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 purpose of this paper is to compare the sustainability disclosure methods‐instruments practiced by the two most widely employed indexes/instruments (DJSI World and GRI‐G3 Guidelines). The paper suggests that the newly created triple bottom line (TBL) reporting practices need to undergo further standardization and enforcement to avoid, or give early warnings about, future corporate mismanagement that leads to socio‐economic consequences detrimental to investors and consumers in general.

This paper utilizes sample firms from the DJSI World Index and the GRI‐G3 Sustainability Guidelines membership list to draw inferences on sustainability indicators of performance. The authors compare the GRI reporting guidelines with the disclosure indicators of the DJSI World.

The authors' findings suggest that TBL reporting has made enormous progress over the last two decades. However, the two widely used sustainability reporting instruments/indexes (DJSI World and GRI‐G3 Guidelines) differ in disclosure practice‐methods and the authors recommend that further standardization and enforcement is necessary. The authors' view is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) should become actively involved with the issue of standardization and enforcement of corporate socio‐environmental disclosures. The paper presents evidence that investors have neither rewarded nor penalized firms for adhering to or violating sustainability matters in their corporate decisions.

The authors argue for further standardization and enforcement with regard to the disclosure methods of the two widely used (GRI and DJSI) sustainability indicators in order to avoid future corporate mismanagement that leads to (systemic) economic and socio‐environmental consequences detrimental to citizen investors and consumers in general.

The research is of interest to academicians and practitioners who are interested in the theory and practice of sustainability reporting or TBL reporting. The findings suggest that this newly created disclosure instrument needs to undergo further standardization and enforcement for meaningful and accurate disclosure of economic‐social and environmental performance. The authors' view is that the SEC and FASB should become actively involved with the issue of standardization and enforcement of socio‐environmental disclosure of corporate sustainability.

This paper aims to examine the tendencies of sustainability reporting by major commercial banks in Bangladesh in comparison with global sustainability reporting indicators outlined in the GRI framework together with banks' predilection toward reporting 16 GRI financial service sector (FSS) specific performance indicators.

Based on the GRI G3 guidelines, the paper investigated banks' reporting in five broad areas of sustainability, such as environment, labour practices and decent works, product responsibility, human rights and society. The 2008/2009 annual reports of 12 major commercial banks listed on Dhaka stock exchange were analysed and coded using a content‐based technique.

The results show that information on society is addressed most extensively with regard to extent of reporting. This is followed by the disclosures prepared on decent works and labour practices and environmental issues. Furthermore, the disclosures of product responsibility information and the information for human rights are rather scarce in banks' reporting; on the subject of FSS‐specific disclosures, only seven items out of 16 are disclosed by all sample banks.

The findings of the study indicate that Bangladeshi commercial banks' social disclosures could develop in this style to become more holistic and over time (in association with the country's central bank involvement) to resemble a type of structured reporting to the point where they are properly labelled per se.

The study contributes to the social disclosure literature, in particular in a developing countries banking sector context, seeing as it disseminates evidence of the standing on social disclosures practices at the level of GRI with developing countries' banks data.

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.

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 provide new insights on the determinants of social and economic sustainability reportings of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in three Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly Australia, the UK and South Africa, from the perspective of corporate governance, stakeholder and corporate legitimacy.

This paper examines stand-alone sustainability reports of 67 large MNEs from three countries available in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) website for the period of 2008-2009. It undertakes two distinct methodological approaches: first, principal component analysis (PCA) of GRI guidelines (G3) on social and economic indicators to identify the most appropriate dependent variables, and second, hierarchical multiple regression for the hypotheses testing and finding determinants of respective dependent variables on social and economic reportings.

The results from the PCA of GRI guidelines (G3) provide an alternative way of categorizing the social and economic indicators when compared to the categories given by the GRI. Again, the results from hierarchical multiple regression indicate the industry sector as the dominant determinant of social and economic reportings. In particular, the positive, significant association of board independence, assurance and employee performance variables with economic reporting confirms the significant roles of corporate governance, stakeholders and corporate legitimacy in determining economic reporting. The findings also suggest the complementary nature of relevant theories in corporate voluntary disclosures relating to economic performance. However, social reporting shows no such relations, which rather relies more on firm-specific/financial variables of MNEs including firm size and age.

The sample of this study is limited to two-year periods and large MNEs available in the GRI website with stand-alone sustainability reports only.

The PCA focuses on most relevant and specific categories of social and economic reportings as opposed to GRI generic categories. The PCA findings also suggest the GRI to contemplate reducing the social and economic indicators for future guidelines. The hierarchical multiple regression results highlight specific areas of emphasis that MNEs should focus on when reporting social and economic information.

This study adds value to the existing literature on GRI-based social and economic reportings as well as the complementary nature of corporate governance, stakeholders and corporate legitimacy perspectives.

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.

First, this paper aims to explore the extent of the global reporting initiative (GRI) sustainability key performance indicator (KPI) usage in sustainability reporting by businesses operating in Sri Lanka. Second, using a contingency theory approach, this research examines the factors which promote or inhibit the use of the GRI framework to adopt sustainability KPIs in a developing country context, Sri Lanka.

Content analysis and semi-structured interviews are used in this study to explore the key factors which affect the usage of the GRI framework by Sri Lankan companies in adopting sustainability KPIs and reporting on sustainability.

The findings indicate that the GRI framework is increasingly used for sustainability reporting by Sri Lankan companies because of its flexibility, consistency, legitimacy and its focus on continuous improvement. However, company managers also shed light on the extensive number of KPIs in the GRI framework making selections challenging and the consequent difficulties associated with adapting these KPIs for companies operating in a developing country context.

This study contributes to extending the broader literature on sustainability reporting in developing countries and specifically on sustainability KPIs. Second, this paper adds to the current empirical research on sustainability reporting in Sri Lanka where the literature is still sparse. Third, this study highlights the key factors that support or hinder the usage of the GRI framework in a developing country context.

Important insights for GRI, other standard-setting agencies and businesses can be drawn from the findings of this study. By capitalising further on the training and the educational courses provided by GRI, GRI can be involved in mitigating some of the pressing issues faced by the reporting companies.

This study adds to the limited research on sustainability reporting and sustainability KPIs in developing country contexts. It shows how companies in Sri Lanka are engaging with sustainability KPIs and sustainability reporting, but are also constrained by the GRI framework as its standards are not tailored to issues in developing countries.

This paper aims to examine the impact of the Australian Securities Exchange Corporate Governance recommendations on the breadth (amount of items covered) of (environmental and social) sustainability reporting by the firms in the Top 100, around the change from G3.1 to G4 disclosure regimes.

This paper undertakes comparisons of means and regression models to investigate the changes between disclosure scores of 98 listed entities from the 2013 G3.1 to the 2015 G4 disclosure regimes.

This paper finds that average disclosure levels did not change. Nonetheless, disclosure practices did vary by entity size and performance. Analysis of 2015 disclosures contingent on 2013 disclosure practice indicates that disclosure changes are consistent with a pattern of mean reversion.

Evidence that low disclosers increased disclosure and high disclosers reduced disclosers is consistent with the idea that sustainability disclosure is not so much driven by any ethical considerations, but rather by a desire to not be a disclosure outlier. Reliance on voluntary disclosure to achieve a socially desired level of disclosure is unlikely to bear fruit.

This paper contributes to the literature on sustainability by examining firm responses to change in disclosure regimes, and concluding that size and peer relativities drive the disclosure process.

The porpose of this study is to critically consider the use of global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines in universities’ sustainability reports.. In light of the recent literature and Habermas’s thinking, the study advances the research field by considering the process of internal colonisation from steering institutions and makes suggestions regarding the future role of GRI in the higher education (HE) context.

This study presents a systematic literature review and content analysis for enhancing the critical reading of GRI applications in HE studies. The results are analysed in light of Habermas’s thinking, considering the GRI as a steering institution and its guidelines as steering mechanisms.

This study updates the literature review on sustainability reporting (SR) at universities and underlines the general trend in the employment of the GRI in this context. The results highlight the need to adapt the GRI to enhance its applicability in the HE context by considering additional dimensions such as research, teaching and operations. In doing so, the framework loses effectiveness and weakens the role of the GRI as a steering institution.

The results suggest that the GRI guidelines should be reframed to enhance comparability among reports and increase its wider employment at universities.

Universities need to be guided in their accountability process towards SR by dedicated frameworks. This study suggests the potentially pivotal role that the GRI could play in providing dedicated tools for HE to steer and enhance the development of SRs at universities.

This study presents an updated review of studies on SR at universities and suggests possible paths for the future of the GRI framework applicability to universities’ SR.