Ulusal Ekonomik Görünüm

In this section, we will present the most significant findings from the cross-case analysis. We have found that the following industries are particularly interesting:

Finance, Consumer Goods, and Energy.

Graph 7: Level of Neutrality: Finance Industry

The development of the level of neutrality for the finance industry has two main points of interest: it is both an industry with a high degree of similarity between most of the organisations, and with a significant outlier. Nordea, DNB, and Storebrand follow a relatively similar level in neutrality, and cross each other multiple times in the 2010-2020 time span. In addition, they all end on an upward trend with a similar slope. The outlier, SB1, has significantly lower levels of neutrality until 2018-2019 and never reaches a similar level of neutrality as the other organisations. Further, SB1 has a relatively sharp decline from 2019-2020 and ends up with a much lower level of neutrality than the rest of the

organisations in the finance industry. Storebrand is the only organisation in the

finance industry that scores above the 75% level of neutrality threshold. This makes Storebrand the only organisation with transparent reporting in its respective industry.

Graph 8: Nevel of Neutrality: Consumer Goods Industry

Firstly, it is important to explain Orkla’s significant decrease in the level of neutrality in 2013. This is because the SR/AR is not publically available, and the level of neutrality is therefore set to 0%. However, it is fair to assume that the level of neutrality would be somewhere between 50-70% based on the

development from 2010-2020. Based on this assumption, the development of NG and Orkla is very similar throughout the period 2010-2020. NG and Orkla have a level of neutrality that is relatively stable from 2014-2020, between 55-72%.

Before 2014, we also see similarities in which the level of neutrality decreases and increases for NG and Orkla. Further, the most interesting part about this industry is the outlier RG, which differs significantly from NG and Orkla in the level of neutrality. The only similarity between RG and the other two organisations is that they all have a dip in 2011. All three organisations in the Consumer goods

industry end below the 75% threshold in 2020. NG was above in 2016 and 2018, while Orkla was above only in 2012.

Graph 9: Level of Neutrality: Energy Industry

The development of the energy industry stands out due to the symmetrical nature of the level of neutrality from 2010-2020. With the exception of 2011 and 2019, Statkraft and Norsk Hydro’s level of neutrality almost mirror each other perfectly.

Further, there is not as much variation within the energy industry as in the other industries, in general. Statkraft has lower levels of neutrality than Norsk Hydro throughout the 2010-2020 time span. However, both Statkraft and Norsk Hydro had a similar level of neutrality in 2010 and in 2020, and remained relatively stable between 2016-2020. While Statkraft remains below the 75% threshold throughout 2010-2020, Norsk Hydro has several reports that qualify as neutral.

However, in 2020 both Statkraft and Norsk Hydro are below the threshold.

6.0 Discussion

The purpose of this study is to explore greenwashing tendencies in Norwegian organisations, by examining the transparency of their sustainability reporting.

Transparency is assessed by examining the use of impression management strategies in the organisations’ SRs/ARs and how this has evolved between 2010-2020. Transparency is evaluated through the level of neutrality, as outlined in chapter 5.1. To examine this subject we formulated the following research questions:1. How do Norwegian organisations’ use of impression management strategies impact the transparency of their Sustainability Reports (SRs), 2. How has the use of impression management techniques (transparency) evolved over

time, and 3. Is there a difference in the transparency of SRs within Norwegian industries over time?The main findings of our study are in line with previous findings on impression management, which states that there is extensive use of these strategies in SRs (Kanbaty et al., as cited in Hamza and Jarboui, 2021), which negatively affects the transparency of the reports (Hahn & Lülfs, 2013;

Hooghiemstra, 2000; Merkl-Davies & Brennan, 2007; Sandberg & Holmlund, 2014; Siano et al., 2017). The lack of transparency supports the findings relating to the prevalence of greenwashing in SRs (Boiral, 2013; Burritt & Schaltegger 2010,; Gray, 2010; Laufer, 2003; Sandberg and Holmlund, 2014). The

transparency of Norwegian organisations’ SRs/ARs has evolved from being significantly variable, to becoming more centralised towards 2020. Despite the improvements in transparency towards 2020, the majority of Norwegian

organisations score below the threshold for transparent reporting. These findings are consistent with Deloitte’s (2020) results on greenwashing in Norway. Further, our findings indicate that, with the exception of the Power industry, there are considerable variations in transparency within the industries throughout the period 2010-2020.