Att uppnå balans är en viktig aspekt inom hållbarhetsredovisning, trots detta är det inte ovanligt att företagens hållbarhetsrapporter är i en obalans. Det har visat sig vara en överrepresentation av positiva händelser i dessa rapporter. Tidigare forskning har visat att legitimitetsteori ligger till grund för upprättandet av en hållbarhetsrapport och förklarar varför företag väljer att presentera negativa händelser. Det finns incitament för företag att presentera negativa händelser, då det skapar legitimitet gentemot företagens intressenter. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka vilken typ av negativa händelser som presenteras och hur företag presenterar negativa händelser. Genom en kvalitativ innehållsanalys sker en branschjämförelse för att identifiera eventuella mönster och skillnader. Det empiriska materialet består av en kvalitativ innehållsanalys som tillämpats på nio företag inom branscherna dagligvaruhandel, IT-och telekom och byggbranschen. Hållbarhetsrapporter från samtliga bolag har analyserats och sedan har all data kodats med hjälp av ett kodningsschema där strategier och kategorier har identifierats. Utformning av kodningsschemat präglades av tidigare forskning och lagtext där tidigare definierade legitimeringsstrategier och kategorier identifierats. Strategierna som identifierats från tidigare forskning var marginalisering, avskiljande, rationalisering, korrigerande åtgärder samt återge fakta. Resultatet påvisar att samtliga strategier framtagna från tidigare forskning kunde identifieras i studiens empiriska material. Där vissa strategier förekom mer frekvent än andra. Det var även möjligt att urskilja mönster inom och mellan branscherna, framför allt inom dagligvaruhandeln fanns ett samförstånd i hur negativa händelser presenteras och vilket område dessa berörde. De typer av negativa händelser som presenterades har även identifierats som småskaliga händelser. / Balance plays a key role in sustainability reporting, despite this it has been shown that there is an overrepresentation of the positive aspects. This indicates an imbalance in sustainability reporting. The legitimacy theory is the foundation in sustainability reporting and explains why companies choose to disclose. It has been shown that incentive to disclose negative aspects exists, because it provides the companies with legitimacy towards stakeholders. The purpose of this study was to examine which type of negative events companies choose to disclose and how companies choose to disclose information concerning negative events. Further the aim was to do an industry comparison, in order to identify patterns and differences. A qualitative content analysis was conducted and applied to nine companies, in the food industry, IT &- telecom and the construction industry. The sustainability reports from all the companies, got analyzed and then coded with the help of a coding scheme. The coding scheme helped identify the companies strategies and categories of the negative events. The coding scheme was conducted with previous research and laws as a base. The results show that all the strategies from earlier research could be identified, and those strategies were marginalization, authorization, indicating facts, rationalizing and corrective action. Some strategies occurred more frequently than others. Some patterns were identified, both within the industries and between the industries. Especially in the food industry, there was a consensus on how the negative events were to be presented and within which area. Further, the result showed that the negative events that were presented, could be identified as insignificant events.

Aim: The aim of this study is to understand what strategies are used over time by a company facing a transgressional CSR crisis, in order to regain legitimacy, and towards which stakeholder group these strategies are directed. Methods: In order to achieve our aim, Qualitative case study based on secondary data published by Volkswagen as well as news articles were used to identify what strategies the company used over time. Results: To be able to answer our aim, different theoretical lenses were used; SCCT response strategies, legitimization strategies, strategy formulation process and stakeholder theory. Therefore, four main different strategies were identified, minimize attribution, blind adaptation to strategy 2025, US differentiation and internal moral reasoning. The former two were addressed to all stakeholders while the latter two were concerned with specific stakeholder groups. Conclusions: Strategy formulation process during a transgressional CSR crisis is a complex procedure and literature on crisis management should move away from static frameworks towards a more dynamic understanding of how strategies can come to life. Coupled with the complexity of societal expectations in general, a company might have to adopt the paradoxical approach even for one stakeholder. Lastly, an addition to Situational Crisis Communication Theory is proposed.