Att legitimera priset på förvärvat företag Intertextuella förhållanden i goodwillformuleringar

Abstract

Syftet med denna artikel är att undersöka hur goodwillformuleringar i årsredovisningar legitimerar förvärv och förvärvsbeslut. Studien undersöker de 589 goodwillformuleringar som förekommer i 1323 årsredovisningstexter för åren 2005–2010 från företag noterade på Nasdaq OMX Stockholm. Texterna undersöks med intertextuella och interdiskursiva analyser kombinerat med van Leeuwens (2007) modell för legitimeringsanalys. I materialet identifieras explicita och implicita textsamspel såväl med regeltexter som med texter i egna årsredovisningar. Vi inför nyckelordsamspel för samband med regelverkets centrala begrepp. I hela 60 % av kommentarerna återkommer synergi eller sammansättningar av ordet. Texterna är språkligt legitimerande för företagsledningars förvärv framför allt genom auktorisation. Det tydligaste exemplet på detta är legitimering genom explicita och implicita textsamspel med regelverket. Legitimering genom tradition sker bland annat vid nyckelordsamspel eftersom läsarna förväntar sig genretypiska förklaringar med nyckelord från regelverket. Nyckelordsamspel legitimerar också som genom att förvärvet rationaliseras med nyckelorden. Både text- och nyckelordsamspel konstruerar alltså årsredovisningens legitimitet. Men i många stycken är det en oreflekterad reproduktion av textpassager och inte det som regelverket kräver: ”en kvalitativ beskrivning av de faktorer som utgör redovisad goodwill”.AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how goodwill comments in annual reports legitimize business acquisitions and decisions on acquisitions. The study deals with 589 goodwill comments in 1323 annual reports for the period of 2005-2010 for companies listed on Nasdaq OMX Stockholm. Intertextual analyses are combined with legitimation analysis (van Leeuwen 2007). Intertextual relations in the form of explicit intertextuality, implicit intertextuality and interdiscursivity are identified, both with the accounting standards and annual reports. We propose the notion keyword interplay for the close connections on lexical level between the comments and the accounting standards. The keyword synergy (as such and in compounds) is used in 60 % of the comments. The comments legitimize the acquisitions of the management, especially by authorization. The most obvious example of authorization is the close interplay with the accounting standards, both explicit intertextuality and implicit intertextuality. Legitimation by tradition occurs in keyword interplay as the readers of the annual reports expect genre typical comments characterized by keywords from the standards. The examples of keyword interplay also legitimize as the acquisition is rationalized with the keywords. Thus, both intertextual relations and keyword interplay construct the legitimacy of the annual report. However, this is to a great extent an unreflecting reproduction of chunks of texts and not what the accounting standards demand: “a qualitative description of the factors that make up the goodwill recognised”.

Corporate dreams – Appropriate aspirations and the building of trust in annual reports

“…Successes and failures are explained and deviations from expectations are accounted for. Blame is attributed and credit is given (Rahm & Sandell, 2016). In that sense the annual report can be seen as a part of an ongoing dialogue between the company and its environment, where the management of the company respond to the stakeholders' readings and concern (Brennan, Merkl-Davies, & Beelitz, 2013;Lupu & Sandu, 2017;Prakash & Rappaport, 1977).…”

“…The text in the annual report belongs to the board of directors but mainly to the management of the company, which means that it is not a neutral description of reality (Arnold & Oaks, 1998, p. 130). Rather, it is the description of reality from the perspective of one stakeholder, a description influenced by the fact that the evaluated writes the main part of the evaluation (Rahm & Sandell, 2016). However, the annual report does not only provide the management's rule-governed description of the company.…”

“…This tendency to reproduce and prevail the hegemonic truths (or myths) are stronger when texts are produced within a specific genre (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2004). This is not least due to the annual report writing process which includes a fuzzy and complex collective authorship (Gibbins, Richardson & Waterhouse, 1990;Rahm & Sandell, 2016), where large bodies of texts are produced within a short time frame. The narrative of the annual report is constructed by various mechanisms of intertextuality and interdiscursivity -traces of other texts, such as laws, standards, annual reports from the own company as well as from other companies shape the annual report narrative (Bhatia 2010(Bhatia , 2017Lupu & Sandu, 2017;Rahm & Sandell, 2016).…”

“…This is not least due to the annual report writing process which includes a fuzzy and complex collective authorship (Gibbins, Richardson & Waterhouse, 1990;Rahm & Sandell, 2016), where large bodies of texts are produced within a short time frame. The narrative of the annual report is constructed by various mechanisms of intertextuality and interdiscursivity -traces of other texts, such as laws, standards, annual reports from the own company as well as from other companies shape the annual report narrative (Bhatia 2010(Bhatia , 2017Lupu & Sandu, 2017;Rahm & Sandell, 2016). It is fair to say that texts produced for annual reports to some extent are consequences of institutionalized language use, to some extent intended neutral descriptions, i. e. incremental information, and to some extent impression management, i. e. attempts to control the impressions others form (Leary & Kowalski, 1990, p. 34).…”