Search results

This paper aims to evaluate the outcome effectiveness of the global reporting initiatives (GRI) transitions by understanding how companies have responded to the changes from G3.1 to G4 and finally to the GRI Standards.

A quality disclosure score is developed that incorporates assessments of both the quality of disclosures and the materiality of Australian companies. To analyse materiality, survey data were collected from 187 companies. Disclosure scores are based on a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 12 mining and metals companies and 12 financial services companies that used the GRI Standards from 2011 to 2019 (a total of 213 reports).

The study found that the GRI transitions have not led to companies improving the quality of their disclosures on areas considered important for them to achieve their social and environmental goals. Instead, the companies tended to use a greenwashing strategy, where the quality of disclosure of material issues declined or fluctuated over time.

From a practical perspective, the disclosure score developed in this paper enables managers of companies to recognize a threshold of completeness and to summarize the areas that are not materially relevant to their business.

The results are potentially helpful for investors, shareholders and other stakeholders, enabling them to better understand sustainability reports.

This study contributes to the body of research in sustainability reporting by providing evidence on the outcome effectiveness of the latest updates in the GRI framework.

This paper aims to commentate on the roles of sustainability reporting during the COVID-19 pandemic. It evaluates the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) framework, designed as a guide for best-practice in sustainability reporting, for its applicability to cover COVID-19 issues and, more generally, issues arising in crisis conditions.

The GRI’s COVID-19 communications and the GRI framework are reviewed using three common theories of reporting, namely, institutional, stakeholder and legitimacy theory. For each theory, the authors contrast expectations under business-as-usual conditions against crisis conditions to identify gaps and avenues to guide COVID-19 responses.

This commentary opines the GRI framework risks perpetuating incremental change towards the “new normal”, rather than motivating the urgent responses needed in a crisis. The GRI can play a significant normative role to guide immediate and short-term best practice in COVID-19 reporting. Findings motivate the need to report for vulnerable rather than powerful stakeholders and to recognise and celebrate proactive change.

This paper commentates on the suitability of a major sustainability reporting framework and its role in improving responses to the current COVID-19 crisis. Findings propose challenges to the GRI and GRI framework to motivate urgent responses and communication for the pandemic.