publishing Limited. https://www.emera​ld.com/insig​ht/conte​
nt/doi/10.1108/S1479​-­35122​02000​0 0034​0 05/full/html
 |
550
Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?
Corporate Governance, 1(2), 16–­22. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM00​
00000​0 05486
Murphy, D., Shrieves, R., & Tibbs, S. (2009). Understanding the penalties
associated with corporate misconduct: An empirical examination of
earnings and risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44(1),
55–­83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022​10900​9090036
Murphy, P. E., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2013). “Corporate social responsi-
bility and corporate social irresponsibility”, Introduction to a special
topic section. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1807–­1813.
Nardella, G., Brammer, S., & Surdu, I. (2020). Shame on who? The effects
of corporate irresponsibility and social performance on organiza-
tional reputation. British Journal of Management, 31(1), 5–­23. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8551.12365
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W.
(2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000
text samples. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 211–­ 236. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01638​53080​2073712
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M.
(2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–­675. https://doi.
org/10.1177/01461​67203​02900​5010
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Finding deceptive
opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the
49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics:
human language technologies-­volume 1 (pp. 309–­319). Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Patten, D. M., & Crampton, W. (2004). Legitimacy and the internet:
An examination of corporate web page environmental disclosures.
Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 2, 31–­57.
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015).
Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015, Pennebaker
Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The
development and psychometric properties of LIWC 2015. University of
Texas at Austin.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as
an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 1296–­1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.77.6.1296
Pollach, I. (2003). Communicating corporate ethics on the World Wide
Web: A discourse analysis of selected company web sites. Business &
Society, 42(2), 277–­287. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076​50303​0 4200​
2006
Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal:
Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 56–­77.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2838
Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A study of the effect of age and gender
upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 179–­
186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF008​71965
Schneider, M. C. (2016). Volkswagen. Eine deutsche Geschichte: Berlin
Verlag.
Setó-­Pamies, D. (2015). The relationship between women directors and
corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 22, 334–­3 45. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1349
Siano, A., Vollero, A., Conte, F., & Amabile, S. (2017). “More than words”:
Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen
scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, 27–­ 37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2016.11.002
Strauss, G. (2003). CEOs still sitting on piles of pay. USA Today, 25
August, p. 7.
Tafoya, D. W. (2020). Conclusions: Living with consequences. In Crisis,
catastrophe, and disaster in organizations (pp. 249–­ 280). Palgrave
Macmillan.
26946424, 2021, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12361, Wiley Online Library on [26/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CONRAD and HOLTBRÜGGE
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects
corporate social (ir) responsibility. Strategic Management Journal,
36(9), 1338–­1357.
Tashman, P., Marano, V., & Kostova, T. (2019). Walking the walk or talking
the talk? Corporate social responsibility decoupling in emerging
market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(2),
153–­171. https://doi.org/10.1057/s4126​7-­018-­0171-­7
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological mean-
ing of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–­54. https://doi.
org/10.1177/02619​27X09​351676
Volkswagen, A. G. (2014). “Sustainability Report 2014”.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the
implications for professional practice. Wiley.
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and de-
coupled corporate social performance: Management commitments,
external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 539–­552.
Webley, S., & Werner, A. (2008). Corporate codes of ethics: Necessary
but not sufficient. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 405–­415.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8608.2008.00543.x
Whyte, G. (1991). Diffusion of responsibility: Effects on the escalation
tendency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 408.
Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking
corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organiza-
tional cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1169–­1196. https://
doi.org/10.1111/joms.12209
AU T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S
Marcus Conrad is a PhD Candidate, and a Research and
Teaching Associate at the Chair of International Management
at the School of Business and Economics at Friedrich-­
Alexander-­University Erlangen-­N ürnberg (FAU), Germany. His
main research interests are Corporate Misconduct, Corporate
Scandals, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Business
Ethics. He has published book chapters and articles in refereed
international journals.
Dirk Holtbrügge is the deparment head at the Chair of
International Management at the School of Business and
Economics at Friedrich-­Alexander-­University Erlangen-­Nürnberg
(FAU), Germany since 2002. His main research interests are man-
agement in multinational corporations, intercultural manage-
ment, management in emerging markets (China, India, Russia), in-
ternational human resources management, corporate social and
environmental responsibility, and internationalization in SMEs.
He has published seven books, eight edited volumes and more
than 75 articles in refereed international journals.
How to cite this article: Conrad, M., & Holtbrügge, D.
Antecedents of corporate misconduct: A linguistic content
analysis of decoupling tendencies in sustainability reporting.
Business Ethics, Env & Resp. 2021;30:538–550. https://doi.
org/10.1111/beer.12361