Search results

Widespread adoption of reporting frameworks has contributed to current global practices undertaken by firms to report social, environmental and economic impact. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the most widely used of those frameworks, has produced several generations of guidelines. Their third-generation guidelines (G3), which had the most widespread and long-term use, relied on a series of application levels to convey the quantity and quality of disclosures. The firm’s choice of application level exemplified its corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure strategy. The purpose of this study is to answer the call of scholars for a comprehensive explanation of a firm’s CSR disclosure strategy and suggested researching of the conceptual underpinnings of legitimacy, stakeholder, resource dependence and institutional theories.

Given this call, a comprehensive model is tested that explores relationships arising from these four major theories and the choice of GRI application levels. The model includes four constructs: non-financial corporate characteristics, firm financial performance, stakeholder involvement and environmental turbulence.

Unexpectedly, the findings do not show differences with respect to the theoretical underpinnings of CSR disclosure and the GRI disclosure levels.

Despite their widespread use, GRI was concerned that the G3’s application levels could be misunderstood and that the framework needed conceptual improvement. These concerns led to the elimination of application levels with the launch of GRI’s fourth-generation guidelines (G4) in 2013. The findings support the need for conceptual improvement and the discontinuation of the application level system in the G4 guidelines. They also suggest the need for additional research to examine disclosure choices over time, to make understand corporate disclosure strategies.

The study examines sustainability reporting in the government and not-for-profit organizations (GNFPs). Using a descriptive approach, data from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are utilized to identify GNFP’s sustainability reporting trends and incentives over the period from 2001 to 2016. The study shows improvement in the GNFPs’ sustainability reporting over the analysis period, especially by larger organizations. In specific, results show that the number of GNFPs that reported has increased over the analysis period, and the number of social, economic, and environmental issues that are reported on has also increased although fragmentally across different GNFPs. In addition, a few GNFPs integrate their sustainability report with their financial report or obtain external assurance. The study shows that GNFPs’ sustainability reporting is motivated by meeting stakeholders’ needs and achieving business goals. Based on these findings, the study identifies future reporting opportunities for GNFPs to improve informativeness and reliability of sustainability reporting with the ultimate goals of improving transparency and accountability. The data used in this study capture only the GNFPs that reported or registered in the GRI database. Thus, future studies may use other data sets or conduct field and case analyses to obtain further insights into the process of adopting and reporting on sustainability and the roles that different stakeholders play in pursuing such efforts. In addition, the study identifies other future research opportunities. The study contributes to the extant literature on sustainability and social responsibility during periods of changing regulatory framework in less-researched organizations that contributes significantly to society.

The purpose of this study is to investigate empirically what affects Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)-based sustainability reporting and its relationship with firm performance in the aviation industry between 2006 and 2015.

The authors derived data from the GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database and Thomson Reuters EIKON; from the former, they downloaded GRI-based reports, and from the latter, they obtained financial data. The authors performed four-level analysis – report existence, report count, application level of report and firm performance –using various regression models (i.e. logistic regression, Poisson regression, ordered logistic regression and ordinary least squares regression).

First, the authors based the analysis on the existence of GRI-based sustainability reports, which showed that firm size and leverage are positively associated with sustainability reporting. Contrary to expectations, ownership was negatively associated. Furthermore, free cash flow per share, growth and profitability do not have significant effects on sustainability reporting, in contrast to expectations. Subsequent analysis was based on report count (number of total published reports within the examination period) and application levels of reports. Compared to the preceding analysis, there were no notable surprises. In addition, we found evidence that growth is negatively associated with application levels of reports (partially supported). Thus, report existence, report count and application level results largely confirm each other. Finally, the authors tested the effect of sustainability reporting on firm performance, which did not produce significant results. Thus, in the aviation industry, sustainability reporting does not play a significant role in enhancing firm performance.

First, the findings show that larger and highly leveraged aviation firms can reduce agency and legitimacy costs through sustainability reporting. Surprisingly, the same assumption did not hold for ownership structure as the firms with diffused ownership base tend not to publish sustainability reports. Thus, boards are advised to establish and improve monitoring mechanisms in these types of firms. Second, although the number of aviation companies publishing separate sustainability reports has increased significantly over the years, almost half of the companies are not still producing sustainability reports. Hence, if the aviation industry believes the merits of engaging in sustainability issues and sincerely desires to enhance its sustainability reporting practices, the authors can suggest the following initiatives. Boards might encourage companies to incorporate sustainability issues into company operations by assigning the necessary financial and human resources. The boards might also establish a separate sustainability committee or department, which could focus on sustainability issues and reporting practices. Regulatory bodies could also encourage aviation companies to act in a socially and environmentally responsible manner by proposing legal requirements and providing guidance.

Relevant civil organisations and environmental activists might undertake more active roles to enhance awareness of sustainability issues in the aviation industry.

Most of the prior studies did not focus on standalone GRI-based sustainability reports, and they were conducted on limited samples and not the aviation industry in particular. This study aims to fill these gaps empirically by establishing testable hypotheses and attempting to demonstrate the validity of theoretical relationships in a wide range of data and among aviation companies worldwide. In this sense, this study is unique in what it undertakes. This study also tests whether sustainability reporting impacts firm value in the aviation industry which, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has not been examined in prior studies to this extent.

The objective of this paper is to assess the degree of adherence to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) by organizations from all over the world, as well as the quality of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports under the institutional and legitimacy theoretical frameworks. Content analysis was conducted on annual data from all organizations that used GRI as a means for disclosing CSR information. Descriptive analyses and tests for the difference in proportions have been processed. The whole set of organizations adhering to GRI, from 1999 to 2013, has been analyzed. Results signal an increasing adherence to GRI together with an improvement in the quality of reports, which indicates that GRI seems to be recognized as relevant to CSR disclosure. The publication of integrated reports has increased rapidly. The high proportion of organizations adhering to GRI from OECD countries and continents with more advanced economies signals that the institutional and legal environment may contribute to CSR reporting and its quality. The high adherence of business organizations may indicate that GRI is seen as contributing to value creation and to legitimacy and reputational concerns. After 15 years of GRI as a means of disseminating social and sustainability information, GRI has become an important data source for CSR research. By providing results from the whole set of organizations adhering to GRI in the period 1999–2013, the paper contributes to the literature on CSR disclosure as well as builds on the institutional and legitimacy theories.

This paper aims to offer an overview of key aspects of the journey to develop the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework and Guidelines, focusing on the Materiality construct. It provides a practitioner’s perspective of several issues related to this construct.

This commentary is mainly based on publicly available technical documents, the analysis of papers related to the Materiality construct and a contextual review of the evolution of the main features of the GRI Guidelines and Standards.

This paper discusses the conundrum currently surrounding the Materiality construct and offers some reflections and suggestions about the challenges facing GRI.

Clarification of the Materiality construct could reduce confusion and eventually allow for clear identification and differentiation of the financial and sustainability accounting fields at their interface.

Language creates reality; an opportunity has arisen to bring appropriate and distinctive terminology to the sustainability reporting field, bridging the gap between competing logics.

This viewpoint is timely. It contributes a practitioner’s perspective to the current debate on the development of the Materiality construct.

The aim of the study is to investigate the implementation of corporate sustainability (CS) in the German real estate sector.

The authors begin by outlining the framework set by the European Union and the German Federal Government for companies wanting to be classified as sustainable. After this, the relevance of sustainability for German real estate companies is discussed. Their empirical section contains an international comparison. Finally, they present an analysis checking the implementation of CS for the main 135 German real estate companies.

The present analysis shows that German real estate companies compare well with their international counterparts, in 2012 representing 15 per cent of all real estate firms reporting on the basis of the Global Reporting Initiative. However, of the 135 companies in Germany surveyed, only a small proportion classify themselves as CS and CSR (corporate social responsibility) enterprises. This number could be rapidly increased by better documentation of companies’ commitment to sustainability.

The study’s importance lies in the overview it provides of CS activities in the German real estate industry. In addition, it provides hints on how companies can improve their documentation to classify as CSR enterprises. Although the analysis concentrates on Germany, the results are also relevant for companies in other European countries.

This is the first study to offer a comprehensive overview of the CS activities of the German real estate industry.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the status of non-financial reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 3.1 A+ standard. By examining the comprehensiveness of the GRI performance in corporate non-financial reports classified as A+ the authors challenge the external assurance system imposed by GRI 3.1 A+ and discuss future directions for the application of GRI 4.0, particularly with regard to the standardized corporate reporting software language XBRL.

The authors applied a three-step-research design based on four literature-derived hypothesis and examined all 177 GRI 3.1 A+ reports (2012-13) by coding along 41 variables plus the 84 performance indicators of GRI 3.1 to test accessibility, ability to download, achievability, and the possibility to compare them to older reports.

The results indicate a lack of completeness of GRI’s 3.1 key performance indicators in A+ assured reports, that is made possible due to the reporting flexibility and voluntariness of the guideline. The authors find that the average of disclosed core indicators is 77.66 percent. Single A+ reports disclose even fewer GRI core indicators that B+ reports, which challenges the validity of the assurance system of GRI 3.1.

In this study the (core) indicators were taken as given by GRI 3.1; the quality of the indicators was not measured or weighted.

Implications may emerge for redesigning non-financial reporting guidelines.

By critically indicating possible weaknesses of the GRI 3.1 guidelines the authors aim to contribute to a more transparent and effective non-financial reporting.

As an increasing number of contributions criticize the credibility of non-financial reporting and also GRI’s role, the research for the first time provides empirical evidence of the shortcomings of CSR and sustainability reporting regarding comprehensiveness, accessibility, and comparability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which sustainability reporting can be viewed as a simulacrum used to camouflage real sustainable-development problems and project an idealized view of the firms' situations.

The method was based on the content analysis and counter accounting of 23 sustainability reports from firms in the energy and mining sectors which had received application levels of A or A+ from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The information disclosed in some 2,700 pages of reports was structured around 92 GRI indicators and compared with 116 significant news events that clearly addressed the responsibility of these firms in sustainable development problems. Moreover, the 1,258 pictures included in sustainability reports were categorized into recurring themes from an inductive perspective.

A total of 90 per cent of the significant negative events were not reported, contrary to the principles of balance, completeness and transparency of GRI reports. Moreover, the pictures included in these reports showcase various simulacra clearly disconnected with the impact of business activities.

The paper shows the relevance of the counter accounting approach in assessing the quality of sustainability reports and question the reliability of the GRI's A or A+ application levels. It contributes to debates concerning the transparency of sustainability reports in light of Debord's and Baudrillard's critical perspective. The paper reveals the underexplored role of images in the emergence of several types of simulacra.

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the association between the family status and corporate social responsibility disclosure (sustainability reporting) of large US companies.

The authors gathered data from GRI database as well as from Compustat. They use both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses.

The authors find that there is no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of sustainability reporting between family and non‐family firms of the S&P 500. They document important associations among the propensity to issue sustainability reports, the level of details of sustainability reports and certain firm‐specific and industry characteristic variables.

This study is focused on S&P 500 firms and may not be generalizable to smaller firms. Differences among family firms such as stock ownership and management control may affect sustainability reporting and are important topics for future research.

Society should be aware of the motivations and incentives that govern sustainability reporting decisions by both family and non‐family firms. The authors show that both family and non‐family companies use voluntary disclosure in general and sustainability reporting in particular as a way of mitigating regulatory, political and litigation costs.

No prior study, to the authors' knowledge, has examined the association between sustainability reporting and the family status of firms. The authors include suggestions for future research in this area and hope that their study will provide motivation and guidance to researchers to study this topic further.