Search results

This study explores the scope, materiality and extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure – as benchmarked against the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI-G4) – of the top 10 logistics firms operating in Australia. It also investigates the relationships between the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these firms and their actual financial performance.

The authors adopted an inductive case study approach for an in-depth investigation of the relationships among concepts. A content analysis of the firms' sustainability reports was performed to determine their pattern and extent of sustainability disclosure against the GRI framework. A disclosure–performance analysis (DPA) matrix was employed to relate the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these 10 firms with their actual financial performance (i.e. return on assets [ROA] and total revenue growth).

This study found that the extent of sustainability reporting was relatively high on the labour practices and decent work subgroup, followed by the environmental dimension of the GRI-G4 framework. However, it was relatively low on the society, human rights and product responsibility subgroups of the GRI framework. The DPA revealed that “Leaders” (firms with higher sustainability disclosure levels) achieved significantly higher ROA. However, “Opportunists” (firms with lower sustainability disclosure levels) achieved higher levels of financial returns (i.e. ROA and total revenue growth) with less attention to sustainability issues, which contradicts the win-win view of the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

First, this study contributes an in-depth review of sustainability disclosure practices of top logistics firms operating in Australia. Second, using DPA, it identifies the novel effects of environmental and social sustainability disclosure levels on these firms' financial performance. It also sheds further light on the potential effect of investments beyond substantial profitability for sustainability growth and corporate governance on the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

This study aims to analyze whether various textual characteristics in corporate sustainability disclosure associate with corporate sustainability performance in Australia, pertaining to tones of language and readability. The voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory are used to formulate the study hypothesis.

Using data from Australian listed firms (2002–2016), four textual characteristics are examined: tone of optimism, tone of certainty, tone of clarity and readability. Corporate sustainability performance is measured by Thomson Reuters Asset4 ratings. Different strategies are adopted to mitigate endogeneity concerns.

The authors found that there is a positive relationship between the textual characteristics of sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. Specifically, firms with better performance communicate in an optimistic, certain, clear and more readable manner.

The results suggest that Australia’s voluntary reporting status does not induce a combination of poor performance and positive disclosure. This paper should be of interest to investors and other stakeholders and also informs regulatory policy on sustainability disclosure in Australia.

The authors contribute to the sustainability disclosure literature using computer-based textual analysis to explore whether firms reveal their sustainability performance by “how things are said” (i.e. textual characteristics) in sustainability disclosure. As far as the authors could ascertain, they are the first to investigate textual characteristics of sustainability disclosure in Australia.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between sustainability reporting and firm performance in New Zealand, encompassing the materiality concept of sustainability reporting based on the newly available sustainability reporting standards of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). This set of disclosure items published in 2018 is likely to impact on investors’ decision-making and firm performance, as stipulated by the SASB.

Using a sample of 84 New Zealand companies during the period 2017–2019 and an ordinary least squares statistical approach, this research examines whether firms disclosing sustainability reporting and financially material sustainability information have better performance than the ones non-disclosing.

Consistent with the legitimacy and stakeholder theories, a positive relationship between sustainability reporting and performance is observed. This positive association is stronger when the sustainability disclosure is financially material information as defined by the SASB.

The outcome of this study provides evidence of the financial incentives for firms to initiate sustainability reporting, especially including financially material sustainability information as guided by the SASB. It also supports the rationale of the SASB for developing new standards that can be globally applicable, influencing investors’ decisions and firm’s financial performance. The results also have implications for the management of New Zealand firms in considering the disclosure of material sustainability information which is linked to firm performance.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a firm’s cost structure (specifically, its cost stickiness) is associated with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainability factors of performance and disclosure.

Methodology/approach – This study uses MCSI Research KLD Stats (KLD) and Bloomberg databases for the 13-year period from 2003 to 2015 in constructing ESG performance and disclosure variables, respectively. The authors adopt the general cost stickiness models from Anderson, Banker, and Janakiraman (2003) and Banker, Basu, Byzalov, and Chen (2016) to perform the analysis.

Findings – The authors find that a firm’s level of cost stickiness is positively associated with certain sticky corporate social responsibility (CSR)/ESG activities (both overall and when separately classified as strengths or concerns) but not with other nonsticky CSR activities. The authors also show that the association between cost stickiness and ESG disclosure is incrementally stronger for firms with CSR activities classified as sticky. Furthermore, the authors provide evidence that ESG disclosure is greater when both cost stickiness and the degree of sticky CSR activities increase. The authors show that when cost stickiness is high and CSR activities are sticky, management has incentives to increase CSR/ESG sustainability disclosure to decrease information asymmetry.

Originality/value – The findings present new evidence to understand how management integrates cost management strategies with various dimensions of sustainability performance decisions and show that not all ESG activities are equally effective when it comes to cost stickiness. The authors also demonstrate that increased sustainability disclosure helps reduce information asymmetry incrementally more when both costs are sticky and CSR activities are sticky.

The deeper understanding of the disclosure of external and internal dynamics of family firms necessarily places the issue of sustainability as one of the most pressing needs from both a research and managerial perspective. Therefore, this perspective article contributes to the debate of sustainability performance disclosure in family firms, proposing a research agenda.

This study has organized the discussion around those elements that most significantly impact the propensity to disclose, with a specific focus on the interconnections and interrelations within them. The proposed research agenda is developed around three key elements: “how” firms disclose, “the reason why” they do it and “what” disclose of their performance(s).

To better understand “how” family firms should disclose their performance, it is suggested to engage in proactive stakeholder engagement to preserve long-term socioemotional wealth. “The reason why” for disclosure is still associated with the legitimization of family firms from an economic, social and environmental point of view. Finally, the “what” depends on several factors, such as the regulatory framework and the market involved.

This paper contains suggestions for family firm managers, consultants and policymakers that are approaching corporate social responsibility (CSR) and non-financial reporting or sustainability disclosure overall, providing an overview of relevant factors influencing this transition process.

This paper suggests a logical framework to combine these three elements of the debate as strictly interrelated to foster the sustainability performance disclosure of family firms.

Considering the dearth of industry-specific empirical research exploring sustainability reporting in the context of developing countries, this chapter aims to critically examine the extent and the nature of sustainability information disclosure of environmentally polluting industries in India.

Data are collected from business responsibility reports (BRRs), sustainability reports, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports and integrated reports of all 57 energy and mining companies included in NIFTY500 Index at National Stock Exchange of India for the year 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Content analysis is used to examine the sustainability disclosure practices and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis is performed to test the difference across various dimensions of sustainability reporting of companies.

The results indicate low environmental reporting of the key indicators by energy and mining companies in India. It is found that state-owned companies have better social reporting practices against private sector companies. The findings also indicate that Global reporting initiative (GRI) based reporting have better sustainability disclosure practices and companies reporting based on BRR lack quantitative information disclosure.

The findings of the present chapter have several implications for policymakers, investors, regulators and management of these high environmental and social impact companies in India. The findings which coincide with the key areas of sustainability disclosure can be used for improving sustainability disclosure practices by the various stakeholders.

This is one of the first studies to investigate the nature and extent of sustainability performance disclosure of the companies from polluting industries in India. This chapter also contributes to the existing sustainability reporting literature by providing evidence on industry-specific disclosure in the context of a developing country.

This study examines the mediating effect of sustainability disclosure on the relationship between political connections and firm performance from the resource-based view.

The sample of this study was sourced from 888 public companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) from 2016 to 2017. Path analysis and Sobel tests were used to determine the mediating effect of sustainability disclosure.

The results show that political connections have a positive and significant influence on firm performance. Furthermore, sustainability disclosures mediate the relationship between political connections and firm performance.

In the context of developing countries such as Indonesia, managers can make the existence of parties in politically connected companies as a medium to demonstrate their adherence to external stakeholders through the disclosure of sustainability information.

This study is the first to investigate the mediating effect of sustainability disclosure on the relationship between political connections and firm performance, especially in emerging markets. The parties of the politically connected companies use a social responsibility mechanism as a medium that can sustain their operational sustainability whilst gaining long-term economic benefits.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent and determinants of sustainability performance disclosures reported by publicly traded companies in Kazakhstan by using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. Among the different possible determinants, stand-alone sustainability reporting (SR), reporting language, leverage, cash flow capacity, profitability, size, age and auditor type were selected to investigate their impacts on the quality and scope of sustainability information.

The study analyzes data from publicly traded companies at the Kazakhstani Stock Exchange for the years 2013–2015. To investigate the extent, nature and quality of sustainability reports, the study measures and analyzes economic, environmental and social performance parameters, as suggested in the GRI guidelines.

The results indicate that determinants such as stand-alone reporting, reporting language, firm profitability, firm size and auditor type substantially influence the extent, nature and quality of sustainability-reporting practices of Kazakhstani companies.

The findings of the study suggest that managers, practitioners, regulators and policy makers in emerging economies should adopt the GRI guidelines to report sustainability performance disclosures and focus on specific factors to improve the quality of sustainability disclosures.

This study is one of the first studies to investigate the extent, nature and possible determinants of corporate SR in central Asian-emerging economies.

The purpose of this paper is to look into the sustainability practices of Indian firms in terms of the quality of disclosure, the impact of corporate sustainability performance (CSP) on firm performance and the appropriateness of the sustainability reporting guidelines followed by the firms.

The present study is based on secondary data collected from annual reports and corporate sustainability reports of 28 listed Indian non-financial firms from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. Content analysis is used to calculate the score in terms of level (binary coding system) and quality of disclosure (four-point scale). These scores are further used to examine the impact of CSP on firm performance by using an appropriate regression model.

The study finds that the average level of disclosure is 88 per cent, whereas the quality of disclosure is nearly 80 per cent. The influence of CSP (in terms of level and quality disclosure) on firm performance is positive and significant. Moreover, the study also reveals that the Global Reporting Initiatives framework is not sufficient enough to publish the sustainability report of any business concern. The outcomes of the study, thus, indicate that sustainability practices of Indian firms are not myth but approaching toward reality.

It is the first comprehensive study in India to analyze the corporate sustainability reporting practices encompassing different dimensions of sustainability.

This study aims to examine whether announcements of mandatory sustainability disclosure affect corporate sustainability performance (CSP).

The authors use a quasi-experiment provided by mandatory sustainability disclosure announcements that occurred in 21 countries from 2006–2016. A difference-in-differences method is adopted. The authors restrict the drawing of all candidate treatment and control firms to a pool of firms that did not disclose sustainability information one year before the announcements.

The authors find that the announcements of mandatory sustainability disclosure are positively related to CSP. The positive effect is more pronounced for firms in countries with higher anticipation effects and lower awareness effects. Specifically, the authors find that the effect of the announcements is more pronounced in a country where the rule of law is higher and stakeholders are less likely to initiate communication about sustainability with firms, and with fewer active participants in and signatories to the United Nations Global Compact initiative. The findings hold under different robustness analyses.

The study enriches the knowledge about the effect of the announcements of comprehensive mandatory sustainability disclosure by analysing the consequences of these announcements. In the contribution to this growing stream of research, the authors provide evidence on the consequences of the announcements based on a cross-country sample and importantly, focusses on the non-economic consequences.