Into the woods of corporatefairytales and

environmental reportingLeanne J. Morrison

Department of Accounting, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, and

Alan LoweRMIT Business and Human Rights Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –Using a dialogic approach to narrative analysis through the lens of fairytale, this paper explores theshared construction of corporate environmental stories. The analysis provided aims to reveal the narrativemessaging which is implicit in corporate reporting, to contrast corporate and stakeholder narratives and tobring attention to the ubiquity of storytelling in corporate communications.Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines a series of events in which a single case companyplays the central role. The environmental section of the case company’s sustainability report is examinedthrough the lens of fairytale analysis. Next, two counter accounts are constructed which foreground multiplestakeholder accounts and retold as fairytales.Findings – The dialogic nature of accounts plays a critical role in how stakeholders understand theenvironmental impacts of a company. Storytelling mechanisms have been used to shape the perspective andsympathies of the report reader in favour of the company. We use these same mechanisms to create twocollective counter accounts which display different sympathies.Research limitations/implications – This research reveals how the narrative nature of corporate reportsmay be used to fabricate a particular perspective through storytelling. By doing so, it challenges the authorityof the version of events provided by the company and gives voice to collective counter accounts which areshared by and can be disseminated to other stakeholders.Originality/value – This paper provides a unique perspective to understanding corporate environmentalreporting and the stories shared by and with external stakeholders by drawing from a novel link betweenfairytale, storytelling and counter accounting.

Keywords Narrative, Fairytale, Storytelling, Counter account, Environmental reporting, Dialogics

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Whenwe describe human activities within an ecosystem, we seem always to tell stories about them(Cronon, 1992, p. 1349).

To give an account of something is to provide a narrative of occurrences and events (Roberts,2009; Beattie, 2014; Gabriel, 2000). In a broad sense, an account is synonymous with story –narrative. Yet this truism has become somewhat of a clich�e in accounting and organisationalscholarship, and perhaps underrated as a consequence. In acknowledging the narrativenature of accounting, including the many forms of corporate reporting, this paper appliesdialogic narrative theory to the analysis of the environmental section of a recentsustainability report of a single company. By viewing the company’s account of itself inthe same terms as a fictional work – a fairytale, of sorts – some of the subtle and perhaps lessobvious aspects of corporate reporting are unmasked.

This paper demonstrates how fairytale and dialogic narrative analysis can bring to lightan alternative understanding of the way corporate reporting is constructed. As such, thepaper can be considered as a methodological paper, using the environmental section of asingle case study company’s sustainability report as an example. We trace a particularenvironmental episode in which the case study company played amajor role. The central aim

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

819

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3574.htm

Received 12 March 2020Revised 15 July 202020 November 202029 January 2021

Accepted 3 February 2021

Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal

Vol. 34 No. 4, 2021pp. 819-848

© Emerald Publishing Limited0951-3574

DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-03-2020-4466

of this paper is to examine the messaging which is being conveyed through the narrative ofthe sustainability report and other corporate communications.

If the corporate environmental report is drawing from the power of narrative to “tell itsstory” (Boje, 2001, 2019), then it is important to analyse the report in this light – to considerhow the mechanisms used in narrative are being utilised in the corporate report, and to whatends. The analysis provided in this paper has a threefold purpose: (1) to examine the narrativemessagingwhich is being implicitly carried and reinforced through the corporate report, (2) tocontrast the corporate narrative with those sourced elsewhere (shadow accounts) and (3) tobring attention to the importance of dialogic narrative and storytelling in corporatecommunications.

By drawing from Bakhtin’s concepts of polyphony (Bakhtin, 1963/1984), through the lensof dialogic narrative analysis (Frank, 2012), the corporate report, as well as other verbal andwritten narratives, can be understood as a dialogue betweenmultiple actors (e.g. the company,the industry, stakeholders, government, society at large). Through this lens, we can see thatthe corporate report is an attempt at what Bakhtin would describe as a monologic account(1963/1984). We say “attempt” here, since the dialogic narrative lens explains that all texts aremade up of other texts, in an ongoing dialogue (Frank, 2005). As such, while the organisationalreport is projected as a monologic, singular and authoritative voice, it represents only oneelement in a much broader dialogue between stakeholders. Using this dialogic perspectiveproduces newways to understand the performativity of the corporate report. In a parallel way,we can understand the report as a narrative in which the company tells its own monologicversion of events (or story). By deconstructing the story provided by the company andreconstructing it from multiple community-based views, a polyphonic version of events iscreated, in which voice is shared with a range of other concerned stakeholder groups.

The dialogic narrative theory developed in the literary disciplines (see Padgett, 2018; Frank,2005) and is reflected in contemporary developments in accounting theory such as criticaldialogic accounting. The application of critical dialogic ideas views accounting as a muchwider dialogue amongmultiple parties (Brown and Dillard, 2015; Bebbington et al., 2007). Thisentails a refocusing away from the organisation’s perspective which dominates much ofthe current mainstream accounting, to better encompass diverse perspectives including thosewho are most impacted by corporate and industrial operations (Brown and Dillard, 2015).

Dillard and Vinnari (2019) argue that since traditional social and environmental accountsare based on the information provided by the organisation itself, there is little prospect ofgenuine accountability through the medium of corporate reporting. This extends to theattendant activities such as stakeholder engagement processes, decisions on what to reportand, inmany cases, decisions aboutwhether to report. In contrast, critical dialogic accountingbegins from a point of inclusivity, that is, of understanding the role of organisationalreporting as a contribution to larger conversations which are not guided by shareholderinterests inherent in the classical neoliberal model of business (Tanima et al., 2020).

Critical dialogic accounting recognises the power relationshipswhich are enactedwhen anorganisation’s accounts are privileged, and the potential countering of that power when theaccount is viewed as a dialogue between multiple parties (Brown, 2009). In order tooperationalise suchmultiplicity, Brown (2009) calls for pluralistic approaches to be developedwhich are sensitive to the power relationships between organisations and others, and offerthe potential for social change.

One way to operationalise a critical dialogic account is to consider the accounts of others,which are known as the shadow (Dey et al., 2011), silent (Gray, 1997) or counter (Vinnari andLaine, 2017) accounts, as a method of accessing alternative perspectives on organisationaloperations (Andrew andBaker, 2020). These terms are used somewhat interchangeably in theliterature, but in this paper, we delineate in the followingway. The term “shadow accounting”is generally used as an umbrella term to incorporate multiple types of external accounts

AAAJ34,4

820

(Dey, 2007; Tregidga, 2017). These accounts may be those which have not been formallycollated or presented as a collective account, but which nevertheless exist as an ununifiedarray of accounts from others external to the traditional boundaries of the organisation. Thisunderstanding aligns with Andrew and Baker’s (2020) use of leaked documents.Alternatively, the accounts may have been constructed in a more formalised manner, forinstance by an NGO, in accordance with literature which draws from formalised accountsconstructed by others, such as Thomson et al. (2015) who explore the impacts of externalaccounts produced by a social organisation to challenge the tobacco industry in the UK. Weconsider a silent account, on the other hand, to align with Gray’s (1997) description of theconstruction of accounts based on the information already presented in the organisation’sreport, but reconstructed according to alternative interpretations.

In contrast, we consider a counter account to be that which has been formally constructedand provided, generally by a social movement organisation, with the intent to “counter” orchallenge the organisational account. This definition aligns with Vinnari and Laine’s (2017)and Laine and Vinnari’s (2017) exploration of the impact of counter accounts of an animalrights organisation in challenging the public discourse about industrial farming in Finland.The intention of these “silent”, “shadow” or “counter” accounts is to challenge the legitimacy ofthe corporate version of events by creating alternative visibilities (Dey, 2010; Dey et al., 2011).

These approaches align with the critical dialogic accounting approach, in that shadowaccounts can be drawn from to trace a “dialogue” within and between the organisation andothers, thus expanding from the monologic approach of a single account to a dialogic sharingof two accounts, and, ultimately, to a polyphonic multiplicity of accounts. As a sharedaccount, this polyphonic retelling of events reflects some of the characteristics of a folktale, asit is reconstructed and retold through multiple voices, rather than the singular, hegemonicvoice of the company. By highlighting these silenced or oppressed voices, shadow accountinganswers the emancipatory call of Dey et al. (2011) to create alternative accounts of corporateactivity. Using counter accounts and analysis through the lens of a polyphonic, communalstorytelling format, this paper attempts to problematise the authority of the often monologicvoice deployed by corporates to tell the “story” of their environmental impact and at timesgreenwash their setbacks.

The paper will proceed by first providing some background to the concepts of narrativeand storytelling, linked with prior studies in accounting. This section will be followed by theexamination of the case study company, which we call “Big Fish” in this paper, and thenarrative provided in its sustainability report. Narrative factors such as storyline, character,identity and narration will be highlighted. The narrative will be analysed through the lens ofPropp’s seminal work on the archetypal structure of fairytales, first translated into English in1958 (1968). After examining the company’s narrative from its own perspective, two“polyphonic” counter narratives are then provided. The first of these two counter narrativesis constructed through the voices of the local community; the second counter narrative isconstructed from information derived from alternative sources external to the company, suchas the media, ENGO’s, state government and published research. This second counternarrative constitutes a shadow account (Dey, 2007; Tregidga, 2017), or it may be seen as anamalgam of multiple shadow accounts. In conclusion, these differing narratives arecompared. This comparison draws attention to the disparity between the three storylines,and how each has drawn from alternative narratives to support and communicate aparticular story line. Implications for accounting research and practice will be discussed, andfinally, directions for future research are suggested.

Theoretical frameworkNarrative is essential to the way humans understand reality (Cronon, 1992; Currie, 1998).Without a narrative thread to place occurrences in a causal sequence and to provide a

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

821

meaningful connection between such events, we find it difficult to make sense of the world(Ryan, 2007). Narrative gives significance to bare facts and information (Currie, 1998) andcontributes to the framework through which our world view is constructed (Lakoff, 2010).Narrative itself is a disputed term (Ryan, 2007), with multiple working definitions (Rudrum,2005), but for the purpose of this paper, narrative can be understood as “the representation ofa series or sequence of events” (Rudrum, 2005, p. 196).

The study of narratives became a major trend in the social sciences from the 1960s, whenstructural theorists established a science of narrative which was built from conceptsintroduced by de Saussure’s structural linguistics, in what became known as the narrativeturn (Herman, 2007; Czarniawska, 2004). Structuralists such as Barthes noted that narrativescan be presented in a wide variety of formats, such as through the media, in written texts,images, conversation and other genres. As such, Barthes saw the need for a cross-disciplinaryapproach to narrative theory (Herman, 2007). Since the narrative turn, narratology andnarrative theory have been applied to multiple disciplines, including medicine, literarystudies, accounting, and, more recently, to organisational research. The extant literaturepoints towards narrative articulation as a way tomake sense of organisational events (Weicket al., 2005), that is, narrative enrols emotion which can override a purely intellectual responseto events (Jameson, 2000; Gabriel, 2000) and guides behaviour, particularly where conflict hasarisen (Hansen and Kahnweiler, 1993).

StorytellingStorytelling has formed one stream of a narrative turn in organisational research throughexplorations of investor participation (Jameson, 2000), and studies which explore howstorytelling is usedwithin organisations (Hansen and Kahnweiler, 1993; Gabriel, 2000; Boyce,1996). Boje (2001) further explored the use of storytelling by organisations, drawing heavilyon the work of Kristeva, thereby introducing a post-structuralist approach whichincorporates a more poetic or carnivalesque logic to understanding organisationalcommunications.

Contemporary environmental thought suggests that humans are “wired” for story, andthat story is a way to mobilise human concern for nature (Monbiot, 2017; Starhawk, 2017;Lakoff, 2010). Lakoff (2010) in particular has drawn attention to the ways in which thehuman mind understands and processes information. He argues that contrary to olderEnlightenment theories of reason (in which rationality was almost exclusively consideredas an abstract, conscious and objective conceptualisation), humans understand and reasonthrough largely unconscious processes which are informed by emotion, physicalityand narratives, contributing to the construction of what he calls “frames” of understanding.He argues that the way environmental information is being communicated runs counter tothe way people think, and by providing more and more information (particularlyquantitative), the environmental movement is potentially sabotaging its own message(Lakoff, 2010).

Storytelling has been suggested as an alternative method for understanding andapproaching organisational research, with the potential to unlock perspectives which areunable to be accessed through traditional academic approaches (Barter and Tregidga, 2014).Evans and Pierpoint (2015) read a series of annual reports through the lens of eighteenth- andnineteenth-century literature, linking the sentimental style of literature with the strategies ofthe organisation during the same period. These authors argue that narratives are employedby organisations for particular ends (see also Eshraghi and Taffler, 2015), such as todischarge accountability, or to promote or defend organisational decisions. The same culturalnorms which were evident in the popular stories of the time were drawn on by organisationsin their efforts to present decisions as being aligned with social expectations.

AAAJ34,4

822

FairytalesFairytales are a form of storytelling which have traditionally been constructed to “transformthe world and make it more adaptable to human needs, while we also try to change and makeourselves fit for the world” (Zipes, 2012, p. 16). The purpose of a fairytale, then, aligns closelyto the corporate environmental report, which communicates how the company is impactingthe world and how it is attempting to reduce this impact (transforming the world for humanuse and changing the corporation to fit the world).

Multiple definitions of fairytales have been developed; however, the multiple andvaried nature of the history of fairy and folk tales makes them difficult to singularlydefine (Teverson, 2013). While a contemporary definition might allude to fantasy, make-believe and even deception, fairytales are based on archetypal story structures which canbe traced back to some of the earliest records of human communication (Zipes, 2011,2012). Some form of fairytale has been adopted to convey important cultural messagingin almost all cultures, and have been known by many labels, such as folk tales, myths andwonder stories. As part of the multiplicity of “folklore”, folk tales are continually retoldand altered, combining different sources and growing along with the various cultures inwhich they are situated (Bronner, 2017). This is not to say that all cultural myths could besaid to be considered fairytales. For instance, while the fairytales presented in this paperare set in Tasmania, the much older storytelling traditions of Aboriginal Tasmanianscannot be considered fairytales, given they are repositories of sacred knowledge(Wood, 2019).

In Europe, it was not until the seventeenth century that the term “fairytale” came intouse by a small group of writers who were limited in their subject matter due tocontemporary restrictions on their gender (Zipes, 2012). Even earlier, these types of fableswere associated with “old wives’ tales”, “mother goose” and women, with even Platodiscussing “old women’s tales” disparagingly (Teverson, 2013). We now associate theBrothers Grimm with Western fairytales; however, even these collections of tales weretypically collected from numerous women, often illiterate and unable to claim authorship(Blackwell, 1987). This historical connection with women in misogynistic societies hasundermined the importance of fairytales. This paper does not use the term “fairytale”pejoratively, but in the sense used by many narrative scholars – as a potentially powerfulvehicle for communicating values, particularly environmental values (Zipes, 2011, 2012,2016; Propp, 1968; Simons, 2014; Frank, 2010).

Fairytale traditions in Australia follow a similar gendered pattern, with early Australianfairytales predominantly written by women. During the late 19th century, many of thesewomen rewrote traditional European and English fairytales into an Australian landscape,perpetuating a colonial importation of Western values onto the Australian landscape(Do Rozario, 2011). More recent and sensitive introductions of European fairytales into anAustralian context have been described as having been “fractured” with the shatteredpieces of the tale embedded into the Australian setting (Wood, 2019). Generally, it is notconsidered appropriate for “settler” authors to engage with Indigenous Australianmythologies as a sign of respect and to avoid cultural appropriation (Bullen and Sawers,2015). Other authors suggest that a renewed and more sensitive engagement with stories,which do not silence or appropriate indigenous voices, is imperative (Do Rozario, 2019).Examples of Indigenous Australians storying along the genre of fairytale include TheSwan Book, written by Waanyi woman Alexis Wright, Wulamanayuwi and the SevenPamanui, a play written by Jason De Santis, which combines Tiwi Islander stories withSnow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In Tasmania, storytelling is being used to retell thehistory of invasion through the lens of “Black female bodies” (Lee, 2017, p. 95). Rather thanimposing European fairytale tradition on this grounded storying, we present fairytales asjust one method among many, and a method which in its essential nature is open to

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

823

reconfiguration in response to the place and culture of where and by whom it is being retold(Bronner, 2017).

Teverson (2013) explains that fairytales can often be identified through the typical useof a storyline which begins with a protagonist engaged on a journey or quest which takesplace in an imaginary or magical context. Imaginary creatures may become allies orthreats, and the progress of the hero is often challenged by an opponent who is overcome soas to allow the hero to complete the journey. While this narrative arc might seem familiar(due in part to its appropriation in popular novels or films such as Star Wars), not allfairytales follow this schema. For instance, early versions of Little Red Riding Hood tell of ayoung girl taking food to her grandmother, who is interrupted by a wolf who asks herwhere she is going. After hearing her destination, the wolf hurries on ahead to eat andimpersonate the grandmother. When Little Red Riding Hood arrives, the wolf proceeds toeat her as well. Later a woodsman kills the wolf. There is no happy ending for either girl orwolf (Teverson, 2013). Many early versions of fairytales end in a similar gruesomemanner,bucking the stereotype of a predictable plot. Within this typical storyline, contemporaryfeminist rewritings of familiar tales, such as those popularised by Angela Carter (2005),Clarissa Pinkola Estes (1992) and Jeanette Winterson (2020) demonstrate the power of thefairytale structure.

The structure and identification of fairytales has been the subject of much scholarship,most notably by Vladmir Propp, who in the mid-twentieth century examined a number ofRussian fairytales and came up with thirty-one “functions” which he claimed underpin allfairytales (Propp, 1968). He outlined that not all of these functions will occur in every tale;however, their sequence will remain stable (“the absence of certain functions does notchange the order of the rest” Propp, 1968, p. 22). Propp’s approach has been critiqued mostnotably by Levi-Strauss, who questioned Propp’s attempts to distinguish between formand content (Teverson, 2013). In this debate, Levi-Strauss argued that myth and fairytalebelong to two different categories of narrative, and as such, myths should not be analysedusing the same structures as those found in fairytales (Somoff, 2002). His criticisms ofPropp also centred on Propp’s decision to analyse fairytales instead of myths (Somoff,2002), and his preference for binary analysis rather than sequential (Dundes, 1997). Proppresponded to this criticism by demonstrating how myths and fairytales were based on thesame compositional structure (Somoff, 2002). Propp’s structure has subsequently alsobeen utilised by others such as Greimas, who reassembled the model into a series of axes(Teverson, 2013). Propp’s fairytale structure continues to be a fundamental influence onthe way fairytales are examined (see, for example, Zipes, 2011, 2012, 2016; Teverson, 2013;Somoff, 2002).

Fairytales have been explored in organisational literature very sparsely, with theexception of Simons (2014), who used a common fairytale to exemplify the ways in whichsome voices are sanctioned while others are silenced in corporate communications. Simons(2014) rewrote the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood from the wolf’s perspective in order todemonstrate how the wolf’s voice had been silenced in the story. She uses the Red RidingHood story as metaphor of hidden power relations which are reflected in corporateinteractions with society. The repetition of familiar fairy stories, Simons argues, sociallyembeds a power dynamic which is then taken for granted. She explains how this socialisationis also reflected in the way corporate stories are repeated, with some voices silenced andothers valorised.

The idea that the fairytale genre has crossed over into organisational texts is explored byMonin andMonin (2005), who examine a text written about the management of organisationsthrough the lens of fairytale. While they are exploring the idea of genre, a focus on thefairytale makes use of Propp’s terminology, highlighting the powerful persuasive rhetoric ofusing a fairytale structure. They argue that the fairytale genre lulls the reader into an

AAAJ34,4

824

uncritical reading of the text, with an instinctive support of the hero, dislike of the villain andfollowing of the storyline provided, in the absence of meaningful questioning.

Other aspects of fairytale analysis are dotted throughmanagement literature, for example,Moxnes and Moxnes (2016) explore how certain character archetypes, which recur in thearchitecture of common fairytales, tend to also recur in the networks of relationships withinorganisational culture. Moxnes (1999) also draws from fairytales to establish stereotypicalcharacters, although this earlier work reflects an understanding of traditionalheteronormative family roles from an earlier era. The present paper builds from earlierliterature to fully incorporate storytelling and fairytale into the analysis of organisationalreporting.

Research designBy adopting an arts-based research methodology, we focus on an underused aspect ofstorytelling. The choice of a fairytale lens offers a clear indication of our critical view ofrepresentation and the potential for manipulation in corporate reporting. The fairytale genreoffers an ideal space to motivate an analysis in which alternative perspectives can beconstructed and evaluated for their relative authenticity or believability and the creative waythe fairytale can be used to construct intriguing narratives.

We create two collective counter accounts based onmultiple stakeholder perspectives thatare retold through a fairytale lens. We chose to use the architecture of the fairytale not tosilence other voices, but because fairytales and the archetypes they reflect are highlyrecognisable (Teverson, 2013). We strongly believe that as researchers we ought toexperiment and be innovative in our storytelling techniques, in order to engage with thereader and audiences generally. There is evidence that when stories are told in a familiargenre, readers are likely to respond in powerful ways (Monin and Monin, 2005). Being afamiliar genre, the fairytale lens allows us to highlight the way different perspectives areconstructed. Through this lens, we can more clearly discern who (or what) the companyportrays as the hero, what is good or bad and how they have created text and a story toachieve these impressions. By making parallels with fairytale structure, variations instorylines frommultiple points of view can be more clearly compared. The value of using thefairytale in this context is the juxtaposition of the familiarity of fairytales, with theunfamiliarity of using such a creative lens within the traditional research context, and thusmaking the architecture of characters, storyline and narrative conspicuous.

Echoing Bakhtin’s analysis of carnivalesque discourse (Bakhtin, 1963/1984), we do notmake claim to providing a research design that could be re-constituted precisely andrationally; instead, we reflexively incorporate our own subjective views of the issue to providethree examples, increasingly playful. In essence, we implicitly add our own voices to thepolyvocal account, and rather than instructing imitation, we invite other researchers to addtheir own voices to both the methodology and the topic, in the tradition of folklore.

To examine the ways in which fairytale might be reflected in corporate reporting, a singlecase study company was selected (Alias: Big Fish). Big Fish is an Australian salmon farmingcompany which has been operating since 1986. First listed on the Australian SecuritiesExchange in 2003, Big Fish is now one of the 200 largest listed companies in Australia. BigFish primarily operates in Tasmania, farming salmon in various waterways, hatcheries andprocessing plants around the state. Tasmania is a small island state in the south of Australia,with a population of just over half a million people, with the weakest economy of all the statesin Australia. Roughly half of Tasmania’s land mass is National Park or other form of naturereserve.

Big Fish was selected as a case study due to the availability of publicly availableinformation, provided by both the company itself and external parties. The reason for thisavailability of information is that the company has been experiencing a level of controversy

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

825

within the local community of Tasmania and, to a lesser extent, across Australia. A primaryaspect of this controversy was the expansion of operations into an environmentally sensitivebody of water, which abuts a World Heritage Area: Macquarie Harbour.

Macquarie Harbour is a large inlet on the West Coast of Tasmania. It is approximately33 km long and 9 km wide. Sometimes described as an inland sea, it has one narrow openingto the ocean, ominously named “Hell’s Gates”, and is fed fresh water by the King and GordonRivers, as illustrated in Figure 1. TheHarbour itself is very shallow, averaging only 15mdeep

Figure 1.Location andgeography ofMacquarie Harbour(Lucieer et al., 2017).Reproduced withpermission

AAAJ34,4

826

(Ascui et al., 2018). In addition to its unusual geography, almost a third of the body of waterand much of the land mass surrounding the Harbour are part of the Tasmanian WildernessWorld Heritage area, one of the last expanses of temperate rainforest in the world(Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, 2020). Macquarie Harbour and its surrounds is alsoone of the last known habitats of endangered species including the maugean skate, theTasmanian devil, the swift parrot and the orange-bellied parrot.

The controversy around salmon farming expansion into Macquarie Harbour means thatthere are multiple accounts being shared across the public discourse about Big Fish, makingit an ideal case for a study which draws from multiple voices. For instance, Australia’spublicly funded national broadcaster, the ABC, has producedmultiple news items concerningthese events, as well as a full investigative journalism project on various aspects of salmonfarming operations in Tasmania (Meldrum-Hanna et al., 2016). In addition, Tasmania’s peakenvironmental council (Environment Tasmania) has instigated a protracted campaign toreduce the environmental impact of salmon farming in Tasmania, with particular focus onevents occurring in Macquarie Harbour. In the interests of transparency, one of the authorsdiscloses being a board member of this ENGO from 2016–2018, prior to writing this paper.

The environmental section of Big Fish’s 2016 sustainability report provides the initial datafor analysis in this research. The 2016 report was chosen as it is this document which reportson the period of expansion into Macquarie Harbour which resulted in environmental scandaland subsequent intensive public scrutiny. The narrative analysis of the company wasundertaken with this data to construct what Gray (1997) called a “silent account” of theexpansions. The silent account of Big Fish’s participation of events surrounding theMacquarie Harbour expansions is summarised, in fairytale form, at the end of each section.We have also adopted this approach within the first “counter account” dealing with thecommunity response.

The excerpts included in the silent account presented here were chosen on the basis of howthey conformed to the various functions of fairytale. Excerpts which expressed the threeaspects of narrative and the seven functions of fairytale are presented in a way whichreconstructs the storyline and thus sheds light on the way the “story” of the company hasbeen structured. Propp’s understanding of the structure of fairytales is utilised in thisanalysis, as outlined below:

(1) Narrative analysis:

� The storyline and its ellipses

� Character and identity

� The narrator

(2) Fairytale analysis

� The Initial Situation/The Calm Before the Storm

� The Preparatory Section/The Challenge

� The Complication/The Complication

� Donors/The Request

� From the Entry of the Helper to the End of the First Move/The Helper

� Continuation of the Second Move/The End (Happily Ever After)

In addition to the fairytale analysis of Big Fish’s silent account, shadow accounts of this sameseries of events and impacts were identified, aggregated and collated into two collective

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

827

counter accounts which are written through the lens of the fairytale genre by the authors.Information which assists in the construction of the first counter account includes thetranscripts of interviews with members of the Tasmanian community.

One of the authors undertook semi-structured interviews with 12 members of thecommunity. Invitations to participate were sent to local councils, community members,community centres, a local Aboriginal centre and relevant companies. Of those who agreed toparticipate, three held roles as local government representatives, two were members ofrelevant activist organisations, three were employed in community services, one is an ex-employee of the industry and three were drawn from the community. During interviews,storytelling was prompted by way of asking about the stakeholder’s relationship and historyengagingwith the companies, their recollections of environmental changes and their personalviews about the environmental impact of the salmon farming industry. Key passages fromeach of the interviews were excerpted from the transcripts on the basis that they articulatedbest with the fairytale structure outlined by Propp (1968). By doing so, we do not claim tospeak on the community’s behalf, but simply to frame their responses in away that highlightsa storied structure.

The second counter account traces the episode through initial data which was sourcedfrom multiple alternative publicly available origins, such as the ABC website, theEnvironment Tasmania website, local newspapers, government documents and otherpublished research. These multiple sources were found by Internet searches (using searchterms such as SALMON, TASMANIA, MACQUARIE HARBOUR, AQUACULTURE, “BIGFISH”) and are clearly cited in the footnotes of the relevant section. This Internet search wasguided by the existing knowledge of the events. Once collated, the specific sources for thecounter account were selected in order to best articulate the fairytale story structure.Henceforth, such multiple sources will be referred to as the “shadow accounts”, and thefairytale stories which have been constructed with the shadow accounts will be referred to as“counter accounts”. By providing multiple accounts within this paper, we point towards theerror of claiming one singular form of truth (Padgett, 2018). Each of the alternative accountsprovided here is refashioned in different iterations, mirroring the folkloric traditions fromwhich we draw.

As a type of folk lore, fairytales and folk tales are notable not only for their link to traditionbut also for the process of change: folk tales are in a constant state of change, and each timethey are spoken or written they are modified, even slightly (Bronner, 2017). This folk processmeans that attempts to replicate will be enriched by each successive re-telling.

A fairytale analysis of Big Fish’s environmental reportingAn analysis of the environmental section of Big Fish’s 2016 sustainability report showshow narrative is used as a technique to crystalise the chosen story, embed meaning andconstruct a particular version of events. The story establishes a narrative that presentsevents in a particular light, as explained in the following subsections. By presenting itselfin a particular way, the company attempts to elicit a sympathetic response from readers(Currie, 1998). While there are multiple images in the report which contribute to the illusionof minimal environmental harm, we have chosen not to include them as part of thisanalysis, since we would not be able to re-create similar artefacts within the two counteraccounts.

The storyline and its ellipsesThe storyline, or plot of a narrative, “secures the overall coherence of narrative accounts”(Llewellyn, 1999, p. 225) by providing a sequential pathway through time. A key aspect of any

AAAJ34,4

828

story is that it has a temporal location, meaning that it spans a certain time period (Hermanand Vervaeck, 2007). The company’s 2016 sustainability report can therefore be interpretedas having a storyline of sorts:

This reporting year offered [Big Fish] a unique opportunity to work with the Tasmanian Salmonindustry to tell our sustainability story ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 7, emphasis added).

However, since events prior to this twelve-month period are also referred to andmentioned inthe report, the narrative actually refers to amuch longer time period. This is acknowledged inthe opening statements by Big Fish’s CEO and Managing Director:

Traditionally, our company’s annual sustainability report is published early in the calendar yearand our leadership commentary is confined to the 12-month reporting period of the previousfinancial year. This year, however we are departing from that usual format as an acknowledgmentof extraordinary circumstances in more recent months ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4,emphasis added).

In looking to identify examples of ellipses in the environmental section of the company’ssustainability report, evidence is gathered from external sources about its actions. During theprevious financial year, the company expanded into an environmentally sensitive area(Macquarie Harbour), which attracted a high degree of public attention (Carlyon and Salmon,2017; Environment Tasmania, 2017a;Meldrum-Hanna et al., 2016). The narrative provided bythe Chair and CEO in their reflection, however, paints a picture of positive progress, divertingfrom some of the controversial aspects of operations, and implying that the environmentalissues are now resolved:

Growth will also bring an element of risk to optimal growth and forecast plans, particularly as wegrow into newer regions or increase the level of farming in existing regions. Ensuring sociallicense and operational planning are co-dependent through strategic planning processes will becritical . . . a number of environmental non-compliances over the summer of 2016–2017 at one of ourmarine leases in Macquarie Harbour . . . by autumn of 2017 a substantial recovery and a return tocompliance was underway ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4, emphasis added).

Despite ongoing and historical concerns from external stakeholders regarding Big Fish’senvironmental impacts, the narrative reinforced by the company regarding the controversialimpacts at Macquarie Harbour is that of an anomaly, inconsistent with the company’s history:the company constructs its own character as an environmentally responsible company which,under normal circumstances, would not have a harmful impact on the environment:

What happened in Macquarie Harbour was unexpected and at odds with [Big Fish]’s record ofsustainable production science-based processes and careful stewardship ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5).

The pattern set in the opening passage provided by the CEO andManaging Director on page4 is reflected throughout the report: Recognising that there has been a challenge(. . .acknowledgment of extraordinary circumstances in more recent months. . .), pointingtowards Macquarie Harbour (In late calendar year 2016, conditions at Macquarie Harbourrequired careful response and adaption), but omitting the details regarding what exactly thatchallenge was (We acknowledge a number of environmental non-compliances over the summerof 2016–2017 at one of our marine leases in Macquarie Harbour). After briefly and vaguelymentioning fault, the pitch returns to an upbeat and positive tone (We are determined to playour part to ensure the health ofMacquarie Harbour), which remains in place for the remainderof the report.

On pages 36–37, a section of the report is dedicated towater quality inMacquarie Harbour.Rather than acknowledging the company’s potential contribution to these environmentalimpacts, the report points towards other potential impacts on water quality:

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

829

Macquarie Harbour has many factors that can influence water quality including historic miningrunoff and legacy pollution to sediments, Hydro Tasmania fresh water pulses for power generation,flood events, aquaculture production, oceanic influences and high exposure to predominatelywesterly weather patterns ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 36).

The pattern of deflecting criticism is continued in this section, with factors such as theBeggiatoa bacteria and Dorvilleids (both of which are associated with the negativeenvironmental impacts of salmon farms), the risk to the endangered maugean skate andthe environmental impact of uneaten feed all mentioned before being expeditiouslydismissed.

Characters and identityThe identification and analysis of characters and the roles they play is an important aspect ofnarrative analysis (Herman and Vervaeck, 2007; Margolin, 2007). Characters performfunctions within the narrative, such as supporting a particular point of view, describing anevent, location or condition (Phelan and Rabinowitz, 2012) and shaping action (Simons, 2014).Narrative theory argues that identity is formed through the narrative itself (Padgett, 2018). Inparticular, the creation of an organisation’s identity is achieved through the telling of its ownstory, in its own way (Czarniawska, 2008). The process in which this identity constructiontakes place, omissions or the highlighting of particular events characterise the organisation –contributing to an image its managers wish to project (Currie, 1998). The character of thecompany itself is constructed and reinforced in this way through its communications,including in the sustainability report.

In addition to the company itself, other characters that participate in the narrativeprovided by the company include the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority(EPA). The EPA was reported in the news media as being biased towards Big Fish, andunable to exert power over the company in the current political climate (Salmon, 2017;Whitson, 2017; Patman, 2017). The EPA is introduced in a differing light during the openingreflections of the report:

We also acknowledge the efforts of the industry’s primary regulator, the Tasmanian EPA, which hasbeen firm but fair. Firm in that when environmental conditions deteriorated unexpectedly inMacquarie Harbour it acted purposefully and decisively. Fair in that the EPA recognised theimportance of balancing environmental, economic and social factors in assessing sustainablefarming for the waterway, which is also helping to protect jobs in the local community, while notimpeding environmental recovery ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5).

Another key character to participate in this narrative includes the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF), which is first introduced in the opening reflection:

Beyond our dedicated team, we are very appreciative of the support we have received from keypartners including our sustainability mentors at WWF-Australia, who have stood by ourpartnership in what has been a period of great public interest ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5).

The WWF has its own dedicated section of the report on pages 23–24 of the report, whichserves to highlight the supportive nature of their partnership. This section outlines theirsupport of Big Fish, and also some of the WWF initiatives for which Big Fish has providedsupport. The section ends with:

WWF is proud of what we have achieved with [Big Fish] over the past five years, although we alsoknow that sustainability is a never-ending journey and with improving scientific knowledge there isalways more work to be done ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 24).

The overarching narrative reinforced by Big Fish in its reporting on environmental issuesis that of a responsible company, leading the industry in best practice to minimise

AAAJ34,4

830

environmental impacts. They express that despite small obstacles and a few minormistakes, the company has a respectful and symbiotic relationship with nature. BigFish presents as a “hero” archetype, by delivering much needed food to the people ofthe world.

Aquaculture done our way is good for local communities and safe for the environment that thesecommunities call home ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 6).

When we saw years ago that nothing less than a commitment to world’s best practice onsustainability would suffice, we set out to achieve the top accreditation at a global level ([Big Fish],2016, p. 6).

The hero archetype is, of course, reinforced by the positioning of the company as narrator ofits own story.

The narratorThe narrator’s role is to point out the focus of the narrative (Herman and Vervaeck, 2007; Bal,2017). A narrator is able to give voice to certain perspectives, while silencing or ignoringothers (Currie, 1998; Simons, 2014).

This sustainability report has several narrators, including the Chair and CEO in theopening section called “Reflections” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4–5), the Head of Sustainability inthe following section (p. 6–7) and the company itself, or its representatives, for theremainder of the report. In the first two sections, the narrators are visibly and obviouslynarrating their own version of events. In the remainder of the report, the company doesnot present as a visible narrator, giving itself an authority through the perceivedobjectivity of distance (Bal, 2017). Positioning the company itself as narrator, amechanism common to many if not all corporate reports, necessarily privileges thecompany’s point of view.

A silent account: the company’s perspectiveDrawing from the common threads shared by almost all fairytales, first articulatedby Propp (1968), the narrative provided in the environmental sections of Big Fish’ssustainability report can be viewed in terms of six sequential sections. Thesesections were outlined by Propp in his seminal scholarship of Russian fairytales.Since then, Propp’s standard fairytale structure has been found to be almost ubiquitousin the fairytales of many other cultures (Zipes, 2012). The sections are as follows (seeTable 1):

SectionPropp’s terminology (1968/2009,pp. 119–127) Terminology used here

Section I I The Initial Situation The calm before the stormSection II II The Preparatory Section The challengeSection III III The Complication The complicationSection IV IV Donors The requestSection V V From the Entry of the Helper to the

End of the First MoveThe helper

Section * VI Beginning of the Second Move * (as this is a repetition of the previous section, it hasbeen omitted for simplification here)

Section VI VII Continuation of the Second Move The End (Happily Ever After)Table 1.

Fairytale functions

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

831

Section I (The calm before the storm)At this stage, the company establishes its sustainability credentials by stating that “thesustainability journey [Big Fish] embarked on more than five years ago, is a journey ofcontinuous improvement” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5). Throughout the narrative, the companyestablishes that all was well in the recent past “[Big Fish]’s record of sustainable productionscience-based processes and careful stewardship. After at least six years of consistently highcompliance ratings that were of global leadership standard. . .” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5). Thisfits into the function of the start of many fairytales, where there is “well-being, prior to [a]complication” (Propp, 1968, p. 120).

Once upon a time there was a brave Princess, who took care of Nature so well that sheeven won awards and always complied with the environmental laws of the land.

*****

Section II (The challenge)Here Big Fish, through the narration of its Chair and CEO’s reflections, introduces the ideathat the company has faced a challenge, with “[f]inancial year 2016 has seen a significantchange in Tasmania in the review and scrutiny of Salmon farming” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4). Interms of theoretical models of fairytales, this event is part of what Propp describes as aninterdiction (1968). It is at this stage that a villain is often introduced into the storyline. In thiscase, the villain is referred to indirectly by the Head of Sustainability as “critics” ([Big Fish],2016, p. 7).

The challenge is described in the Chair and CEO’s reflection as “extraordinarycircumstances in more recent months” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4). Propp describes some of thepotential events within this stage of the fairytale as including the identification of the personperforming villainy, and the form of the villainy itself.

Then one year, in extraordinary circumstances, she became the subject of public criticism.*****

Section III (The complication)Propp describes that it is during the complication that the hero enters the tale (1968). Here wesee the company self-describing as having dealt with the challenge successfully, listing highprofit levels ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 4) and continued sustainable practices [“[a]quaculture doneour way is good for local communities and safe for the environment that these communitiescall home” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 7)]. These and other similar statements used in the reportidentify the company itself as the hero in this narrative.

But she bravely struggled through, because she knew that she was doing the right thingfor all concerned.

*****

Section IV (The request)The next phase in a fairytale narrative is that of a journey, in which tasks are initiated andrequests are made of the hero (Propp, 1968). Following the Chair and CEO’s commentary andthe Head of Sustainability’s report, the reader discovers details about the complication in asection titled “Senate Inquiry into the Regulation of the fin-fish aquaculture industry inTasmania” ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 8). In the appendix which gives detail regarding this senateinquiry, several of the company’s “critics” (villains) are identified, including government

AAAJ34,4

832

departments, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), the Tasmanian Abalone Council,Environment Tasmania and the senate committee itself (p. 76). The company reports that thesenate made a number of recommendations, and also lists its responses, reflecting a requestmade of the hero (Big Fish).

A second “request” is evident on page 37 of the report, which outlines furtherrecommendations provided in “The Cawthron Report”, which focused on MacquarieHarbour and resulted in requests for increased water quality management and benthicsurface monitoring. Big Fish responds by stating that they are “already implementingindependently or would be prepared to implement. . .” (2016, p. 37). Despite the reportrequiring changes to environmental management, Big Fish states that “Third party peerreviews such as the Cawthron Report validate the environmental management andsustainability approach taken by [Big Fish] and the Tasmanian Salmon industry”, againpresenting themselves as the hero.

The Sustainability Manager’s report also dichotomises villains and helpers on page 7,where she writes that “We listen to our critics as well as our friends, and we will work withthem all”. It seems, though, that there may be a problematic flow of communication, both toand fromBig Fish from the local communities in which they operate. On page 56 of the report,the reader is informed that it is only in the current year that Big Fish has undertaken theirfirst survey of community views.

This was the first time [Big Fish] conducted a comprehensive community survey and we werepleased not only with the level of response, but the breadth of issues raised.

This particular community has raisedmultiple concerns, which Big Fish argues have alreadyaddressed.

Only a small proportion of respondents indicated that they obtain information direct from [Big Fish]either via our website or through [Big Fish] information days. All of the social and environmentalissues raised by respondents have already been identified as material issues and arecomprehensively addressed in our previous sustainability reports and on the [Big Fish] website(p. 56).

Big Fish implies that these community concerns and criticisms have already been addressed,and that the community has simply not found the correct information:

An interesting result from this survey is the insight gained into how respondents obtain informationabout Salmon farming with the clear majority preferring to use word of mouth, social andmainstream media on which to base their views of the industry (p. 56).

Despite her bravery, the criticisms increased, taking on the form of formal enquiries.She tried to tell her critics that she was already doing the right thing, but they

didn’t seem to be listening.*****

Section V (The helper)In the next section common to most fairytales, a helper is introduced, who is often a magicalagent sent to assist the hero in their quest (Propp, 1968). The company mentions manyhelpers in its report, but two in particular, including the WWF, as in the following excerpt:

Beyond our dedicated team, we are very appreciative of the support we have received from keypartners including our sustainability mentors at WWF-Australia, who have stood by ourpartnership in what has been a period of great public interest. WWF’s local and global commitmentto sustainable food production is an inspiration to [Big Fish] and our team.We are proud to be guidedby them. . . (p. 5).

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

833

The other key helper in this narrative is the EPA, who, it is noted:

In 2016, the Tasmanian Government announced changes to the regulatory framework for Salmonfarming. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA), as the State’s existing independentenvironmental regulator, was handed the responsibility for the environmental regulation ofSalmon hatcheries and farms (p. 34).

This change, read concurrently with the CEO and General Manager’s “Reflection”, whichdescribes the EPA as having “. . .fair[ly]. . . recognised the importance of balancingenvironmental, economic and social factors. . .” (p. 5), indicates that the EPA’s contributionsmight be helpful to Big Fish.

In her darkest hour, two magical helpers arrived. They defended her actions, telling thecritics that she was, in fact, protecting Nature as she had been saying all along.

They could see that the interests of Nature had to be balanced with economic demands.They listened to her struggles and responded with support.

*****

Section VI [The end (Happily ever after)]To conclude a fairytale, Propp details a range of potential climaxes, including a recognition,exposure, transfiguration, punishment or a wedding (1968). The conclusion to the narrativethat Big Fish report is that of recognition, in the form of increased shareholder returns, drivenby a doubling of domestic salmon consumption ([Big Fish], 2016, p. 5). Also on page 5, thecompany victoriously states that “[s]ometimes it can be one step forward and two steps back.Our company and our people must be both resilient and humble in the face ofdisappointments, as well as being jubilant when we have important wins” (2016, p. 5). TheChair and CEO’s reflection concludes with a triumphant recognition of employee pride “[o]uremployees are driven by a pride in our activities that have supported our history of successfulachievements and sustainable growth” (2016, p. 5).

In the end, the brave Princess won the day. She was able to increase profits and sell moresalmon. She had faced a major challenge, but the Princess was proud of what she had

achieved.*****

1st counter account: a community in dialogueParallel to the narrative provided in the Big Fish sustainability report, community membersshare a communal, collective account of their perspectives about the salmon farmingoperations, particularly in Macquarie Harbour. The following is a reconstruction ofcommunity perspectives drawn from interviews. These interviews represent communityconversations about the salmon farming industry and its impacts on the natural environment.Conversation and verbal exchanges make up a familiar form of storytelling (Norrick, 2000,2007). We (re)present aspects of these conversations here to highlight the fairytale-likestructure of this community account. To extend the fairytale theme, we also construe thiscommunity account into a fairytale (as indicated in italics at the end of each section).

Conversational exchanges reveal one way humans create and negotiate identity (Florio-Ruane and Morrell, 2011), and as such, the identities of characters should first be located. Inthe community account, identifiable characters are the natural environment of Tasmania, inparticular the place ofMacquarie Harbour; the community is also identified in these accounts,as is the EPA, Big Fish and its main competitor (Alias: Little Fish) which make upmost of theTasmanian salmon farming industry.

AAAJ34,4

834

Section I (The calm before the storm)Perceptions about the history of the salmon farming industry inTasmania present a variedview,which centres around the tension between Tasmania’s poor socio-economic history, but also thepristine nature of Tasmania’s environment. Propp (1968) explains that this “initial situation” inthe fairytale structure entails a description of a “temporal-spatial determination” (p. 146), suchas a particular kingdom. This first interview excerpt places the listener into the historicalcontext of the industry, painting a verbal picture of the “clean, green” Tasmania. Tasmania isalso presented as the primary character of the story (i.e. “the salvation of Tasmania”).

So for them it was a small family enterprise, almost a . . . (laughs), hero’smythology journey in takingthese fish and establishing, you know, a little business . . . for the benefit of the community. And youknow, a great deal of love and effort and thought has gone into this and it’s being built I guess uponTasmania’s clean green brand and it fits well into that. I’ve sort of seen it (projected) as, you know, afuture salvation for Tasmania. (Community Member B).

Again, the second excerpt (below) echoes the image of an idealised past in a particular“temporal-spatial determination” (i.e. 15–20 years ago in Tasmania), and the lostopportunities of the industry. Again Tasmania might be considered as a character in thisstory, where the island is considered as an entity or actor, and that wealth can be created for it.This way of viewing Tasmania reflects a general attitude within the community, whereTasmania is generally considered a special, separate part of Australia (not onlygeographically) which is culturally quite different from the mainland.

. . . 15, 20 years ago, the economics of Tasmania were very different to what they are now and theoptions for growth and wealth creation were quite narrow. And so, the salmon industry had anopportunity there to create wealth for Tasmania. I don’t think they did it well . . . now . . . they’reoperating against many other industries that can create wealth for Tasmania . . . I think it’s a hugelost opportunity for them, because they could have had the whole state behind them and they, andthey don’t (Community Member E).

In this first section of the fairytale, Propp also illustrates that “the family is enumerated”(pg. 146); that is, the family is described as having many children, being childless or thechildren are numbered (e.g. the Queen had three clever daughters). The following excerptreflects this identification of children and family connections:

I suppose most of the older locals’ still got, you know, family here, which most of them have. Theysupport them [the salmon companies] I think because they see it as work for their kids or theirgrandkids and it’s an ongoing thing (Community Member A).

Once upon a time there was a beautiful green Prince called Tasmania. Tasmania providedgenerous bounties for his people, and allowed some local businesses to start farming salmon.In this way, he provided sustenance and employment for his children and grandchildren.

*****

Section II (The challenge)This is the sectionwhere Propp (1968) tells us that the villain is often introduced andwhere aninterdiction is addressed to the hero. Thismay take the form of a type of violation. Against thebackdrop of a sleepy island state, the challenge is introduced when the violation ofenvironmental harm of the salmon farming operations in Macquarie Harbour becomeapparent. In these excerpts, the salmon farming companies are implicitly identified as villainsthrough the violation of the natural environment and features of Macquarie Harbour.

. . . all three companies were involved. I know that they put too many [salmon] pens in MacquarieHarbour. I know that there were a lot of fish deaths that they covered up . . . they were situated so

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

835

close to the wilderness world heritage area. And so again, all the [waste and by-] products that arecreated from their farming goes into the world heritage area and the ocean. . . . there’s been anongoing court battle between [Little Fish] and [Big Fish] over this (Community Member B).

It’s where the worst outcomes were happening environmentally that we were aware of and so it wasthe obvious place to go when we launched the campaign. . . because [Little Fish] was slightly betterthan the other operators in the Harbour, the relationship started with more co-operation . . . when thefocus of the campaign broadened out . . . beyond Macquarie Harbour, the relationship with [LittleFish] became more difficult (ENGO Representative, emphasis added).

Other villains are introduced at this point. In the community narrative, the EPA is viewedcynically, more akin with the role of a villain than that of a “protector”:

. . . we saw at the time very little separation between the government line and the EPA’s line, whichwasmeant to be independent from government. . . there’s questions around how independent EPA’sadvice was (ENGO Representative).

That’s the problem as I said, that government is not taking its role . . . for the checks and balancesover the industry. They’re supporting the industry and it’s not their role (Local Politician).

For some time there was peace in Tasmania, until the salmon businesses got a littlegreedy and expanded into areas that caused Prince Tasmania pain. The Prince’s closestadvisor and protector deceived him and gave the businesses permission to exploit one

of his most precious places.*****

Section III (The complication)After the environmental controversies which took place around Macquarie Harbour,community discontent increased across Tasmania. In this section, Propp proposes that thehero may enter or re-enter the story (1968). In response to the environmental harm observed,the community gives voice to itself by identifying Aboriginal elders, local individuals(abalone divers) and groups (recreational fishers, older residents and long-term communitymembers) and traditional activities such as fishing and diving.

Having spoken to one of the Aboriginal Elders, in Cygnet. . . he’s actually said that the silting up ofthe river is just at a really poor level now. . . (Community Member F).

. . . they feel quite strongly that it is the salmon. . . a big problem, and certainly for the recreationalfishers, and for the abalone divers. . . because what was once very clear water . . . it’s quite differentnow. . . I know a fella who’s been an abalone diver for years . . . the diminishing of the abalone ismassive (Community Member F).

It’s just gradually getting worse . . . I don’t know if it’s them, but it seems just, like . . . less fish.There’s more of that green lettuce weed that seems to be just choking . . . all the rocky bits wherethe mussels and oysters . . . you know, we could always go down and get something to eat fordinner if we didn’t have anything in the fridge. You can’t really do that anymore (CommunityMember C).

Those who loved Tasmania deeply noticed his discomfort and began to speak up for him.*****

Section IV (The request)In response to the changes perceived, the community begins to consider what the idealsituation might be. They begin to demand change from the salmon farming companies. Somerequests are for more transparency around the scientific basis for operations:

AAAJ34,4

836

What those parameters are . . .may not be what communitymembers might like those parameters tobe (Local Council Member).

Other requests are for more robust regulations and monitoring of the industry, which isperceived to be too involved in the regulation setting process:

I think if the government was more prescriptive about what really needs to be done in terms of theenvironment, and the waterways and employment, then they would be actually creating asustainable business. And it’s a little bit like the forestry industry, when there’s no checks andbalances, the industry isn’t very healthy and ended up falling over (Local Politician).

They requested that the businesses operate more sustainably. They asked questionsabout quotas, scientific measures and monitoring. They requested the government took

a greater role in protecting their dear Prince Tasmania.*****

Section V (The helper)In terms of community perceptions, one of the salmon farming companies (Little Fish) wasperceived to be acting in good faith. This companywasmentioned favourably in comparison toBig Fish by multiple community members. Little Fish has taken steps to differentiateitself from the rest of the industry, in part by instigating legal action against the EPA in order toreduce the regulated quotas for Macquarie Harbour salmon farms. Since then, the advertisingand public relations of the company have focused on the majority shareholders (and founders/managers of the business), who are a local family with long-term ties to Tasmania.

. . .wewent to [Little Fish] andwewere looking at theway theywere collecting the faecalmatter fromthe fish . . . they’re actually trying to store and treat it, it must have a huge impact . . .we saw a verysmall amount of it, but if you imagine that going onto the seabed. . . (Community Member F).

Despite the positive comparison between the two companies, there remains a high degree ofcynicism regarding Little Fish amongst the community:

. . . the bottom line is profits and even though [Little Fish] get some credit for having been the first topull the plug and blow the whistle on it, nevertheless, they were certainly involved in theoverstocking of Macquarie Harbor (Community Group Member).

[Little Fish] seem to be sort of painting themselves as the good guys lately, but. . . I kind of take thatwith a grain of salt . . . (Community Member C).

One of the salmon businesses seemed to listen to them and make some changes to theirenvironmental impacts. This business made sure everyone knew how much it loved the

beautiful Prince Tasmania too.*****

Section VI (The end)In the community version of this narrative, there are multiple possible endings, including thecollapse of the salmon industry (the first two interview excerpts below) and a “happily everafter” ending of an environmentally sustainable salmon farming future (the final twointerview excerpts):

The only thing that limited the forestry industry in the end was collapse of the market . . . thegovernment never stepped in. The industry . . . just kept chipping trees . . . until the market crashed.And that stopped it. So, I think it’ll be the same sort of thing. It’ll probably be something like climatechange, and water temperatures, just killing all the fish . . . (Community Member J).

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

837

Well, I just wish they’d pack up and go home (Community Member I).

. . .what you could do is make less money but make a better fish. Paymore to feed it better, have lessdie of disease after suffering sadly, for stress and animal welfare abuses. Less money. Same jobs.Better fish (ENGO Representative).

Tasmanians are very proud of their island and very proud of what we can produce here. And if weproduced salmon in a way that had social license and environmental license, everyone would bebehind (it). That’s what I’d like (Community Member E).

Choose your own adventure:

A) A combination of climate change, community discontent and economic challengesmeans that the beautiful Prince Tasmania no longer has to endure the discomfort

of environmental exploitation. They all live happily ever after (except the salmon businesses).

B) All of the salmon businesses listen to the community concerns and voluntarilyminimise their environmental impacts. They all live happily ever after, especially the

beautiful Prince Tasmania.*****

2nd counter account: a collective accountThe narrative analysis provided in this paper points towards the underlying use of “story” orfairytale archetypes in the environmental section of Big Fish’s 2016 sustainability report, andin the immediately prior section, stories shared by community members. “The world of thefairytale has been treated as a counterworld to the reality of the storyteller” (Zipes, 2012, p. 26).Next, an experimental “collective counter account” is provided, based on the shadow accountscollected from other external stakeholders such as traditional and online media, research andpublicly available information. It should also be noted that any narrative necessarilysimplifies events into a cohesive plot. In doing so, importance is given to some events andsome voices, while others are neglected or silenced (Cronon, 1992). This includes the onesgenerated by the authors here. As Padget (2018, p. 467) explains, “multivocality arises notbecause truth does not exist, but because all . . . truths are different re-presentations of thesame truth”.

Section I (The calm before the storm)Once upon a time there was a company called Big Fish [1]. Big Fish had lived on a small andremote island for many years. This island was a beautiful and wild place, famous for its cleanwaters, mountains swathed in old growth forests where rare and beautiful animals still lived[2]. The air was said to be the cleanest air in the world [3]. Fresh clear waters ran down fromthemountains and into seawater that was only stained by natural tannins andwas filledwithabundant aquatic life, much of which could only be found in the seas that surrounded thisisland [4, 5].

On this island, Big Fish used the fresh and clean sea waters to grow salmon. They alsoused the fresh and clean reputation of the island to market their salmon all across the globe[6]. They provided the local community withwork at their salmon farms and processing units[7]. Since the island was very small, the employment provided by Big Fish was muchappreciated. In return for this employment, the local people were grateful and loyal [8].

Section II (The challenge)Timewent by and it began to be noticed that the numbers of fish brought home by the fisherswere less and less. Not only that, but there were less types of fish to be brought home. Once

AAAJ34,4

838

upon a time orange roughy, shark, blue fin tuna [9] and Australian graylings [10] could becaught regularly. The old folk had stories of bags full of flathead caught along the rivers, butnow the fishers were lucky to bring home a brace of them.

Then the waters themselves began to change. At first the toxic algal blooms came onlyonce, then not again for a long time. Then it started to bloom in thewatersmore often [11]. Thegovernment started to warn people not to eat the oysters and mussels collected from theshores at low tide [12].

Stories started to surface that the underwater world had changed – that instead of teamingwith life, vast areas could be described as “dead zones”.

Section III (The complication)Around this time, “greenies” started to be mentioned (this was just after the forest warshad been won by the greenies [13], so things were sensitive, and there was a rumourspreading around the island that the greenies would eat up all the jobs [14] – no one wanteda greenie to eat their job). The greenies, as you can imagine, were small impish creatureswith green skin and pointy ears. They lived amongst the island people, along the rivers, inthe forests, cities and towns. Some greenies were born on the island, and others had movedthere. Many of the greenies had not been born that way but had changed gradually as theygrew up.

When the greenie islanders began to question whether perhaps the state of the water andthe expansion of Big Fish were connected, other inhabitants of the islands became veryprotective of Big Fish. Big Fish was employing thousands of islanders andwas integral to theeconomic prosperity of the state.

Around the same time as the toxic algal blooms and the diminishing numbers of fish, BigFishwas expanding its farms along the rivers of the island. Growing from a small company in1986, Big Fish had since become the nation’s largest producer of Atlantic salmon [15]. In 2016,Big Fish decided to expand its operations in Macquarie Harbour.

Very few people lived near Macquarie Harbour, since it was in an isolated part of theislandwhichwas girt bywildmountains covered in thick forest. The Harbour abutted a placethat was listed as a World Heritage Area because of the incredible wildlife and forestsabundantwith rare and beautiful flora and fauna [16]. Thewaters ofMacquarie Harbourwerealso home to some of the most endangered species, in all the world and found only here, themaugean skate one of them [17]. The maugean skate is an ancient species, thought to haveappeared millions of years ago [18]. Some might describe it as ugly, with its large flappywings hugging the benthic surface of the harbour, its pallid skin camouflaging it with theweed-spotted sand below.

Section IV (The request)It was around this time that the Green Queen [19] started to wake from the slumber she hadentered to recover after the great forest battle [20]. She had been integral to the greenievictory but was spent in the process. She had entered a deep slumber to revive her spirit.When she began to stir, the greenies went to her side to inform her of the goings-on inMacquarie Harbour and elsewhere around their beautiful island. When she finally openedher eyes, she was livid! The Green Queen took a deep breath, stood tall and decided on hercourse of action. She looked out on Macquarie Harbour, and heard the maugean skate’sdistant call for help. She heard the Lagarostrobos franklinii and other endangered flora’sleaves quaking in fear as the dead zone crept closer to the edge of the World Heritage Area[21]. The mussels and oysters sang to her, and sea birds flew overhead. The Green Queenlistened and heard the fish choking in the polluted water. She called Big Fish to ask him tochange the error of his ways.

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

839

Section V (The helper)Rather than make significant changes that could negatively impact on their profits, Big Fishcalled the Lord of the Island for assistance [22]. They pulled a team together and made theirplan of attack: one arm of his team would form a protective barrier around Big Fish [23], andthe Lord himself would defend Big Fish and its expansions [24]. It seemed as if this planwould work.

In a period of relative calm in the eye of the battle, the Green Queen directed her attentionto Okehampton Bay, where Big Fishwas also in the process of expanding. The fishers and thedivers had heard the stories coming from their friends and relatives in the south, and now,with the Green Queen, as well as the greenies living amongst them all pointing to Big Fish’sexpansions, they picked up their weapons again, their angry eyes now fixed on Big Fish [25].

Section VI (The end)Big Fish tried to push through the protest – tried to ignore the cries of the residents [26]. Theywent ahead with plans for salmon ponds close to the land, where the slow currents would failto disperse and dilute the excess nutrients. They enlisted the help of the ever-loyal Lord of theIsland, who held back the residents to let Big Fish through. But it seemed theywere fighting abattle they had already lost.

In the aftermath of the battle between the Green Queen and Big Fish, Big Fish publiclyadvised that they would start to move their salmon ponds offshore [27] and that some of theplanned expansions may not go ahead [28]. The Green Queen is cautiously optimistic [29].

DiscussionWith each retelling of this series of events, layers of storytelling are laid down whichdemonstrate how different sets of stakeholders have constructed the identity of both salmoncompanies, their farming activities and the level of environmental damage caused (orperceived to be caused). Through our storytelling, we foreground the multiple voices ofstakeholders, while also telling the silent account which lay dormant within the reportprovided by the company. The narrative provided by Big Fish provides the reader with asense of sympathy and loyalty towards the “hero” character which overcomes the challenge.This telling of events aligns withwhat Bakhtin (1975/1981) describes as amonologic account,with the author of the report (Big Fish) taking on the position of the author(ity). However,rewriting the story with the environment, or environmental advocates as the hero, shifts thissense of loyalty and sympathy. In doing this we incorporate a sense of playfulness into theseretellings which reflect Bakhtin’s polyphony (1975/1981; see also Padgett, 2018), where theconcept of authority is transgressed or circumvented. It is at this point that Bakhtin suggeststhat genuine dialogue has been entered into.

In the two counter accounts, different characters present themselves. In each of thesealternative narratives, voice is given from different vantage points on the same broad seriesof events. In the company’s narrative, the primary characters are the company itself, the EPA,WWF, the senate committee and other “critics”. In the first counter account, the affection inwhich the community holds the island of Tasmania positions the hero as the state itself, beingplace and community. This identification of the island as a body in itself reflects theIndigenous view of country as “a totality of emotive, physical, intellectual and metaphoricalconnections that has its own agency” (Lee, 2017, p. 95).

In the second counter account, primacy of voice is given to thosewhoBig Fish identified as“critics”, in the form of themultiple “greenie” characters. The EPA is represented as an aspectof Tasmanian conservative state politics, which is introduced as the Lord of the Island. Thestate’s conservation council, which is only briefly mentioned in the company’s report (as one

AAAJ34,4

840

of themembers of the senate committee), but which is one of the company’smost vocal critics,is characterised as the Green Queen.

Each account captures a different fragment of the rich exchanges about Big Fish’senvironmental impacts around the Macquarie Harbour salmon farming expansions. Themethodology developed in this paper has allowed us to present multiple versions of the sameset of events and provides a way for the authority of the monologic corporate account to bechallenged, at the same time valorising alternative accounts such as those shared by thecommunity. Thus, we have operationalised a critical dialogic account by expanding the focusof reporting from the singular corporate narrative, to the much wider, more ambiguous andless concrete conversations shared in the broader community of stakeholders. This hasimplications for both research and practice. First, for research, dialogic accounting presents awider array of voices to hear, ways to understand organisational reporting and avenues forexploring the construction of organisational identity and power. Second, for practice, theradical inclusion of multiple voices can be contrasted with the narrow definitions ofstakeholder engagement currently in practice (Greenwood and Mir, 2019) and embedded inframeworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative.

Bakhtin’s (1963/1984, 1975/1981) polyphonic explication of dialogue and storytelling hasbeen illustrated through these multiple texts, and thus contributing to the polyphonicretelling presented here. Reflecting Bakhtin’s polyphony, Kristeva (1986) articulated a conceptof intertextuality which acknowledges that each text is in dialogue with multiple others, byreiteration, regurgitation and reference to previous and future texts, in addition to themultilateral dialogue going on between the author, reader and the text itself. By explicitlybringing attention to the silent, shadow and counter accounts of Big Fish’s environmentalimpact, the polyphonic intertextuality of community-based dialogue has been brought tolight and incorporated into the text as a counter account. It is important to remember that theorganisation’s story is no more or less true than any other – simply that it’s told from adifferent perspective. Padgett (2018) describes the different strands of understandings, or ourenvironmental and narrative networks, and as such, the counter accounts constructed in thispaper are also no more or less true than the company’s.

To facilitate a polyvocal approach to reporting, companies should be aware that storiesare being shared about them which are external to their own reporting mechanisms.Presently, companies may be aware of these external stories; however, there is a tendency tosilence these voices and ignore any implications, adopting a defensive approach asdemonstrated by the case study in this paper. Instead, companies could adopt an openattitude to these voices, even inviting agonistic views to be expressed, for example, on apublicly available online discussion board, at live streamed community forums or evensharing shadow accounts on their own websites, in order to learn from and incorporatemultiple perspectives.

Arts-based research offers away for participants to be treated asmore equal collaboratorsin stories which tell their perspectives in terms which can vary dramatically from theconventional, corporate way of communicating (Leavy, 2018). Since corporate methods ofreporting have tended to silence community voices, storytelling provides a way toacknowledge the intersubjectivity of experiences which are brought about by corporateoperations and have the capacity to foreground non-corporate voices (Camargo-Borges, 2018;Barone and Eisner, 2012). This project proposes that storytelling presents a unique way forstakeholders to engage with companies, in which a more equitable balance of power can beconserved (Black, 2008; Simons, 2014). With this in mind, we acknowledge that other voicesmay have been silenced in our retellings, despite invitations to participate, such asAboriginalTasmanians and the companies themselves. As such, we invite readers to add to thebroadening of dialogue with their own storytelling, and thus reflect the traditions of folkloreand fairytale tellings.

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

841

ConclusionThese stories are a powerful way to shape approaches to and understandings of the naturalworld (Zipes, 2016; Lakoff, 2010; Monbiot, 2017). If storytelling and narrative are beingused by companies to express their environmental impacts, it becomes important toanalyse how they are doing so, what messaging is being conveyed in the process and howstorytelling allows for the inclusion of potentially agonistic perspectives (see Tanimaet al., 2020).

The theoretical and methodological approaches introduced in this paper build uponprevious research in the accounting literature which explores the dialogic nature of corporatecommunications through the lens of critical dialogic accounting (Tanima et al., 2020; Brown andDillard, 2015; Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). We also draw and build from the extant literaturewhich explores the roles of alternative accounts such as silent (Gray, 1997; Dey, 2003), shadow(Dey et al., 2011; Tregidga, 2017) and counter accounting (Laine and Vinnari, 2017; Vinnari andLaine, 2017). We have also drawn from folklore and narrative theory, and in so doing haveexpanded the topics which these disciplines have traditionally considered. The radicalinterdisciplinarity of accounting and arts-based methodologies has opened a space forcreativity in organisational research. Juxtaposing the very familiar (e.g. fairytales) in anunfamiliar setting (e.g. corporate reporting research) alters the ways in which the constructionof corporate identity, stakeholder engagement and corporate communications can beunderstood. As such, we urge researchers to creatively explore arts-based methodologiesand lenses to radicalise the relatively conventional space of accounting research.

To develop this field of enquiry, future research could apply a storytelling lens to othercompany reports and discern other patterns from within corporate communications – byidentifying the implicit messaging being carried through narrative. This paper has focusedon environmental communications, but narrative, and particularly fairytales, also have astrong history of social justice which could be applied to social and other corporate impacts.Particular fairytales with known messaging could also be applied to an analysis of corporatereporting. For example, stories such as Sleeping Beauty and Snow White or other non-Western fables could be used to highlight particular social messagingwhichwould otherwiseremain hidden within the text. Simons (2014) has demonstrated that alternative and creativerewriting of fairytales can be used to demonstrate corporate models, while others havedemonstrated that a creative rewriting of traditional fairytales is a powerful method ofexposing and re-messaging the gendered power imbalances that they have evolved toportray (Pinkola Estes, 1992; Carter, 2005; Gaiman, 2014). Similarly, non-Western storytellingand storytelling through imagery would likely yield some powerful new insights intocorporate operations and behaviour.

Limitations of our paper include the difficulty in replicating themethoddemonstrated, sincethe rendition presented here involves the subjective perspectives of the authors, one of whomhas been a member of the community with which our research engages. Rather than lay out aplan that can be replicated exactly, the methodology laid out in this paper invites alternativeinterpretations, iteration and invites the creativity and subjectivities of other researchers toexpand and develop the example provided in our paper. Importantly, this field of research callsfor the voices of Indigenous peoples, non-Western ethics and Aboriginal storytelling to enrichthe ways nature is perceived and treated by researchers, organisations and others.

By drawing from concepts such as Bakhtin’s polyphony (1975/1981), this paper hasillustrated how a shift in logic and incorporation of dialogue can bring light to theperformative capacities of corporate texts and challenge the authority of the singular voice ofthe company in reporting on itself. This paper offers an experimental embarcation on ajourney towards understanding the power embedded in corporate storytelling and narrative,and how corporate stories are told not just by the company itself, but in collaboration withcommunities of stakeholders.

AAAJ34,4

842

Notes

1. [Big Fish] (2016b), “[Big Fish]”, Hobart, Australia.

2. Discover Tasmania (2017), “Tasmania”, Hobart.

3. CSIRO (2017), “Cape Grim greenhouse gas data”, CSIRO, available at: http://capegrim.csiro.au/(accessed 2017).

4. Luttrell, A. (2017), “Battle to save spotted hand fish”, Mercury, Hobart, Tasmania, NewsCorpAustralia.

5. Greenslade, P. and Potapov, M. (2015), “Biology, affinity and description of an unusual aquatic newgenus and species of Isotomidae (Collembola) from high altitude lakes in Tasmania”, EuropeanJournal of Entomology, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 334-343.

6. [Big Fish] (2016a), “Sustainability Report 2016”, Hobart, Tasmania, [Big Fish].

7. Parliament ofAustralia (2015), “TheFinFishAquaculture Industry inTasmania”, in Commonwealthof Australia, ACT, Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications.

8. The Australia Institute (2016), “Intensive salmon farming in Tasmania”.

9. Edgar, G. J., Samson, C. R. and Barrett, N. S. (2005), “Species Extinction in the Marine Environment:Tasmania as a Regional Example of Overlooked Losses in Biodiversity”, Conservation Biology,Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 1294-1300.

10. Department of Primary Industries ParksWater and Environment (2017), “Threatened Species List -Vertebrate Animals”, Hobart, Tasmania.

11. Environmental Protection Authority Tasmania (2013), “Blue Green Algae Guidelines”, Hobart,Tasmania.

12. O’Connor, T. (2016a), “Tasmanian toxic algal bloom hits biggest ever area, says industry”, ABC.

13. Taylor, L. (2017), “Why reignite Tasmania’s forest wars – to produce logs no one will buy?”, TheGuardian, Australia, Guardian News and Media Limited.

14. Hindrum, C. (2016), “The unsubtle art of bashing a greenie”, Tasmanian Times, Launceston,Tasmania.

15. [Big Fish] (2016b), “[Big Fish]”, Hobart, Australia.

16. Environment Protection Authority (2017), “Macquarie Harbour Tasmanian Wilderness WorldHeritage Area Environmental Status Report”, Tasmania, EPA.

17. Treloar, M. A., Barrett, N. S. and Edgar, G. J. (2017), “Biology and ecology of Zearaja maugeana, anEndangered skate restricted to two south-western Tasmanian estuaries”, Marine and FreshwaterResearch, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 821-830.

18. O’Connor, T. (2016b), “Maugean skate: Plea to protect prehistoric species from fish farm impact inMacquarie Harbour”, ABC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australian Broadcasting Company.

19. Loosely based on Environment Tasmania, Tasmania’s peak conservation council, advocating onbehalf of individuals, the environment and environmental groups within Tasmania (EnvironmentTasmania (2018), “About Environment Tasmania”, Hobart, Tasmania.)

20. Taylor, L. (2017), “Why reignite Tasmania’s forest wars – to produce logs no one will buy?”, TheGuardian, Australia, Guardian News and Media Limited.

21. Environment Protection Authority (2017), “Macquarie Harbour Tasmanian Wilderness WorldHeritage Area Environmental Status Report”, Tasmania, EPA.

22. Rockliff, J. (2016), “Supporting the growth of salmon farming”, Hobart, Tasmania, The Departmentof Premier and Cabinet., Government of Tasmania.

23. Rockliff, J. (2017), “Salmon farming”, Hobart, Tasmania, Tasmanian Liberals.

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

843

24. Burgess, G. (2017), “Tasmanian Government to fight salmon producer’s legal action overMacquarieHarbour”, ABC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

25. Fromberg, A. (2017), “Anti-fish farm flotilla protests [Big Fish] expansion at Okehampton Bay”,ABC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

26. The Australia Institute (2017), “Tasmanians want salmon boom to be sustainable, regulated”,Hobart, Tasmania, TAI.

27. Salmon, G. (2017b), “[Big Fish] reveals plans to move salmon farms offshore ‘to meet communityexpectations’”, ABC, Hobart, Tasmania, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

28. [Big Fish] (2016a), “Sustainability Report 2016”, Hobart, Tasmania, [Big Fish].

29. Environment Tasmania (2017b), “A promise of change from [Big Fish], conservationists needdetails”.

References

Andrew, J. and Baker, M. (2020), “The radical potential of leaks in the shadow accounting project: thecase of US oil interests in Nigeria”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 82, pp. 1-15.

Ascui, F., Haward, M. and Lovell, H. (2018), “Salmon, sensors, and translation: the agency of Big Datain environmental governance”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 36 No. 5,pp. 905-925.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1963/1984), Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1975/1981), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Bal, M. (2017), Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, University of Toronto Press,Toronto.

Barone, T. and Eisner, E. (2012), “What is and what is not arts based research?”, in Barone and Eisner(Eds), Arts Based Research, Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 1-12.

Barter, N. and Tregidga, H. (2014), “Storytelling: beyond the academic article: using fiction,art and literary techniques to communicate*”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship,No. 54, pp. 5-10.

Beattie, V. (2014), “Accounting narratives and the narrative turn in accounting research: issues,theory, methodology, methods and a research framework”, The British Accounting Review,Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 111-134.

Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the potential of acritical dialogic approach”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 356-381.

[Big Fish] (2016), Sustainability Report 2016, [Big Fish], Hobart, TAS.

Black, L. (2008), “Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments”, Communication Theory, Vol. 18No. 1, pp. 93-116.

Blackwell, J. (1987), “Fractured fairytales: German women authors and the Grimm tradition”, TheGermanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 162-174.

Boje, D. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Sage, London.

Boje, D. (2019), Organizational Research: Storytelling in Action, Routledge, New York.

Boyce, M. (1996), “Organizational story and storytelling: a critical review”, Journal of OrganizationalChange Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 5-26.

Bronner, S.J. (2017), Folklore: The Basics, Routledge, London.

Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2015), “Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: on opening up and closingdown participatory governance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 961-985.

AAAJ34,4

844

Brown, J. (2009), “Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking pluralismseriously”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313-342.

Bullen, E. and Sawers, N. (2015), “Australian fairy-tale films”, in Zipes, Greenhill and Magnus-Johnston (Eds), Fairy-Tale Films beyond Disney: International Perspectives, Routledge, London.

Camargo-Borges, C. (2018), “Creativity and imagination: research as world-making!”, in Leavy (Ed.),Handbook of Arts-Based Research, The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 88-100.

Carlyon, P. and Salmon, G. (2017), Salmon Wars: EPA Halts Tassal’s Dredging Plan after HuonAquaculture’s Objections, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC, Hobart, TAS.

Carter, A. (2005), Angela Carter’s Book of Fairytales, Little Brown Book Group, London.

Cronon, W. (1992), “A place for stories: nature, history, and narrative”, Journal of American History,Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 1347-1376.

Currie, M. (1998), Postmodern Narrative Theory, Macmillan Press, London.

Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage, London.

Czarniawska, B. (2008), “Alterity/identity interplay in image construction”, in Barry and Hansen (Eds),The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization, Sage, London,pp. 49-62.

Dey, C., Russell, S. and Thomson, I. (2011), “Exploring the potential of shadow accounts inproblematising institutional conduct”, in Ball and Osbourne (Eds), Social Accounting and PublicManagement: Accountability for the Public Good, Routledge, New York, pp. 64-75.

Dey, C. (2003), “Corporate ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social accounting”, Social and EnvironmentalAccountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 6-9.

Dey, C. (2007), “Developing silent and shadow accounts”, in Unerman, Bebbington and O’Dwyer (Eds),Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 307-326.

Dey, C. (2010), “Corporate ‘silent’ and ‘shadow’ social accounting”, Social and EnvironmentalAccountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 6-9.

Dillard, J. and Vinnari, E. (2019), “Critical dialogical accountability: from accounting-basedaccountability to accountability-based accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,Vol. 62, pp. 16-38.

Do Rozario, R.-A.C. (2011), “Australia’s fairytales illustrated in print instances of indigeneity,colonization, and suburbanization”, Marvels and Tales, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 13-32.

Do Rozario, R.-A. (2019), “FAIRIES IN A STRANGE LAND Colonization, migration, and the inventionof the Australian fairy tale”, in Teverson (Ed.), The Fairy Tale World, Taylor & Francis Group,London, pp. 368-378.

Dundes, A. (1997), “Binary opposition in myth: the propp/l�evi-strauss debate in retrospect”, WesternFolklore, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Environment Tasmania (2017a), Misleading Consumers: Tassal and the Failure of ASC in MacquarrieHarbour, Environment Tasmania, Hobart, TAS.

Environmental Protection Authority Tasmania (2013), Blue Green Algae Guidelines, Hobart, TAS.

Eshraghi, A. and Taffler, R. (2015), “Heroes and victims: fund manager sensemaking, self-legitimationand storytelling”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 45 Nos 6-7, pp. 691-714.

Evans, L. and Pierpoint, J. (2015), “Framing the Magdalen: sentimental narratives and impressionmanagement in charity annual reporting”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 45 Nos 6-7,pp. 661-690.

Florio-Ruane, S. and Morrell, E. (2011), “Discourse analysis: conversation”, in Duke and Mallette (Eds),Literacy Research Methodologies, The Guildford Press, New York, pp. 87-103.

Frank, A.W. (2012), “Practicing dialogical narrative analysis”, in Holstein and Gubrium (Eds),Varieties of Narrative Analysis, Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 33-52.

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

845

Frank, A.W. (2005), “What is dialogical research, and why should we do it?”, Qualitative HealthResearch, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 964-974.

Frank, A.W. (2010), Letting Stories Breathe: A Socio-Narratology, The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Gabriel, Y. (2000), Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies: Facts, Fictions, andFantasies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gaiman, N. (2014), The Sleeper and the Spindle, Bloomsbury, London.

Gray, R. (1997), “The practice of silent accounting”, in Zadek, Pruzan and Evans (Eds), BuildingCorporate Accountability: Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing andReporting, Earthscan, London, pp. 201-217.

Greenwood, M. and Mir, R. (2019), “Critical management studies and stakeholder theory: possibilitiesfor a critical stakeholder theory”, in Harrison, Barney, Freeman and Phillips (Eds), TheCambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 35-52.

Hansen, C.D. and Kahnweiler, W.M. (1993), “Storytelling: an instrument for understanding thedynamics of corporate relationships”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 1391-1409.

Herman, L. and Vervaeck, B. (2007), “Ideology”, in Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion toNarrative, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 217-230.

Herman, D. (2007), “Introduction”, in Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Narrative,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-21.

Jameson, D.A. (2000), “Telling the investment story: a narrative analysis of shareholder reports”, TheJournal of Business Communication (1973), Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 7-38.

Kristeva, J. (1986), The Kristeva Reader, Blackwell, Oxford.

Laine, M. and Vinnari, E. (2017), “The transformative potential of counter accounts: a case study ofanimal rights activism”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7,pp. 1481-1510.

Lakoff, G. (2010), “Why it matters how we frame the environment”, Environmental Communication,Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 70-81.

Leavy, P. (2018), “Introduction to arts-based research”, in Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of Arts-BasedResearch, The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 3-21.

Lee, E. (2017), “Performing colonisation: the manufacture of Black female bodies in tourism research”,Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 66, pp. 95-104.

Llewellyn, S. (1999), “Narratives in accounting and management research”, Accounting, Auditing andAccountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 220-237.

Lucieer, V., Walsh, P., Flukes, E., Butler, C., Proctor, R. and Johnson, C. (2017), Seamap Australia – ANational Seafloor Habitat Classification Scheme, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies(IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Margolin, U. (2007), “Character”, in Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 66-79.

Meldrum-Hanna, C., Balendra, J. and McDonald, A. (2016), “Big Fish”, Four Corners, ABC Television,Australia.

Monbiot, G. (2017), “How do we get out of this mess?”, The Guardian, Australia Edition, GuardianNews and Media.

Monin, N. and Monin, J. (2005), “Hijacking the fairytale: genre blurring and allegorical breaching inmanagement literature”, Organization, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 511-528.

Moxnes, P. and Moxnes, A. (2016), “Are we sucked into fairytale roles? Role archetypes in imaginationand organization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1519-1539.

AAAJ34,4

846

Moxnes, P. (1999), “Deep roles: twelve primordial roles of mind and organization”, Human Relations,Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1427-1444.

Norrick, N.R. (2000), Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk, John BenjaminsPublishing Company, Amsterdam.

Norrick, N.R. (2007), “Conversational storytelling”, in Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion toNarrative, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 127-141.

Padgett, J. (2018), “Faulkner’s assembly of memories into history: narrative networks in multipletimes”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 406-478.

Patman, D. (2017), “EPA alters law overnight to protect Tassal in Federal Court proceedings”,Environment Tasmania, Hobart, in Tasmania.

Phelan, J. and Rabinowitz, P. (2012), “Character”, in Herman, D., Phelan, J., Rabinowitz, P.J.,Richardson, B. and Warhol (Eds), Narrative Theory: Core Concepts and Critical Debates, OhioUniversity Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 111-118.

Pinkola Estes, C. (1992), Women Who Run with the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild WomanArchetype, Ballantine Books, London.

Propp, V. (1968), Morphology of the Folktale, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Roberts, J. (2009), “No one is perfect: the limits of transperancy and an ethic for ‘intelligent’accountability”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34, pp. 957-970.

Rudrum, D. (2005), “From narrative representation to narrative use: towards the limits of definition”,Narrative, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 195-204.

Ryan, M.-L. (2007), “Toward a definition of narrative”, in Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion toNarrative, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-35.

Salmon, G. (2017), Tassal Reveals Plans to Move Salmon Farms Offshore ‘to Meet CommunityExpectations’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC, Hobart, TAS.

Simons, I. (2014), “Sacred stories and silent voices: what the big bad wolf can teach us*”, The Journalof Corporate Citizenship, No. 54, pp. 11-22.

Somoff, V. (2002), “On the metahistorical roots of the fairytale”, Western Folklore, Vol. 61 Nos 3/4,pp. 277-293.

Starhawk (2017), “The story we need to tell; the movement we need to build”, available at: http://starhawk.org/the-story-we-need-to-tell-the-movement-we-need-to-build/.

Tanima, F.A., Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2020), “Surfacing the political: women’s empowerment,microfinance, critical dialogic accounting and accountability”, Accounting, Organizations andSociety, Vol. 85, pp. 1-21.

Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (2020), Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, TasmanianGovernment, Tasmania.

Teverson, A. (2013), Fairy Tale, Routledge, London.

Thomson, I., Dey, C. and Russell, S. (2015), “Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over tobaccocontrol”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 809-845.

Tregidga, H. (2017), “‘Speaking truth to power’: analysing shadow reporting as a form of shadowaccounting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 510-533.

Vinnari, E. and Laine, M. (2017), “The moral mechanism of counter accounts: the case of industrialanimal production”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 57, pp. 1-17.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005), “Organizing and the process of sensemaking”,Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409-421.

Whitson, R. (2017), Tassal’s Salmon Fish Farm Waste System Getting Pre-approval Ticks from EPA,Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC, Hobart.

Winterson, J. (2020), Hansel and Greta: A Fairy Tale Revolution, Vintage, London.

Into the woodsof corporate

fairytales

847

Wood, D. (2019), “Writing Baba Yaga into the tasmanian bush”, Marvels and Tales, Vol. 33 No. 1,pp. 157-164.

Zipes, J. (2011), “The meaning of fairytale within the evolution of culture”, Marvels and Tales, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 221-243.

Zipes, J. (2012), The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Zipes, J. (2016), “Once upon a time: changing the world through storytelling”, Common Knowledge,Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 277-283.

Corresponding authorLeanne J. Morrison can be contacted at: leanne.morrison@rmit.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

AAAJ34,4

848