Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental,Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies

Sustainability reporting guidelines developed by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provide a systematic approach for the companies to report their performance on social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. This study compared the sustainability reports of leading Indian public and private sector companies. Reports were analyzed based on GRI guidelines toward their reporting on sustainability. A numerical score from 0 to 3 was assigned for each of the 84 performance indicators (9, 30, and 45 indicators for economic, environment, and social dimensions, respectively) of the GRI 2011 guidelines based on inclusiveness of sustainability report. The analysis showed that reporting on economic dimension was comparatively better as compared to social and environmental dimensions. Sampled companies did not show much difference in their reporting practices on economic performances. However, considerable difference was observed in their reporting practices on environmental and social dimensions. Reporting practices of Tata Steel were better in all dimensions of sustainability and emerged as a responsible company on sustainability reporting.     

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.     

Transparency of Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch Breweries

According to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (2001), transparency by means of Sustainability Reporting should lead to better Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance of companies. Sustainability Reporting should also give consumers the information they need to purchase the most sustainable products available (Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2004). This article analyses the driving factors influencing CSR and Sustainability Reporting at seven breweries in the Netherlands. It also gives a better understanding of organizational behaviour with reference to CSR and the reasons breweries have for Sustainability Reporting. The Dutch government has no intention of forcing organizations to publish a sustainability report, since it is trying to diminish the volume of legislation. Rather, the government prefers to rely on the willingness and initiatives of organizations to make CSR a success. In 2006, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs will evaluate the effect of its CSR policy. But is it a success already? During our research, breweries appeared to find CSR more important than Sustainability Reporting. Sustainability reporting is, for most breweries, not the way to reach stakeholders. Most stakeholders have their own means for receiving information e.g. annual reports, meetings, public statements and press releases. Although small breweries think CSR is very important, they feel no pressure from outside to publish a sustainability report. For them it is very complex and expensive to publish a sustainability report. Large breweries feel pressure from many stakeholders to be transparent, but not on a regular basis. We conclude from this research that CSR does not stimulate Sustainability Reporting, but neither does Sustainability Reporting stimulate CSR.     

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.     

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.     

The Harmonization and Convergence of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Standards

The goal of this article is to evaluate the future of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting in terms of the harmonization of reporting standards. The evolution and convergence of financial reporting standards are compared to that of CSR reporting standards. In addition, four globally recognized CSR reporting standards are evaluated. The content of each standard is reviewed, a representative from each standard organization is interviewed, and the standards are evaluated for decision usefulness. This research suggests that the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) would be the best standard to provide decision useful information. This analysis is reinforced by recent events in the transformation of CSR reporting standards and provides insight into the possible future development of CSR reporting standards.     

Doing right,investing right: Socially responsible investing and shareholder activism in the financial sector

In this article, we present an overview of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the financial sector. We focus on how socially responsible investment and shareholder activism have been integral parts of corporate social responsibility in the financial sector. We examine how the financial sector and its firms are evaluated and rated via a sustainability index, the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, and show that even leading financial institutions do not employ proactive practices regarding socially responsible investment and shareholder activism. Finally, we provide examples of two companies, UBS AG and the Co-operative Banking Group, that do utilize proactive practices.     

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.     

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.     

Investigating critical organizational factors toward sustainability index: Insights from the Taiwanese electronics industry

To improve sustainable practices and attract investors, companies in emerging markets have increasingly embraced strategies for inclusion in rapidly expanding sustainability indices. However, most early studies on socially responsible investment or sustainability investment have only focused on exploring the relationship between corporate sustainability and firm value. Moreover, little has been done to explore the practices of emerging market companies for engaging with a sustainability index. To address this research gap, we employed the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to identify critical factors that influence the inclusion of emerging market companies in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Five critical factors and best practices were identified based on the analysis of seven Taiwanese electronics companies that have been listed in the DJSI for several consecutive years. Our results provide insights on the critical factors and best practices that reinforce the sustainable practices of emerging market companies for inclusion in the DJSI. This study also contributes to the literature by investigating the engagement of emerging market companies with the DJSI.     

Is it a sententious claim? An examination of the quality of occupational health,safety and well-being disclosures in global reporting initiative reports across industries and countries

The study attempts to reveal differences in the quality of information disclosed on occupational health, safety (OHS) and well-being in 250 sustainability reports within and between large companies in different industries and countries (i.e., market economies). Using a mixed research design, our results indicate that industry affiliation and type of market economy have no significant influence on the quality of disclosure on OHS and well-being aspects. Instead, companies tend to disclose information on legal requirements and OHS standards to secure their social legitimacy. However, in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry groups, membership in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index emerged as an influencing factor on the quality of disclosures on employees’ well-being. In general, companies merely disclose sententious information about OHS and well-being in disclosures of management approaches in the Global Reporting Initiative, and otherwise rarely attempt to translate their claims into outcomes. Contributions to institutional theories and practices are discussed.     

The cultural system and integrated reporting

The complexity of the business world has led to growing demands being made of companies regarding the information provided on their financial performance, management, corporate governance and sustainability record. In response, some leading companies have begun to publish integrated reporting, in the form of a document providing a coherent summary of this information, thus facilitating decision-taking by different stakeholders.The aim of this study is to examine the impact of the Hofstede national cultural system, which is representative of the values of local stakeholders, on integrated reporting, in comparison with the provision of various unrelated documents on corporate performance. The results obtained show that companies located in societies with stronger collectivist and feminist values are in the vanguard of information integration.     

The Uptake of Sustainability Reporting in Australia

In this paper, we identify and discuss how sustainability reporting has spread throughout the Australian business community over the past twenty years or so. We identified all Australian business organisations that have produced a sustainability report since 1995, and we undertook an interview survey with managers of reporting companies. By incorporating a wide range and large number of reporting companies, we offer insights beyond those obtained from traditional report content analysis and from close analyses of singular case-study organisations. We reveal that sustainability reporting has deepened in a few high-impact industries, and it has spread to a small number of firms in a wide range of low-impact industries. We tested whether there were any relationships between the drivers of reporting and the experiences of different types of reporting firms. Many of the relationships we observed were not as clear or as consistent as expected. Sustainability reporting is, however, of strategic importance to reporting companies. Given the small number of reporters in Australia, we raise the possibility of strategic differentiation as a key driver of reporting behaviour and suggest further studies to explore institutional fields that may be shaping sustainability reporting practice.     

Does the “management approach” contribute to segment reporting transparency?

Segment reporting creates an opportunity for companies to add value to the information they disseminate about their industry and geographic operations. This article examines the “management approach” to segment reporting from a user perspective that should be of great interest to corporate financial executives. The management approach to segment reporting requires companies to report segment financial information consistent with the way they manage their businesses. We conclude that, despite more segment data being reported, the potential of the new management approach to significantly benefit users is compromised by uneven compliance among reporting companies. The complicity of external auditors in compliance shortcomings should concern all stakeholders in the financial reporting process. Noting two high-profile examples of accounting fraud, we comment on how the management approach sheds light on Enron's operations, while WorldCom concealed important segment information due to probable auditor malfeasance.     

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.     

Keeping Ethical Investment Ethical: Regulatory Issues for Investing for Sustainability

Regulation must target the financial sector, which often funds and profits from environmentally unsustainable development. In an era of global financial markets, the financial sector has a crucial impact on the state of the environment. The long-standing movement for ethically and socially responsible investment (SRI) has recently begun to advocate environmental standards for financiers. While this movement is gaining more adherents, it has increasingly justified responsible financing as a path to be prosperous, rather than virtuous. This trend partly owes to how financial institutions view their legal responsibilities. The business case motivations that now predominantly drive SRI are not sufficient to make the financial sector a means to sustainable development. Some modest legal reforms to improve the quality and extent of SRI have yet to make a tangible difference. A more ambitious strategy to promote SRI for environmental sustainability is possible, based on reforming the fiduciary duties of financial institutions. Such duties, tied to concrete performance standards, could make financiers invest in more ethically responsible ways. Other collateral reforms to financial markets, including improved corporate environmental reporting, are required to promote sustainability.     

The Role of Stakeholders in Sustainability Reporting Assurance

The main purpose of this exploratory analysis is to understand whether, based on evidence gathered from international best practices selected among corporations which adopt the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines in sustainability reporting (SR), stakeholders are significantly consulted and involved—as international literature would indicate—by assurance providers, during assurance processes of SR. We aim at verifying if this practice—known as stakeholder assurance—is in fact widespread in SR assurance by carrying out empirical research, through content analysis, into a sample of 161 assurance statements of international corporations, in order to test characteristics of any stakeholder assurance implemented.     

Does Sustainability Investment Provide Adaptive Resilience to Ethical Investors? Evidence from Spain

Although sustainable and responsible investment (SRI) has quite recently become a hot research topic, scarcely any systematic research has been paid to the performance of this non-conventional approach to investment during the financial crisis that emerged in mid-2008 when the resilience of the financial markets was sorely tested. Such real-world resilience in practice is the subject of the current research which tests whether environmental, social and governance screens provides ethical investors with adaptive resilience in bull and bear market conditions by focussing on the SRI equity index of one of the most active markets in Europe in terms of ethical investment, the FTSE4Good-Ibex in Spain. Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (M-GARCH) analysis indicates that ethical investors in the equity market examined with evidence that greater resilience in severe business cycle shocks could be attributable to SRI by companies. Although limited to a single country study, the results have implications for investors seeking resilience in crisis: when individual values and beliefs towards sustainability tie with personal investment strategy, the end result is adaptive financial resilience, social well-being and environmental defence.     

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.