The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments

Social screening of investments calls not only for investment policy and criteria, but also for information about companies, their policies, practices and performance. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and its June 2000 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines have the potential to significantly improve the usefulness and quality of information reported by companies about their environmental, social and economic impacts and performance. The GRI aims to develop a voluntary reporting framework that will elevate sustainability reporting practices to a level equivalent to that of financial reporting in rigour, comparability, auditability and general acceptance. This will be a welcome and efficient supplement to the questionnaires, interviews, press releases, media reports and other sources of information traditionally used for screening in investment decision making – social/ethical and mainstream. The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index, the Jantzi Social Index and the Innovest EcoValue'21 analytical platform, together with the SRI community, are all likely to benefit from GRI-style sustainability reports. One of the GRI's key challenges is to accommodate the broad variety of disclosure needs and expectations of a wide range of report users and company stakeholders. To maximize the usefulness of the GRI Guidelines, report users, including the SRI community, need to be engaged in the process of developing and refining the Guidelines over time. The GRI Guidelines are emerging as an important instrument in enabling companies to communicate with their stakeholders about performance and accountability beyond just the financial bottom line.     

Assurance of corporate social responsibility reports: Does it reduce decoupling practices?

Recent research shows the existence of a selective corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure strategy that creates a gap between CSR disclosure and actual performance. These CSR decoupling practices compromise the credibility of CSR reports and have triggered a demand for the adoption of credibility enhancement mechanisms, such as adherence to the global reporting initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines, and the external assurance of CSR reports. The effectiveness of such mechanisms is not clear, however. This paper draws on legitimacy theory and addresses the issue of symbolic versus substantive use of assurance, and compliance with GRI reporting standards, by analysing their effect on CSR decoupling using an international sample of 1,939 companies (15,219 observations from 2002 to 2017). Analysis of a sub-sample of 708 firms (3,730 observations from 2011 to 2017) also shows that the application of GRI guidelines and the specific characteristics of the assurance provider—accountant, experience and specialisation—reduce CSR decoupling practices. The results provide researchers, managers, assurance providers, investors, stakeholders and regulators with additional insight into the value of the external assurance of sustainability reports and have important managerial and policy implications.     

W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting

This paper offers a critique of sustainability reporting and, in particular, a critique of the modern disconnect between the practice of sustainability reporting and what we consider to be the urgent issue of our era: sustaining the life-supporting ecological systems on which humanity and other species depend. Tracing the history of such reporting developments, we identify and isolate the concept of the ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) as a core and dominant idea that continues to pervade business reporting, and business engagement with sustainability. Incorporating an entity’s economic, environmental and social performance indicators into its management and reporting processes, we argue, has become synonymous with corporate sustainability; in the process, concern for ecology has become sidelined. Moreover, this process has become reinforced and institutionalised through SustainAbility’s biennial benchmarking reports, KPMG’s triennial surveys of practice, initiatives by the accountancy profession and, particularly, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)’s sustainability reporting guidelines. We argue that the TBL and the GRI are insufficient conditions for organizations contributing to the sustaining of the Earth’s ecology. Paradoxically, they may reinforce business-as-usual and greater levels of un-sustainability.     

Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies

Corporate sustainability reports are supposed to provide a complete and balanced picture of corporate sustainability performance. They are, however, usually voluntary and thus prone to interpretation and even greenwashing tendencies. To overcome this problem, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides standardized reporting guidelines challenging companies to report positive and negative aspects of an organization’s sustainability performance. However, the reporting of “negative aspects” in particular can endanger corporate legitimacy if perceived by the stakeholders as not being in line with societal norms and values. Starting from the theoretical lenses of economics-based disclosure theories and socio-political theories of disclosure, the focus of this study therefore was to analyze the communicative legitimation strategies companies use to report “negative aspects,” i.e., negative ecological and social impact caused by corporate activity. Using qualitative content analysis of GRI-oriented sustainability reports from companies listed on the US Dow Jones Industrial Average Index and on the German DAX Index, we identified six legitimation strategies. We discuss these strategies regarding to symbolic and substantial management of legitimacy. We show that symbolic legitimation strategies aiming at modifying the perception of legitimizing stakeholders dominate in the reports at hand. Such persuasion, however, does not meet the requirement of impartiality as postulated by the GRI guidelines. Building upon this conclusion we propose a concise characterization of “negative aspects” and develop a GRI-compliant schema of reporting about them. In doing so, we offer a way to improve the overall “balance” of sustainability reporting contributing to a true and fair view in sustainability disclosure.     

Normativity in Environmental Reporting: A Comparison of Three Regimes

Normativity is assessed as we evaluate and compare the environmental reporting practices of a sample of French and Canadian companies through the lens of institutional legitimacy. More specifically, we examine how French and Canadian firms changed their reporting practices in reaction to the promulgation of laws and regulations in their respective countries, i.e., the NER and Grenelle II Acts in France, and National Instrument 51-102 and CSA Staff Notice NR 51-333, issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators. The firms’ voluntary disclosures according to GRI guidelines are also investigated. Substantive legitimacy theory is used to explore the level of substantive disclosures provided by Canadian and French firms. The findings reveal that the French parliamentary regime is more successful than the Canadian stock exchange regulation in triggering environmental reporting, and that the GRI combined with local regimes prompts environmental disclosures. Notwithstanding the improvements in environmental reporting under all three regimes, a very low level of substantive disclosure is noted in both countries.     

Culture’s effects on corporate sustainability practices: A multi-domain and multi-level view

With a triple-bottom-line lens on sustainability, this study examines the effects of culture on companies’ economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. Drawing on institutional theory and project GLOBE, we delineate cultural practices dimensions that consistently predict sustainability practices related to each of the three domains. Based on a sample of 1924 companies in 36 countries and nine cultural clusters, we find that future orientation, gender egalitarianism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance practices positively, and performance orientation practices negatively, predict corporate sustainability practices. Further, our findings suggest that these effects might vary according to the country vis-à-vis cluster level of analysis.     

Global Reporting Initiative and social impact in managing corporate responsibility: a case study of three multinationals in the forest industry

We examine recent evolution in corporate responsibility in the forest industry, an important natural‐resource‐based industry which is under rapid internationalisation and structural change under challenging financial pressures. We address two recent trends in corporate communication: corporate disclosure, that is the adoption of consistent external reporting standards [namely the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) ], and the growing awareness of engagement with and impact on local communities through philanthropy, generation of prosperity, communication and the social impact of core activities. This study uses a comparative qualitative case approach to forest industry multinational enterprises (MNEs) based on a combination of secondary (reporting, company newsletters and other documentation) and interview data. Three large‐scale multinational forest industry firms, all pursuing different strategies in terms of internationalisation and geographical and product diversification, were chosen for the study: Stora Enso, SCA and Sappi Ltd. Our results show that the overall quality of sustainability reporting has improved in these companies from 2005 to 2009 with the adoption of GRI. However, based on our fourfold categorisation of social impact, the core social impact indicator in GRI (SO1) has been interpreted very differently in these MNEs, and the adoption of GRI has not actually much improved the comparability of the reports or transparency of practices.     

Linking Altruism and Organizational Learning Capability: A Study from Excellent Human Resources Management Organizations in Spain

Corporate reporting on climate change is of increasing academic interest but is often considered solely from the firm perspective. This article extends current knowledge by considering how institutional pressures influence the greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting practices of multinational oil and gas companies. The results show that regulation under the EU emissions trading scheme and reporting according to the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines leads to better quality and more extensive reporting. Although generally adopting proactive climate change strategies, European companies do not have superior GHG reporting practices. Corporate media visibility does not impact GHG reporting practices which may be a reflection of the obscure portrayal of climate change in the print media or the fact that coverage is generally positive. This article adds to the current literature on GHG reporting practices demonstrating that institutional theory along with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory can give further insights into explaining the GHG reporting practices of multinational companies.     

Predictors of various facets of sustainability of nations: The role of cultural and economic factors

This study examines the influence of national culture on various facets of a country's sustainability indicators, namely environmental performance, human development, and the avoidance of corruption. At the outset, using exploratory factor analysis from data from 57 countries from the GLOBE cultural practices, we identify three dimensions of culture: performance based culture (PBC), socially supportive culture (SSC) and gender egalitarianism culture (GEC). Then, using hierarchical regression analyses, we explore the role of cultural and economic factors on the various facets of sustainability. Specifically, we find that both PBC and GEC positively influence the environmental performance, even after controlling for wealth of a nation, i.e., GDP. GEC interacts with economic freedom in positively influencing environmental performance. GEC also positively influences human development as does GDP and economic growth rate. Interaction effects are also explored. We finally summarize the implications of the dimensions of culture and economic factors on the sustainability factors, and provide suggestions for future research.     

GHG Reporting and Impression Management: An Assessment of Sustainability Reports from the Energy Sector

The objective of this study was to analyze the quality of climate information disclosed by companies and the impression management strategies they have developed to justify or conceal negative aspects of their performance. The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of the sustainability reports of 21 energy-sector companies that use the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) with A or A+ application levels over a period of 5 years (n = 105). It contributes to the literature on climate disclosure by demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the external assurance process in ensuring the quality and representativeness of the data. Significant non-compliance with GRI standards was identified in 86 of the 93 reports audited by a third party. In addition, six of the 21 companies surveyed were found to disclose increasingly opaque information over time, concealing information on the measurement and methodology used. Through this study, four impression management strategies were identified. These are employed either to justify certain information (by minimizing impacts, excuses and commitment) or to conceal it (through strategic omissions and manipulation of figures). In exposing the high incidence of non-compliance in GRI reporting and the use of impression management strategies by companies, this study shows that it will be difficult or impossible for stakeholders to reasonably assess, monitor and compare companies’ climate performance on the basis of these reports.     

The value relevance of SAM's corporate sustainability ranking and GRI sustainability reporting in the European stock markets

This paper investigates whether relative corporate sustainability as measured by the SAM sustainability ranking and sustainability reporting in terms of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) application levels are associated with a higher market valuation. We conduct a value relevance study for the 600 largest European companies with the Feltham and Ohlson valuation model as a reference point. Our results indicate that for the observation period 2001 to 2011, the association between corporate sustainability and market value is positive. The empirical evidence of a positive relationship between GRI reporting and market value is statistically significant in some but not all of the model specifications. We find no evidence of interaction between the value relevance of corporate sustainability and sustainability reporting, nor do we find any positive effect of external assurance on the capital market perception of GRI application levels. Our results support the notion that conducting business in accordance with ethical norms is also a shareholder value‐increasing business strategy. However, it is not possible to verify the information given in sustainability reports through external assurance.     

Learning Sustainability? Absorptive capacities as drivers of sustainability in MNCs’ purchasing

MNCs are expected to operate in a sustainable fashion. Implementation of sustainability requires the ability to acknowledge external (sustainability-related) knowledge, and to apply it in intra-company activities such as purchasing. We focus on absorptive capacities as potential drivers of sustainability, and investigate the effect that a purchasing function’s capacity to absorb and process knowledge has on social and environmental sustainability practices, and subsequently on economic performance in purchasing. We compare MNCs and non-MNCs using a structural equation model of a large set of survey data from four European countries and find that only realized absorptive capacities impact sustainability practices in purchasing and this impact is smaller in MNCs than in other companies. We suggest that companies respond to the demand for sustainability by strengthening their implementation capabilities: the potential to acquire and transform knowledge within a purchasing function is less relevant, and what matters is its application.     

Stakeholder Relationships,Engagement, and Sustainability Reporting

The concept of sustainability was developed in response to stakeholder demands. One of the key mechanisms for engaging stakeholders is sustainability disclosure, often in the form of a report. Yet, how reporting is used to engage stakeholders is understudied. Using resource dependence and stakeholder theories, we investigate how companies within the same industry address different dependencies on stakeholders for economic, natural environment, and social resources and thus engage stakeholders accordingly. To achieve this objective, we conducted our research using qualitative research methods. Our findings suggest that the resource dependencies on different stakeholders lead to development of different stakeholder relationships and thus appropriate resources within the company to execute engagement strategies that are informing, responding, or involving. Our research explains why diversity exists in sustainability disclosure by studying how it is used to engage stakeholders. We find that five sustainability reporting characteristics are associated with the company’s stakeholder engagement strategy: directness of communication, clarity of stakeholder identity, deliberateness of collecting feedback, broadness of stakeholder inclusiveness, and utilization of stakeholder engagement for learning. Our study develops the literature by providing insight into companies’ choices of stakeholder engagement strategy thus explaining diversity in sustainability reporting based on the characteristics and relationships with specific stakeholders.     

Impression management tactics in the CEO statements of Turkish sustainability reports

In this study, we construct a classificatory scheme of impression management tactics and apply it to a sample of sustainability report and annual report CEO statements issued by large Turkish companies. We find a wide range of impression management tactics applied in both types of CEO statements. However, impression management in sustainability report CEO statements emerges as more limited and uniform, revealing clearer prioritizations of impression management tactics when compared to annual report CEO statements. Sustainability report CEO statements emphasize tactics that allow the company to highlight carefully selected, isolated aspects of their sustainability engagement. At the same time, they rarely employ tactics that are geared towards more systematic (quantitative) performance evaluation. We attribute these differences to the way in which corporate sustainability performance is commonly conceptualized and evaluated, emphasising qualitative performance dimensions rather than the reporting of quantitative performance metrics. This results in the application of a different impression management tactics mix and limits the usefulness of sustainability reports as an accountability mechanism when compared to corporate annual reports. In addition, we provide tentative evidence for the context-specific nature of impression management, with the choice of impression management tactics reflecting the institutional environment a company is based in.     

Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on Consumer Responses

The lack of attention to sustainability, as a concept with multiple dimensions, has presented a developmental gap in green marketing literature, sustainability, and marketing literature for decades. Based on the established premise of customer–corporate (C–C) identification, in which consumers respond favorably to companies with corporate social responsibility initiatives that they identify with, we propose that consumers would respond similarly to companies with sustainability initiatives. We postulate that consumers care about protecting and preserving favorable economic environments (an economic dimension of sustainability) as much as they care about natural environments. Thus, we investigate how two sustainability dimensions (i.e., environmental and economic) and price can influence consumer responses. Using an experimental method, we demonstrate that consumers favor sustainability in both dimensions by giving positive evaluations of the company and purchase intent. In addition, consumers respond more negatively to poor company sustainability than to high company sustainability. In comparison, consumers respond more negatively to the company’s poor commitment to caring for the environment than to the company’s poor commitment to economic sustainability. We also find that consumers do not respond favorably to low prices when they have information about the firm’s poor environmental sustainability. Finally, we find support for an interaction effect between consumer support for sustainability and corporate sustainability; that is, consumers evaluate a company more favorably if the company shares the consumers’ social causes. Overall, we conclude, from our empirical study, support for the idea that consumers do respond to multiple dimensions of sustainability.     

Environmental Reporting: The U.K. Water and Energy Industries: A Research Note

Last year the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) released a new set of revised guidelines upon environmental reporting practices for U.K companies. Two industrial sectors were selected – the Water industry and the Energy industry – and the most recent Environmental Reports produced by companies in these sectors were subjected to content analysis where the coding framework was heavily based on the DEFRA guidelines. Results are reported for the two industries separately and the two industries are also compared. Whilst sectoral differences were found it was clear that many companies addressed most of the issues raised in the guidelines. However, others did not. Whilst no conclusions can be made about the quality of reporting the main areas of emphasis in each sector can be determined.     

Does Sustainability Pay? Evidence from the Food Sector

This research investigates sustainability concepts, linking them with social, environmental, and operational activities in the food supply chain. Building on the literature treating social sustainability as an antecedent of environmental sustainability, we present the effects of environmental sustainability on operational performance using constructs that reflect flexibility, quality, and responsiveness. For this purpose, manufacturing companies in the Turkish food industry are surveyed and 101 responses are collected. A partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) is constructed to test the reliability and the validity of the measurement model and the structural model. The results show that social sustainability is positively associated with environmental sustainability. Moreover, environmental sustainability has a positive influence on operational performance measures: flexibility, quality, and responsiveness with effect sizes that range from medium to large. Organizations in the food supply chain should consider not only the economic, but also the social and the environmental aspects of sustainability. To do this, governments could inform manufacturers in the food sector about the importance of sustainability and encourage them with different incentives towards more sustainable operational practices. This work establishes that investing in social and environmental sustainability returns increased operational performance. The limitation of the research is the size of the sample. In the future, the questionnaire can be used to compare results from other countries and other sectors.     

Which Dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility is a Value Driver in the Oil and Gas Industry?

The oil and gas (O&G) industry suffers from a negative perception of poor sustainability. O&G companies are therefore engaged in several socially sustainable activities related to community development and environmental protection. This article determines whether the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are equally value‐additive to O&G companies. We measure the company‐specific level of CSR activities from the information provided in the annual financial reports of O&G companies and determine the effects of CSR dimensions on firm value. We find that CSR enhances firm value of O&G companies. While social activities such as employee well‐being and community development are key value‐drivers, environmental and economic sustainable activities have an insignificant impact on the market value of O&G companies. Copyright © 2018 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach

This work, based on previous evidence within international business management research, aims to test the influence of communities’ culture features on corporate environmental sustainability reporting (CESR) practices. To overcome some limitations of conventional statistical approaches applied by previous research, a quantile regression (QR) model is implemented which allows setting a framework to test the working hypotheses in different scenarios that cover divergent firms’ commitment levels to stakeholder engagement and CESR practices development. Our central results addresses that different national culture dimensions present a non-monotonic influence on CESR practices. This result, which is analyzed through the Stakeholder Theory proposals, can be explained because corporate sustainability behaviors are highly sensitive to stakeholders’ pressures and demands which are ultimately conditioned by the cultural environment. Some interesting recommendations for companies’ strategic management and governmental policy-making processes are reported.