Search results

Albeit gradual and uneven, the emergence of social and environmental reporting by publicly held corporations has been a major development in the last few decades. This paper aims to explore patterns of the emergence of these disclosures. Using an institutional theory lens, this paper considers mimetic, normative and coercive possibilities.

US publicly traded company data from 2013 to 2019 is used to test the hypotheses. Mimetic forces are proxied with corporate board interlock frequency. Normative ones use the extent of gender diversity on corporate boards. Measures of business climate and industry regulatory sensitivity proxy coercive potentiality.

Studied in isolation, each of the three forces through which organizations pursue the heightened legitimacy of enhanced environmental and social disclosures has credibility. The strongest support exists for mimetic and normative mechanisms, perhaps because the US government has been reluctant to make these expanded disclosures mandatory.

In the world of voluntary action, more attention to diffusion is needed. For these purposes, better proxies will be needed to study change. Social and environmental information should be separated for individual analysis.

At least in the USA, companies are attentive to what other companies are doing. There is something to be said for the ethical dimension of corporate transparency.

Governmental action in this area has not been effective, at current levels. Corporate leadership is essential. Critical information is shared about disclosure by board members.

Although institutional theory makes several appearances in this area, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current study is the first empirical archival study to examine the three forces simultaneously, providing evidence as to the relative magnitude of each institutional force on environmental and social disclosures. Should these disclosures not be mandated by government, this study shows pathways for enhanced disclosures to continue to spread.

The purpose of this study is to assess how higher education anchor institutions (HEIs) voluntarily report their non-economic impacts. Its goals are to quantify the ease of public access to this information; strengthen the conceptual foundation for HEI impact reporting; and provide guidance for making HEI voluntary disclosures more accessible, comparable and systematic.

Using an exploratory mixed methods design and purposeful sampling, this study analyzed voluntary public disclosures of 41 anchor institution universities in the USA to assess how they communicate their public value creation to stakeholders. Data sources included impact reports, donor reports, annual reports and sustainability reports. The study also analyzed the accessibility of this information by timing how long it took to locate.

The sampled US anchor institutions communicate their non-economic impact to stakeholders in myriad ways using a variety of formats. Time required to find the reports ranged from 37 to 50 min, with an average of 42.30 min. Disparate reporting formats inhibit comparability.

Only 41 anchor institutions were examined. The small sample may not be representative of the broader landscape of higher education institutions.

Findings offer guidance for improving voluntary nonfinancial disclosures to increase public confidence in higher education institutions while advancing community and global resilience. To strengthen voluntary disclosure practices, the study recommends using a standardized reporting format, framing HEI impact through socio-ecological resilience indicators, integrating reports and obtaining some form of assurance. These changes would enhance the credibility and comparability of the disclosures.

This research provides some of the first empirical insight into how US higher education anchor institutions report their value creation to the public. Its application of socio-ecological systems theory outlines an actionable conceptual foundation for HEI reporting by linking organizational, community and global resilience.