SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN ANGLO-SAXON ECONOMIES: A MULTITHEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61506/Keywords:
Sustainability Reporting, Anglo-Saxon Economies, Social Sustainability, Economic Sustainability Multitheoretical Framework, Institutional Context and Stakeholder PressureAbstract
This paper analyzes the institutional, motivational, and normative aspects of social and economic sustainability reporting in four economies in the Anglo-Saxon region and the United States of America; the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia using multitheoretical approach and methodological approach. The research combines the legitimacy theory, the stakeholder theory and institutional theory to examine the influence of institutional frameworks and pressure by stakeholders in the form of corporate disclosures. Applying the mixed-methods research design where both qualitative content analysis and quantitative regression analysis is used, the analysis examines Sustainability reports written by 100 publicly listed companies in 2018-2022. Findings demonstrate that the intensity and extensiveness of social and economic sustainability disclosures are vastly increased as a consequence of stronger institutional controls and an active participation of stakeholders. Cross country comparisons point out the difference that can be ascribed to the regulatory framework as well as expectations in the market. The contribution that the findings makes to literature is that, multiple theoretical perspectives have explanatory powers of gaining understanding of sustainability reporting, and any form of the policy maker who may want to enhance transparency and accountability in corporate sustainability practices in order to gain insights.
References
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447–465.
Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus, 47(1), 27–60.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2018). The Nordic model: An analysis of leading practices in ESG disclosure. Nordic Council of Ministers.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2020). GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (2001). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78–101.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.
Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430.
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2017). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper No. 11-100.
KPMG. (2020). The time has come: KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The economic consequences of legal origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2), 285–332.
Liu, X., & Anbumozhi, V. (2009). Determinant factors of corporate environmental information disclosure: An empirical study of Chinese listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 593–600.
SASB. (2020). SASB Materiality Map. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
