Sustainability reporting: an empirical evaluation of emerging and developed economies

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate and compare the sustainability reporting practices of companies in developing nations (BRIC) with those in the developed economies (the UK and USA) as per GRI framework.

Design/methodology/approach

Content analysis has been applied on a sample of 232 companies listed on the Stock Exchanges of developing and developed countries (Brazil – BOVESPA index, 39 companies; Russia – RTS index, 21 companies; India – SENSEX, 17 companies; China – SSE 50, 19 companies; the USA – NASDAQ 100 and Amex major market index, 58 companies and the UK – FTSE100, 78 companies). It uses descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test to identify significant comparisons.

Findings

The findings of this paper suggest that developing nations are providing more information on sustainability practices as compared to the companies in the developed nations. Overall mean disclosure score of developing countries is 59.04 per cent followed by that of the developed countries at 36.47 per cent. The result of independent sample t-test shows these differences significant at 1 per cent level.

Practical implications

The results of the current paper implicate that the corporate managers of the developing nations should prefer rational and purposive reporting. They should work on the quality of reporting rather than just filling pages because social and environmental issues are more gross in the developing nations as compared to the developed countries.

Originality/value

Developing and developed nations jointly use the scarce resources and provide output to the world, thereby raising sustenance issues. However, not even a single study was found while reviewing the literature that studied and compared the sustainability reporting practices of these countries.

Citation

Bhatia, A. and Tuli, S. (2018), "Sustainability reporting: an empirical evaluation of emerging and developed economies", Journal of Global Responsibility, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2018-0003