Determinants of Sustainability Reporting A Review of Results, Trends

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Review
Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,

theory, and opportunities in an expanding eld of research
Rdiger Hahn*, Michael Khnen
Universitt Kassel, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 21 August 2012
Received in revised form
2 July 2013
Accepted 3 July 2013
Available online xxx
Since the end of the 1990s, sustainability reporting has become an increasingly relevant topic in business
and academia. However, literature is still limited in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have thus far been presented. This paper provides a review of 178 articles dating from 1999
to 2011 from journals related to business, management, and accounting. Our aim is to identify what
determinants of sustainability reporting are examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies,
gaps, and opportunities for future research. We specically illuminate factors inuencing the adoption,
the extent, and the quality of reporting. Based on our ndings we provide an otherwise often missing link
to theory (especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional theory). Finally, possible future
research themes are discussed by illuminating gaps and underexposed themes in the area of regulation
and governance as well as reporting quality and stakeholder perception.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainability reporting
Literature review
Determinants
Corporate social responsibility reporting
Triple bottom line
Integrated reporting
1. Introduction
A diverse set of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, advocate groups, public authorities) pursuing
different economic, environmental, and social interests determines
the success of an organization (e.g., Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005;
Laplume et al., 2008). An important channel through which organizations1 try to meet these demands is sustainability reporting.
By disclosing sustainability information private companies,
for example, aim to increase transparency, enhance brand value,
reputation and legitimacy, enable benchmarking against competitors, signal competitiveness, motivate employees, and support
Abbreviations: DBL, double bottom line; GRI, Global Reporting Initiative; TBL,
triple bottom line.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ruediger.hahn@uni-kassel.de (R. Hahn).
1
This article reviews research on sustainability reporting in general. Thus, we do
not focus on research that was conducted on private companies only. However,
most research on sustainability reporting to date was carried out in the realm of
private actors (i.e., companies). From now on we use the terms company or rm
when specically focusing private actors or when discussing research that was
conducted on companies. In most cases, however, conclusions can be conferred and
both terms can be used interchangeably.
corporate information and control processes (Herzig and

Schaltegger, 2006). Furthermore, sustainability reporting is being
increasingly recognized as an important factor contributing to
corporate sustainability (Lozano and Huisingh, 2011). Thus, it is not
surprising that the topic receives ever growing attention in business and academia.
From a historical perspective, the development and focus of
sustainability-related reporting has seen several shifts (Fifka, 2012;
Kolk, 2010). In the 1970s, traditional nancial reporting in Western
countries was sometimes complemented by additional social reports. In the 1980s, the focus shifted towards environmental issues
such as emissions and waste generation often replacing prior social
reporting. By the end of the 1990s, reporting research and practice
increasingly began to consider the social and the environmental
dimension simultaneously in a joint report which is often published
alongside traditional nancial reports. This trend can be directly
linked to the development of voluntary standard-setting by the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Kolk, 2010; Vormedal and Ruud,
2009). Today the GRI is regarded as the de facto global standard
(KPMG, 2011: 20; emphasis in original) for sustainability reporting.
However, in spite of the standardization efforts, signicant differences remain between companies from different institutional environments with regard to the content and quality of sustainability
reports (Fortanier et al., 2011), implying variations in the global
0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Please cite this article in press as: Hahn, R., Khnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and
opportunities in an expanding eld of research, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17
academic interest as well. Nevertheless, the literature is still limited

in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have
been presented so far.
There have been some recent attempts to examine the eld of
sustainability-related reporting. However, they were mainly conducted from a specic focus on accounting (not reporting) issues
(Berthelot et al., 2003; Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and
Soltys, 2007; Lee and Hutchison, 2005; Owen, 2008; Parker,
2005; Spence et al., 2010). These reviews are limited for three
additional reasons: They did not disclose a rigorous method of
literature review (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Lee and Hutchison,
2005; Owen, 2008; Parker, 2005; Spence et al., 2010), they are
restricted to very few (usually accounting) journals or even articles
(Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Owen,
2008; Parker, 2005) and/or they specically focused on single issues (Berthelot et al., 2003; Deegan and Soltys, 2007; Lee and
Hutchison, 2005). Beyond accounting journals, only two other reviews could be found. Starting with literature from the 1970s,
Fifka (2013) reviews empirical research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and examines whether researchers
from different regions apply different methodological approaches
and therefore come to different results. Fifka (2012) aims at
providing insight into the chronological development and characteristics of empirical research on sustainability-related reporting in
the last 40 years. In contrast to the latter two, we will specically
investigate contemporary empirical and conceptual research
starting with the year 1999 when the rst version of the GRI sustainability reporting guidelines was published. By conning to
more recent scientic publications on sustainability reporting
dating from 1999 to 2011, our review is not inuenced by historical
changes in the corporate and societal environment. Instead it
provides an up-to-date portrait of todays research landscape of
sustainability and CSR reporting. To achieve this, a structured
search for literature was conducted.
We contribute to literature by answering the question what are
general trends and relations in extant literature? We specically
distinguish factors which inuence the adoption, the extent, and
the quality of reporting because these proved to be the main
themes in contemporary studies. We identify the few determinants
(most notably companys size, visibility, and sector-afliation) that
are covered by a signicant amount of studies and show consistent
results which allow clear conclusions. Furthermore, we contribute
by offering detailed insights on (in)consistencies with regard to
other determinants such as protability or indebtedness. Based on
our ndings, we provide a detailed link to theory which is often
missing or only rudimentary existing in extant research
(Hooghiemstra, 2000; Spence et al., 2010). Specically, we discuss
the usability and potential contribution of legitimacy, stakeholder,
signaling, and institutional theory for future research. Finally, we
contribute by introducing a set of potential research themes by
providing an overview over gaps and underexposed themes in
extant research especially on the inuence of managerial attitudes
and culture, regulation and governance, and in relation to the
quality of sustainability reporting.
The paper is structured as follows: First, the research methodology as well as the basic terminology is described. Then a
descriptive analysis of extant literature is provided considering the
distribution of papers over time, the addressed sustainability dimensions, the publication outlets, and the methodological approaches. To illustrate the current state of knowledge we will then
specically address determinants of sustainability reporting and
discuss the main research ndings. We continue by providing an indepth link to theory and by portraying signicant gaps in current
research to illustrate opportunities and challenges for future
research before concluding the paper.
2. Research method
A literature review aims at revealing trends, relations, inconsistencies, and gaps in the literature in order to organize and
evaluate existing work in a particular eld. Before we turn to the
specic methodological issues we will delineate the basic terminology to establish understanding of the concepts involved (2.1).
For conducting the review we followed the approach suggested by
Fink (2010): In the rst step, we selected our research questions,
databases, as well as search terms (2.2). Secondly, we used practical
screening criteria to include or exclude studies from the review
(2.3). In the third step, we developed and applied methodological
screening criteria in order to analyze a studys content (2.4). Finally,
we synthesized and assessed our ndings (Sections 3e5).
2.1. Basic terminology
In the following, we will set the stage by picturing a framework
of basic terminology and concepts (see Fig. 1).
The initial starting point for any considerations on sustainability
or CSR reporting lies in the overarching (normative) concepts of
sustainability and CSR. To provide a distinct reference point we
adopt the latest denition of CSR by the European Commission
which regards CSR as the responsibility of enterprises for their
impacts on society . to integrate social, environmental, ethical,
human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy (European Commission, 2011: 6). Quite
similarly, ISO 26000da worldwide standard for social responsibilitydcharacterizes social responsibility as responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society
and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour
(International Organization for Standardization, 2010: 3) while
directly referring to the maximization of the contribution to sustainable development as the overarching objective for an organization (p. 10).2 These characterizations provide direct links to
sustainability thinking. Following the historical characterization of
the World Commission on Environment and Development, which
puts intra- and intergenerational justice in the middle of thinking,
Dyllick and Hockerts (2002: 131) dene corporate sustainability as
meeting the needs of a rms direct and indirect stakeholders .,
without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future
stakeholders as well. To achieve this goal, companies need to
maintain their economic, social and environmental capital base
(Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002: 132) which directly refers to
Elkingtons (1997) triple-bottom-line (TBL) thinking. Lozano and
Huisingh (2011) present an even more holistic perspective on
sustainability by explicitly including a fourth time-dimension
focusing on short-, long- and longer-term perspectives. They
propose that there are dynamic and simultaneous interrelations
within and between the TBL dimensions, not only at certain points
in time but also over time. In sum, all four dimensionsdincluding
the timedinterrelate at equilibrium. As can be seen from these
characterizations, sustainability and CSR gradually converge (Hahn,
2011) and thus this literature review considers sustainability
(reporting) and CSR (reporting) as consistent concepts.
Based on such a normative grounding, the specic corporate
performance in the area of sustainability and CSR is measured by
means of sustainability accounting. Sustainability(-related) accounting comprises those information management and
2
Here again, the different focus on organizations in general (as by the International Organization for Standardization) and on companies in particular (as by
the European Commission) come to the fore. See again Footnote 1 for our
perspective on the interchangeable use of both terms.
Sustainability
Corporate Social Responsibility
(Corporate Responsibility, Corporate

Citizenship)
Triple Bottom Line

Intra- and Intergenerational Justice
Inter-linkages among the TBL- and
time-dimensions at equilibrium
(Four-Dimensionality)
Internal
performance
measurement
Normative
reference and
starting point
Accounting related to Sustainability (CSR)
Reporting related to Sustainability (CSR)

in the form of
External
information
disclosure
Integrated reports
covering
Three sustainability dimensions
holistic
Specialized sustainability, CSR,

corporate citizenship etc. reports
Isolated environmental or social
reports
Extent of sustainability
considerations
(financial, ecological, and social at

equilibrium)
Two sustainability dimensions

(focus on ecological and social; financial
rather neglected)
One sustainability dimension

(ecological or social)
isolated
Focus of
literature review
Fig. 1. Overview and relations of basic concepts and terminology relating to sustainability reporting.
accounting methods which aim at the creation of high quality data

supporting internal decision-making concerning corporate sustainability. On the basis of reliable accounting data, sustainabilityrelated reporting then provides and substantiates information
about the status and progress of corporate sustainability towards
internal and external stakeholders through formalized means of
communication (Schaltegger et al., 2006). Although sustainabilityrelated accounting and reporting have received increasing relevance in business and academia, our focus is on the latter since the
disclosure and the internal/external communication of sustainability information directly contribute to a companys supply of
critical resources from various stakeholders (Herzig and
Schaltegger, 2006; Deegan, 2002). In this respect, sustainability
accounting makes an indirect contribution because it primarily
aims at the internal measurement of organizational sustainability
performance (Lamberton, 2005), thus serving as a foundation of
sustainability reporting.
Current sustainability-related reporting practice is primarily of
voluntary nature so that companies are exible in experimenting
with disclosing information (Chen and Bouvain, 2009). In light of
this discretionary latitude, corporate reporting practice has led to
an abundance of labels for recent reports (e.g., Corporate Citizenship Report, Corporate (Social) Responsibility Report, Sustainable
Development Report, Sustainable Value Report, and Sustainability
Report) which also points to the above mentioned similarities of
sustainability and CSR as normative concepts. This is not surprising
given the abundance of efforts to characterize any of the mentioned
terms (see, e.g., Dahlsrud, 2008) and we acknowledge this ambiguity by relying on an extensive keyword search as described
below. There is an increasing trend towards multidimensional
reporting (Kolk, 2010) and recently even integrated reporting
(which integrates sustainability information together with traditional nancial information in a single report to provide a holistic
picture of value creation over time) (KPMG, 2011; Integrated
Reporting Committee of South Africa, 2011). Nevertheless,
one-dimensional reporting (e.g., Environment Reports, Financial

Reports) still remains existent. However, only those reports
that simultaneously include all three dimensions of sustainability
can truly be regarded as sustainability reporting while onedimensional reports are merely sustainability-related because
they cover only isolated aspects of sustainability. In this sense, socalled sustainability reports also often exclude important aspects especially from the economic pillar which are usually disclosed in separate annual reports.3
The literature on sustainability reporting mirrors this terminological inconsistency. This might be the case because sustainability
reporting guidelines tend to create compartmentalization among
the dimensions of sustainability while overlooking inter-linkages
(Lozano and Huisingh, 2011; Lozano, 2013). Here again, the relevance of the GRI guidelines as a de facto standard guiding the design
of sustainability reports comes to the fore. The guidelines cover all
the mentioned labels for respective reports and offer a unilateral
standard for non-nancial reporting which can be voluntarily used
by the issuers of the respective reports to achieve certain standardization in the eld. The GRI as a network of experts from
different stakeholder groups thus aims at providing a globally
shared framework of concepts, consistent language, and metrics to
communicate clearly and openly about sustainability (GRI, 2011b:
3). However, the GRI has a focus on environmental and social issues
while covering only few and rather general economic indicators
leaving more detailed and pronounced rules for reporting on economic issues to existing regulatory frameworks for nancial
reporting (e.g., US GAAP, IFRS).
3
For the sake of consistency, we will from now on use the term sustainability
reporting when referring to reporting activities that are related to sustainabilityissues since we assume such disclosure to be part of sustainability reporting activities even if they do not cover the entire range of sustainability dimensions in a
single report.
2.2. Selecting research questions, databases, and search terms

Our rst objective was to present an overview of the current
state of research on sustainability reporting. We aimed at
answering the question of what are general trends and relations
and which (in)consistencies in the results can be identied, and we
searched for any major research gaps. After reviewing about onethird of the literature, we found that a signicant proportion of
studies focused on determinants of sustainability reporting. We
inductively rened our aim to identify what determinants are
examined in the literature and again searched for (in)consistencies
and gaps.
We selected the Web of Knowledge database because of the
extensive coverage of Anglophone peer-reviewed journals from
business, management, and accounting. The database includes all
journals with an impact factor which are (supposedly) the most
important outlets in the eld covering 2474 journals across 50
disciplines (Thomson Reuters, 2012) including business (113 journals), nance and accounting (85 journals) and management (172
journals). To achieve an even broader coverage of journals we
complemented our search by also using the ScienceDirect database
which covers more than 2500 journals, including 123 related to
business, management and accounting (Elsevier, 2012). In order to
cover the research eld exhaustively, an extensive search using the
following keywords was conducted: Global Reporting Initiative,
GRI, social report*, environment* report*, sustainab*
report*, CSR report*, responsib* report*, non-nanc* report*,
TBL report*, triple* report*, integr* report*. The keywords
were previously identied and discussed by the two researchers.
2.3. Applying practical screening criteria
The time period was set from 1999 to 2011. The starting year
was chosen due to the triggering effect of the introduction of the
GRI guidelines. According to Kolk (2010: 370) the emergence of
sustainability reports mirrors the development in the eld of
voluntary standard-setting where the multi-stakeholder Global
Reporting Initiative launched its rst sustainability reporting
guidelines in 1999. Vormedal and Ruud (2009: 209) regard the GRI
as the most important driver inuencing the growth of sustainability reporting. We restricted our search to papers written in
English. We accepted empirical and conceptual publications.
Following the example of other recent literature reviews (e.g.,
Seuring and Mller, 2008; Stechemesser and Guenther, 2012; Kolk
et al., 2013), we excluded book reviews, editorial notes and
comments.
In April 2012,4 the last search was conducted resulting in an
overall body of 265 peer-reviewed articles. Each article was
screened in order to assess whether its content was essentially
relevant with regards to sustainability reporting. To increase reliability of the research, the individual papers were checked by both
researchers. This process resulted in 178 (n) papers of essential
relevance included in the following review.
2.4. Applying methodological screening criteria
According to Brewerton and Millward (2001), a literature review
can be methodologically considered as content analysis, which can
be used quantitatively (e.g., to assess descriptive aspects) and
qualitatively (e.g., to evaluate content criteria). Similar, for example,
4
This date was chosen to include all relevant papers from 2011 that might have
been added with a certain time lag to the databases.
to Seuring and Mller (2008), we applied the generic process model

by Mayring (2010) containing four steps of a content analysis:
(1) Material collection: The rst step deals with the denition and
delimitation of the material to be collected (see 2.2 and 2.3).
Furthermore, we dene the single article as the unit of analysis.
(2) Descriptive analysis: Assessing formal aspects of the material
serves as the basis of the subsequent theoretical analysis.
Therefore, the bibliographic data of each publication were
recorded. The content of the papers was further assessed with
regard to the descriptive criteria highlighted in Section 3.
(3) Category selection: Structural dimensions are selected, forming
the major topics of the content analysis. We independently
searched the literature for recurring patterns in research. These
patterns were used to inductively identify structural categories
as the major topics of analysis from the material. After
reviewing about one-third of the literature, we found that a
signicant proportion of studies focused on factors determining the adoption, extent, and (to a lesser extent) quality of
sustainability reporting. Therefore, we inductively rened our
aim to identify what determinants are examined in the literature. Consequentially, we asked the following questions for the
selection of our structural categories (which were also used to
code the data): Which determinants inuencing the adoption,
extent, and/or quality of sustainability reports are addressed?
What kind of inuence (positive/negative/none) do these determinants exert on the adoption, extent, and/or quality of
sustainability reports? Additionally, we searched for further
topcis, (in)consistencies, and gaps in the literature.
(4) Material evaluation: In the nal step, the whole material is
scrutinized according to the structural categories allowing the
identication of relevant themes and interpretation of ndings.
The underlying approach thus was a hermeneutic and iterative
process including multiple interplays of critically reecting the
data, searching for research patterns, and questioning and
rening the categories for reviewing the literature.
The synthesis of our ndings as nal step of a systematic literature review process (Fink, 2010) is presented in the following
chapters.
2.5. Limitations and rigor of the research process
The research process and the related qualitative methodology
are not without limitations. According to Saunders et al. (2012)
objectivity can be achieved by avoiding (conscious) bias and subjective selection during the research process. To ensure objectivity,
we adhered to a systematic and structured process as illustrated
above. A limitation can be seen in the selection of databases.
However, relying on two major databases should ensure a broad
range of articles. Conning the search process to Anglophone articles can also be regarded as limitation. Nevertheless, English is the
dominant language used in management and accounting research
so that it is unlikely that we missed major ndings due to language
issues. Furthermore, while we argue that a period of 13 years is a
substantial basis from which we draw our conclusions, we
acknowledge that studies have been published before 1999, the
starting year for our review.
Validity can be considered as the extent to which a research
method accurately measures what it intends to measure (Saunders
et al., 2012). We aimed for validity by following the specic
guidelines of Fink (2010) because they have already been used to
conduct literature reviews by various researchers (e.g., Seuring and
Mller, 2008; Stechemesser and Guenther, 2012). Therefore, we
deemed these guidelines suitable and valid for conducting a
literature review. Furthermore, selecting the Web of Knowledge

database particularly contributes to validity due to its extensive
coverage of high-impact peer-reviewed journals because concentrating on peer-reviewed articles is deemed benecial with regards
to validity (Podsakoff et al., 2005).
Reliability is achieved if a research method repeatedly (consistently) generates the same results on other occasions or if other
researchers draw the same conclusions from the raw data
(Saunders et al., 2012). We addressed reliability by including two
researchers in the analysis. While this is admittedly a minimum
requirement, an inclusion of further researchers was deemed unrealistic due to the time consuming process.
Generalizability describes the extent to which research ndings
can be transferred to settings other than the original research
setting (Saunders et al., 2012). Although we aimed for generalizability of our ndings by applying an extensive keyword search
using two major databases thus covering the eld exhaustively, we
do not claim that our ndings can be generalized beyond the
reviewed literature body.
3. Descriptive analysis
108 articles were published in journals related to business ethics
or social, environmental, and sustainability topics; 35 by journals
from the accounting and nance discipline; another 35 in journals
from the area of general business and management or in other
specialty journals. Only seven journals published ve or more articles (Journal of Business Ethics (28), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (18), Journal of
Cleaner Production (12), Business Strategy and the Environment
(9), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (9), Australian Accounting
Review (5), Environmental Management (5)). Overall, the distribution reects the broad acceptance of sustainability reporting
across journals covering a variety of topics.
3.1. Distribution over time and sustainability dimensions
Fig. 2 illustrates the distribution of publications according to
sustainability dimensions.5 The number of papers increased
continuously over the years. Interestingly, despite the existence of
social and environmental reporting in the 1970/80s (e.g., Fifka,
2012; Kolk, 2010), the growth of sustainability reporting in the
new millennium seems to have invigorated the entire eld of
research. Three signicant increases of publications (in 2003, 2008
and 2011) follow respective updates of the GRI guidelines (G2version in 2002, G3-version in 2006 and G3.1-version in early
2011).
Five categories were used to classify the papers. Only twelve
papers (w7%), summarized in the category social, explicitly
address reporting on social aspects (i.e., human resources, labor
practices, occupational health and safety, child labor, human rights,
community impacts, customer safety). The environmental category encompasses 50 papers (w28%) that address reporting on
environmental issues (i.e., climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental management practices). Apart from some
uctuations, the number of articles focusing on the environmental
dimension stagnates since 2007. In contrast, the number of papers
addressing double bottom line issues (DBL, i.e., integrating social
and environmental aspects) in sustainability-related reporting has
increased continuously. In sum, we counted 64 DBL oriented papers
(w36%). From a conceptual perspective, however, all papers that
5
The economic dimension was not separately examined since we assumed it to
be covered in research on nancial reporting.
Fig. 2. Distribution of literature over time and sustainability dimensions.
either cover only one dimension of sustainability (environmental or

social) or that study DBL aspects in sustainability-related reporting
technically fall short of a holistic view on sustainability reporting
since they exclude the economic pillar.
The articles that deal with truly integrated sustainability
reporting (including nancial aspects) were marked as TBL (triple
bottom line). Taking into account that such integrated reporting is
still in its infancy (KPMG, 2011), it is remarkable that many researchers claim to address reporting from a TBL perspective. A
closer look reveals that most of them actually use the term TBL
merely as a buzzword. Only four papers (w2%) truly address aspects of integrated TBL reporting (Adams and Simnett, 2011;
Azapagic, 2004; Lewis, 2011; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011). Others,
however, focus heavily on environmental and social issues instead
of addressing integrated reporting or inter-linkages between all
three dimensions of sustainability (e.g., Archel et al., 2008;
Husillos-Carqus et al., 2011; Kent and Monem, 2008; Skouloudis
et al., 2009). Consequentially we categorized them as DBL. One
reason for a largely missing TBL orientation in both practice and
research might be that sustainability reporting guidelines such as
the GRI guidelines still tend to address the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability in isolation from
each other, thus creating compartmentalization and disregarding
synergies and inter-linkages among the dimensions (Lozano and
Huisingh, 2011; Lozano, 2013). The remaining 48 papers (w27%)
discuss further other issues such as assurance and stakeholder
engagement in relation to sustainability reporting so that they do
not specically relate to any sustainability dimension.
3.2. Distribution according to research methods
The methodologies applied by the reviewed papers are depicted
in Fig. 3. They can be divided into non-empirical6 and empirical
approaches. Empirical studies consist of document analyses, interviews, surveys, models, and experimental studies.
Non-empirical papers account for approximately 27% of the
relevant literature. From the empirical studies, only document
analyses show a signicant increase over time (w58% of the overall
literature body). The rest of the studies include interview techniques (w6%), surveys (w4%), estimation models (w4%), and
experimental designs (w1%). The dominance of document analyses
implies a neglect of more exploratory and conrmatory
6
Of the non-empirical papers only one classies as a literature review (Spence
et al. (2010)). All others are conceptual papers. The review articles mentioned in
the introduction were not identied by our search since they were not covered by
our keywords (i.e., not referring to reporting but rather to accounting), in two cases
date from after 2011, or were not included in the databases.
Fig. 3. Distribution according to research methods.
approaches, such as interviews, surveys, and experimental studies

and warrants a closer look. The number of document analyses
increased considerably over the years. This goes along with the rise
in published sustainability reports (GRI, 2011a) providing easy access to an abundance of data, which explains the popularity of this
research method from a practical perspective. Fig. 4 provides an
overview of investigated media in document analyses. The
increasing usage of stand-alone sustainability reports is consistent
with ndings by Kolk (2010) stating that, while in 1999 no report
could be referred to as a sustainability report (but rather as isolated
social or environmental report), it is now the dominant form of
sustainability-related reporting. However, annual reports still
belong to the most widely-analyzed media. This may be due to the
increasing integration of environmental and social aspects into
annual nancial reports since the mid-1990s and the ongoing
establishment of integrated reporting (Daub, 2007). Furthermore,
annual reports can be considered relatively standardized and
institutionalized (Hanson and White, 2003), thus facilitating
research. Websites are increasingly addressed which reects a
growing popularity of this reporting format (Holder-Webb et al.,
2009). Codes of conduct and press releases used as complementary sources of information in some studies can be considered to be
of minor importance for researchers.
4. Findings on determinants of sustainability reporting7
Research on the variables affecting the adoption of sustainability
reporting mainly deals with the decision or likelihood to engage in
reporting. Research on the extent of reporting generally addresses
the volume or amount of reporting (i.e., the quantity of disclosed
information based on keyword-, sentence- or page-counts in order
to identify major themes discussed in sustainability-related reports). Research on the determinants of the quality investigates, for
example, the provision of information ranging from rather narrative and descriptive disclosure (i.e., soft information which is not
easily veriable such as strategy claims) to specic, quantiable,
and monetary data (i.e., hard facts and objective data such as
quantitative performance indicators) and thus asks for the kind of
information being conveyed.
4.1. Internal determinants of sustainability reporting
The following paragraph illustrates ndings on internal determinants of sustainability reporting. This encompasses issues of
7
Some papers specically focus on environmental reporting. Most, however,
analyze a more extensive sustainability reporting. Due to our overarching focus on
sustainability reporting, we will report on both aspects together.
Fig. 4. Types of media analyzed by document analysis. A single paper may analyze
multiple types of media. Therefore, the numbers might be higher than the number of
empirical papers in each year. Separate reports include social or environmental reports.
corporate size and nancial performance (4.1.1), social and environmental performance (4.1.2), and ownership structure (4.1.3).
4.1.1. Corporate size and nancial performance
Table 1 gives an overview of the most frequently investigated
determinants in terms of corporate size and nancial performance.
Corporate size (measured by total assets, turnover, sales, number of
employees, or market capitalization) can be considered to have a
positive effect on the adoption and extent of sustainability
reporting, assuming that larger companies cause greater impacts,
become more visible, and therefore face greater stakeholder scrutiny and pressure (e.g., Fortanier et al., 2011; Gallo and Jones
Christensen, 2011). Furthermore, small companies might have
higher marginal costs of disclosure (e.g., Haddock, 2005). Empirical
results widely support this thinking. When turning to a companys
nancial performance, research frequently assumes protability
(measured by market returns, return on assets, or return on equity)
to increase the ability and exibility of a company to bear the costs
of sustainability reporting and/or to cope with the consequences of
disclosing potentially damaging information (e.g., Cormier and
Magnan, 2003; Haniffa and Cooke, 2005; Kent and Monem,
2008). Empirical results, however, are rather mixed. A high level
of indebtedness, leverage, or gearing can be assumed to decrease
the ability and exibility of a company to bear the costs of reporting
and/or face the consequences of disclosing potentially damaging
information (e.g., Cormier and Magnan, 2003; Stanny and Ely,
2008). However, Haniffa and Cooke (2005) also argue that sustainability reporting might be used to legitimize corporate activities toward creditors and shareholders, thus providing incentives
to engage in reporting. Empirical research on this determinant
provides contradictory results.
Four other variables are also used as proxies for nancial performance. However, they received far less academic attention. Results are ambiguous for all.
First, a higher market-to-book value (or Tobins q) could imply a
higher level of information asymmetry between a company and its
investors regarding intangible assets, and future growth prospects
may foster reporting activities in order to help investors to predict
future incomes, thereby reducing capital costs. Only Prado-Lorenzo
et al. (2009b) indicate a positive association between a companys
market-to-book value and the extent of reporting. Others deny a
signicant relation to its adoption (Stanny and Ely, 2008), extent
(Clarkson et al., 2011), and quality (Clarkson et al., 2008, 2011).
Second, high capital intensity could also be considered to
coincide with more extensive sustainability reporting, assuming
companies want to signal the newness of assets and technologies
and related reductions of environmental impacts such as
Table 1
Overview of most frequently examined internal determinants of sustainability reporting.a
Determinant
Dependent
variable
Authors
Conclusion
Corporate size
Adoption
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 ()

Gallo and Jones Christensen, 2011 ()
Haddock, 2005 ()
Haddock and Fraser, 2008 ()
Kent and Monem, 2008 ()
Stanny and Ely, 2008 ()
Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 (o)
Amran and Haniffa, 2011 ()
Clarkson et al., 2008 ()
Cormier et al., 2004 ()
Cormier and Magnan, 2003 ()
Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmn, 2010 ()
Fortanier et al., 2011 ()
Gallo and Jones Christensen, 2011 ()
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 ()
Groves et al., 2011 ()
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 ()
Holder-Webb et al., 2009 ()
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 ()
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b ()
Sotorro and Snchez, 2010 ()
Tagesson et al., 2009 ()
Papaspyropoulos et al., 2010 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a ()
Garca-Snchez, 2008 ()
Morhardt Emil, 2010 ()
Vormedal and Ruud, 2009 (o)
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (o)
Kent and Monem, 2008 (o)
Stanny and Ely, 2008 (o)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 ()
Tagesson et al., 2009 ()
Clarkson et al., 2008 (o)
Cormier et al., 2004 (o)
Da Silva Monteiro and Aibar-Guzmn, 2010 (o)
Garca-Snchez, 2008 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a (o)
Fortanier et al., 2011 (mixed)
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (mixed)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b ()
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009a ()
Kent and Monem, 2008 (o)
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 ()
Cormier et al., 2004 (o)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (o)
Prado-Lorenzo et al., 2009b (o)
Positive inuence widely acknowledged
Extent
Quality
Financial
performance
Protability
Adoption
Extent
Quality
Indebtedness,
leverage, or
gearing
Adoption
Extent
Quality
Positive inuence widely acknowledged
Positive inuence acknowledged
No signicant inuence found but

research still scarce
Negative correlation seems to be unlikely;
inconclusive results do not allow for a
more pointed conclusion
No signicant inuence found but research

still scarce
Indifferent results; research still scarce
Indifferent results
Indifferent results; research still scarce
() positive inuence of determinant on dependent variable. (o) no signicant inuence, () negative inuence, (mixed) mixed results on different sub-aspects.
greenhouse gas emissions. Only few empirical papers investigate

this relation providing mixed results. Stanny and Ely (2008) deny a
signicant effect on the adoption of reporting, while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) point to a positive inuence on
the extent and quality of reporting. Fortanier et al. (2011) nd no
signicant effect on the level of sustainability reporting.
Third, reporting may be positively inuenced by nancing activities on the capital market. Companies trying to raise capital
may consider sustainability reporting as a means to reduce information asymmetry between a company and its investors, thereby
also lowering costs of capital. Cormier and Magnan (2003) and
Clarkson et al. (2008) nd a positive effect on the extent or quality
specically of environmental reporting, whereas Clarkson et al.
(2011) and Cormier and Magnan (2004) indicate no signicant
inuence.
Fourth, Cormier and Magnan (2004) argue that a higher systematic risk (beta or stock price volatility) as a consequence of an
unstable economic performance decreases the ability of a company
to bear the costs of reporting, and therefore predict a negative effect on the level of reporting. Cormier et al. (2004), Cormier and
Magnan (2003, 2004) generally conrm this while Clarkson et al.
(2008) and Clarkson et al. (2011) nd no signicant inuence on
the extent and quality of reporting.
4.1.2. Social and environmental performance
Comparably little attention has been paid to the inuence of
social and environmental performance which is usually measured
by the number of nes for environmental transgressions, by actual
pollution discharge data, or by assuming that sustainability performance is mirrored by certain indices such as the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index. On the one hand, companies may want to
signal good performance, implying a positive effect on reporting.
Alternatively, companies with a weaker performance may face
greater stakeholder pressure, thus they may be more actively
engaged in reporting to mitigate legitimacy threats which implies
a negative relation between performance and sustainability
reporting. Research results are again inconsistent. Some studies
nd a positive effect of performance on the adoption (Belal and
Cooper, 2011; Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011) or extent of reporting
activities (Clarkson et al., 2008), whereas others (Clarkson et al.,
2011; Brammer and Pavelin, 2006) indicate that worse performance leads to a higher extent of reporting. The latter study by
Brammer and Pavelin (2006), however, simultaneously nds no
signicant effect on the adoption of reporting and Prado-Lorenzo
et al. (2009b) do not nd a signicant effect on the extent. In
sum, research points to a signicant but ambiguous effect of social
and environmental performance on reporting activities. All papers
pay more attention to environmental rather than social performance which may be due to difculties in assessing social
performance.
Finally, the age of a companys assets is also used as a variable
related to sustainability (especially environmental) performance.
Assuming that stakeholders might link older xed assets (e.g.,
plants and equipment) with a higher environmental pollution
level, a company with young assets has the incentive to report
proactively. Again, empirical evidence offers mixed results. Stanny
and Ely (2008) indicate a negative association between asset age
and the decision to disclose environmental information, whereas
Clarkson et al. (2008) and Cormier and Magnan (2004) nd a
positive relation to the extent of environmental reporting. Three
other studies do not nd a signicant relation (Clarkson et al.,
2011; Cormier et al., 2004; Cormier and Magnan, 2003). Only
two papers examine the effect on the quality of environmental
reporting, revealing similarly inconsistent results (Clarkson et al.,
2008, 2011).
4.1.3. Ownership structure

Some limited research endeavors address several ownership
variables such as a companys listing on the stock market, government ownership, concentrated or dispersed ownership, and
foreign ownership.
Publicly listed companies can be considered to be more actively
engaged in reporting in order to comply with certain regulations,
adopt good practice by competitors, and/or cope with stakeholder
pressure. Haddock (2005) nds that a companys listing on the
stock market is associated with a higher adoption of reporting
practices. Furthermore, listed companies disclose a higher level of
sustainability-related information (Da Silva Monteiro and AibarGuzmn, 2010; Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Haniffa and Cooke,
2005). Moreover, Amran and Haniffa (2011), Gallo and Jones
Christensen (2011), and Tagesson et al. (2009) indicate that stateowned companies and/or government shareholding is associated
with a higher extent of sustainability reporting assuming that the
respective organizations are subject to more stringent reporting
requirements and scrutiny, or because they are supposed to set a
good example. Due to the limited number of studies, one cannot
draw denite conclusions on the inuence of a companys listing on
the stock market or on the inuence of state ownership.
Concentrated ownershipdoften assumed if an investor
owns more than 20% of the outstanding voting sharesdcan be
considered to impede sustainability reporting since dominant
shareholders are supposed to already have access to relevant information. In contrast, a dispersed ownership structure increases
the need to reduce information asymmetry. Brammer and Pavelin
(2006) indicate that the adoption and quality of reporting is
negatively inuenced by a concentrated ownership structure.
Cormier and Magnan (2003), Cormier and Magnan (2004), and
Gamerschlag et al. (2011) nd the same for the extent of reporting
activities. Others, however, nd no signicant correlation (Stanny
and Ely, 2008 for the adoption, and Ertuna and Tukel, 2010;
Tagesson et al., 2009 for the extent) while only one study (PradoLorenzo et al., 2009a) states a positive inuence on the adoption
of the GRI guidelines.
Finally, foreign shareholders might have difculties obtaining
relevant information from alternative information sources, which
induces the need to reduce information asymmetry in case of
foreign ownership. Three studies indicate a positive inuence of
foreign ownership on the level of sustainability reporting (Cormier
and Magnan, 2003, 2004; Haniffa and Cooke, 2005), whereas two
others show no signicant effect (Da Silva Monteiro and AibarGuzmn, 2010; Ertuna and Tukel, 2010).
4.2. External determinants of sustainability reporting
Research on the external determinants of sustainability
reporting mainly covers aspects of corporate visibility (4.2.1) or
sector afliation, country-of-origin, and legal requirements (4.2.2).
4.2.1. Corporate visibility
Literature uses media exposure, the supply chain position, and
brand-related aspects as proxies for corporate visibility. When
looking at media exposure (for example measured by the number
of news articles related to a company), companies may start sustainability reporting or increase the depths of their disclosure in
order to mitigate reputational risks of bad press and exploit
possible benets of good press. Literature on this determinant is
summarized in Table 2.
Apart from media exposure, direct interaction with consumers
may lead to high corporate visibility (Groves et al., 2011) so that the
supply chain position can also be considered a determinant of
sustainability reporting. Business-to-consumer companies are

Table 2
Overview of research ndings on visibility.a
Table 3
Overview of research ndings on sector-afliation.a
Determinant Dependent Authors

variable
Conclusion
Determinant
Dependent
variable
Authors
Conclusion
Media
exposure
Positive inuence
acknowledged
Sectorafliation
Adoption
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (U)

Gallo and Jones Christensen,
2011 (U)
Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 (U)
Haddock, 2005 (o)
Mussari and Monfardini, 2010 (c)
Amran and Haniffa, 2011 (U)
Clarkson et al., 2008 (U)
Cormier and Magnan, 2003 (U)
Cormier and Magnan, 2004 (U)
Fortanier et al., 2011 (U)
Gallo and Jones Christensen,
2011 (U)
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 (U)
Holder-Webb et al., 2009 (U)
Parsa and Kouhy, 2008 (U)
Tagesson et al., 2009 (U)
Da Silva Monteiro and AibarGuzmn, 2010 (o)
Haniffa and Cooke, 2005 (o)
Papaspyropoulos et al., 2010 (o)
Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (U)
Garca-Snchez, 2008 (U)
Morhardt Emil, 2010 (U)
Vormedal and Ruud, 2009 (o)
Rather
indifferent
results
Adoption
Extent
Quality
Haddock and Fraser, 2008 ()

Husillos-Carqus et al., 2011 ()
Kent and Monem, 2008 ()
Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011 ()
Cormier et al., 2004 ()
Gamerschlag et al., 2011 ()
Positive inuence
widely
acknowledged
Extent
No signicant
inuence found
but research still
scarce
a
() positive inuence of determinant on dependent variable, (o) no signicant inuence, () negative inuence.
more likely to engage in reporting activities (Haddock, 2005) while

business-to-business companies display lower levels of disclosure
(Groves et al., 2011). Furthermore, Haddock and Fraser (2008) show
that the extent of reporting depends on a companys closeness to
market. In sum, however, research on the value chain position as
determinant is still scarce.
Finally, a few sporadic research endeavors investigate branding
issues as reporting determinants. Haddock (2005) evaluates the
sameness of brand name and company name, arguing that a
companys prole is more visible to consumers when brand and
company name are identical. In two studies she conrms a positive
inuence on the adoption (Haddock, 2005) and extent of reporting
(Haddock and Fraser, 2008). Nikolaeva and Bicho (2011), however,
do not nd an association between brand visibility and the adoption of sustainability reporting according to the GRI guidelines.
4.2.2. Sector afliation, country-of-origin, and legal requirements
A companys sector afliation is the most frequently addressed
external determinant (see Table 3). Companies from industries with
high social and environmental impacts may need to engage in
sustainability reporting in order to respond to sector-specic
stakeholder pressure (e.g., Parsa and Kouhy, 2008; Sotorro and
Snchez, 2010). Furthermore, sustainability disclosure may be
driven by mimetic tendencies within sectors, which would explain
the presence of reporting activities despite the absence of legitimacy threats or stakeholder pressure (e.g., Aerts et al., 2006;
Husillos-Carqus et al., 2011).
Apart from industry differences, reporting practices may also
vary across countries and regions due to different cultural and social norms or governmental regulations (Sotorro and Snchez,
2010; Golob and Bartlett, 2007). This determinant is, however,
subject to only few studies. Some indicate differences across
countries and regions with respect to the adoption (Buhr and
Freedman, 2001) and the extent of sustainability reporting (Chen
and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011; Prado-Lorenzo et al.,
2009b), whereas Sotorro and Snchez (2010) nd no signicant
country-of-origin effect on the volume of reporting. Only one study
from our sample (Vormedal and Ruud, 2009) nds a country-oforigin-inuence on reporting quality (for a conceptual perspective
see Utama, 2011).
In terms of legal requirements, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden,
for example, require companies to report on environmental impacts (Hess and Dunfee, 2007) while French and British regulation
requires certain companies to report on sustainability-related
Quality
Positive
inuence
widely
acknowledged
Positive
inuence
acknowledged
a
(U) signicant inuence of determinant on dependent variable, (o) no
signicant inuence, (c) conceptual paper.
information (Brown et al., 2009b). Despite this legal pressure, only a

few studies empirically examined the development of reporting in
response to regulation (mostly concentrating on environmental
disclosure). They usually conrm an increase in the adoption and
extent of (environmental) reporting following tightened regulation
(e.g., Acerete et al., 2011; Criado-Jimnez et al., 2008 for Spain,
Alciatore et al., 2004 for the US, Bubna-Litic, 2008; Frost, 2007 for
Australia).
4.3. Interim conclusion on determinants of sustainability reporting
The only internal determinant that is consistently found to have
a positive effect on sustainability reporting is company size.
Consequently, media exposure and stakeholder pressure as
external determinants are also consistently found to have a positive
inuence on sustainability reporting because the size variable can
be considered to be linked with corporate visibility. Overall,
research displays a bias toward variables related to a companys
size and economic and nancial performance. However, the frequency of research on economic and nancial performance variables (particularly with regard to capital intensity, nancing
activities, and systematic risk) is distorted by the personal interest
of certain researchers (Clarkson, Cormier, Magnan and their coauthors). Moreover, researchers provide rather consistent evidence for a signicant inuence of a companys sector afliation.
Research on other external determinants is again characterized by
inconsistent and ambiguous ndings and also by a signicant lack
of attention.
Similarly, the inuence of variables related to social/environmental performance has thus far been mostly neglected and the
few existing studies provide inconsistent results. The lack of
research is especially pronounced in regard to the quality of
10
reporting. However, we can cautiously note that research tends to

conrm a positive effect of capital intensity, a companys listing on
the stock market, government ownership, and foreign ownership
on sustainability reporting. On the other hand, a companys systematic risk and concentrated ownership structure seem to impede
sustainability reporting. Furthermore, research tends to deny a
signicant effect of a companys market-to-book value, nancing
activities on the capital market, and age of xed assets. Finally,
researchers provide rather inconsistent and ambiguous ndings
regarding protability and indebtedness.
5. Discussion of theoretical implications and research gaps
In the following, we provide a link to theory by proposing an
outline of a potential theoretical framework (5.1) before presenting
a set of possible future research streams on underrepresented areas
in extant research (5.2).
5.1. Linking results to legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and
institutional theory
At the beginning of the reviewed period, Hooghiemstra (2000)
argued that research on sustainability reporting is characterized
by diverse and inconsistent ndings due to a lack of a comprehensive theoretical reference point. More recently, Spence et al.
(2010) found that researchers describe stakeholder theory as the
dominant and most useful theory in explaining sustainability
reporting practice. However, they also explicitly point to the fact
that most studies refer to stakeholders in general, without explicitly
referring to stakeholder theory (or other theories). Our review
conrms this observation. The majority of literature does not refer
to any theory at all, while those studies adoptingdor at least
consideringda theory show indeed a preoccupation with stakeholder theory (e.g., Belal and Roberts, 2010; Parsa and Kouhy, 2008;
Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008), legitimacy theory (e.g., CriadoJimnez et al., 2008; De Villiers and Van Staden, 2006; Haniffa
and Cooke, 2005), and to a certain extent also institutional theory
(e.g., Chen and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011; Rahaman et al.,
2004). Furthermore, these studies mostly refer to isolated theoretical reference points instead of more holistically embracing
different theoretical explanations with regard to sustainability
reporting. In the following, we propose a combination of different
theories to explain the ndings discussed above.
According to legitimacy theory, a company needs to have
legitimacy in the sense of a social license to operate (Deegan,
2002) to access the necessary resources to successfully conduct
business. Legitimacy theory suggests that no organization has an
inherent right to exist but that any business operation is subject to a
greater acceptance granted by society. Such legitimacy, however, is
potentially threatened if society perceives that a company is not
operating in an acceptable way. Accordingly, legitimation strategies
aim at securing legitimacy as a valuable resource itself (e.g.,
Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Suchman,
1995).
Furthermore, the acceptability of a company in society is
directly linked to stakeholder thinking which argues that organizations should be managed in the interest of all their constituents,
not only in the interest of shareholders. (Laplume et al., 2008:
1153) In this sense, stakeholder theory suggests that businesses
have to take into account different perspectives and expectations of
a wide group of constituents having an interest in corporate activities (Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005; Laplume et al., 2008).
Freeman (1984) argues that managers need to recognize shifts in
the environment among internal and external stakeholders. The
recent trend to embrace sustainability issues in society can be
regarded as such a trend and Marshall et al. (2010: 478) even see a
paradigm shift . that . incorporates a sustainability mandate,
refuting clearly the old thinking of limitless resources, unbounded
growth, and technologically derived solutions. Other than traditional nancial reporting, which largely caters to shareholders
information needs, sustainability reporting (supposedly) offers
valuable information to a broader audience and thus helps to cater
to their information needs by offering explanations of how a
company answers to the societal call for sustainable business
conduct. It can be assumed that large numbers of (powerful)
stakeholders directly increase the need for these companies to
positively explain their business conduct. In this context, the
disclosure of sustainability-related information can be regarded as
an instrument to shape the perceived legitimacy of the company
(Campbell et al., 2003) which, in turn, builds the bridge to signaling
theory.
Signaling theory suggests that in situations of asymmetric distribution of information, one party tries to credibly convey information about itself to a second party (Spence, 1973; Connelly et al.,
2010). The sustainability performance of a company can be regarded as such asymmetric information since it is difcult, for
example, for parties outside the company to gain credible information on these aspects. Companies might want to reduce this
information asymmetry by proactively reporting on their
sustainability-related activities to ensure legitimacy. However,
whether or not the addressee perceives the given information as
plausible and trustworthy greatly inuences the potential effect
such signaling efforts have. In sum, a greater exposure to a large
number of (potentially powerful) stakeholders (and media
coverage) could inuence a companys need to actively secure its
legitimacy by signaling sustainability efforts in respective reports.
As outlined above, the positive inuence of corporate size on the
adoption, extent, and quality of sustainability reporting is widely
acknowledged in previous research supporting the idea that
especially large companies which are exposed to a diverse set of
stakeholders feel the need to engage in signaling activities such as
sustainability reporting to secure their legitimacy in society. Similarly, the positive inuence of media exposure on the adoption and
extent of reporting is also often mentioned (albeit with a much
smaller focus in extant research) which directly points to the need
to engage in signaling. This exposure can also be assumed to be
positively related to corporate size as well as other factors (such as
sector-afliation) so that the cause-effect relationship between
media exposure and corporate size on the one hand and the three
mentioned theoretical anchors on the other hand remains somewhat ambiguous. Nevertheless, all three theories can indeed help
explaining the proliferation of sustainability reporting in the last
decade.
Less clarity, however, exists for aspects of institutional theory
which suggests that corporate activities do not necessarily follow a
business rationale but instead answer to the institutionalized expectations of the environment (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). If this
would be the case for sustainability reporting, the adoption, extent,
and quality of sustainability reporting would gradually align due to
institutional isomorphisms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) instead of
being subject to other external determinants. Research so far,
however, produced mixed results on these aspects (compare, e.g.,
Chen and Bouvain, 2009 with Fortanier et al., 2011).
5.2. Underrepresented streams of researchdpossible avenues for
future research
Beyond the focus on determinants of sustainability reporting
there seem to be some major shortcomings when turning to other
topics of potential interest. In the following we will highlight such
gaps in literature by especially discussing issues of regulation and

governance (5.2.1) as well as reporting quality and stakeholder
perception (5.2.2). These aspects can at the same time be regarded
as a possible roadmap for future research.
As a general remark we noticed that there is a strong focus in the
reviewed literature on large and multinational enterprises. Merely
eleven papers address small and medium-sized enterprises and
only three of them (Borga et al., 2009; Fassin, 2008; Parsa and
Kouhy, 2008) do so exclusively. Similarly, only few papers even
partially address sustainability reporting by non-prot organizations such as public authorities and NGOs (Dumay et al., 2010;
Guthrie and Farneti, 2008; Johansen, 2010; Lozano, 2006; Mussari
and Monfardini, 2010; Rahaman et al., 2004).
5.2.1. Research regarding regulation and governance
As discussed above, the inuence of country-of-origin and of
different regulatory regimes is sparsely examined. Some papers,
however, conceptually explore whether sustainability reporting
may contribute to empowering stakeholders and discuss a (potential) shift of governance to civil society. Hess (2007) and Hess
(2008), for example, argue that voluntary initiatives (such as the
GRI) alone are insufcient in achieving corporate accountability
because reporting is driven by strategic considerations (also Laufer,
2003). Similarly, Dubbink et al. (2008) note an insufciency of selfgovernance by companies due to a low level of transparency,
incomplete and irrelevant information for stakeholders, and a lack
of comparability of sustainability reports. Consequentially, the authors emphasize the need for a basic legal framework in order to
promote a level of sophistication comparable with mandatory
nancial reporting systems. Hess and Dunfee (2007) suggest a
mandatory sustainability reporting system based on the GRI
guidelines to overcome the issue of strategic disclosure. Levy et al.
(2010), however, criticize the GRI guidelines for being too generic,
lacking detailed quantiable measures, and thus not satisfying the
informational needs of stakeholders. Therefore, they question the
contribution of the GRI for shifting corporate governance to civil
society. Some scholars also raise objections to mandatory sustainability reporting in general due to corporate opposition and a lack
of enforcement mechanisms (e.g., Brown et al., 2009b; Levy et al.,
11
2010). Considering that developing a more or less smooth system (Dubbink et al., 2008: 402) of mandatory nancial reporting
has taken a considerable amount of time, one should take into
account that regulation on sustainability reporting is still at an early
stage of development (Hess and Dunfee, 2007). An example of
rather progressive regulation can be found in South Africa where
companies at the Johannesburg stock exchange are required to
publish an integrated TBL report, or explain omission (Adams
and Simnett, 2011; Integrated Reporting Committee of South
Africa, 2011). Moreover, the European Commission recently intensied its endeavors to introduce mandatory sustainabilityrelated disclosure (European Commission, 2013). Such new developments warrant future research.
When turning to internal aspects of corporate governance, we
identied another research gap. Certain governance structures, for
example audit committees, sustainable development committees
or the presence (or absence) of non-executive or independent directors on the board might inuence reporting. Such structures
could signal the intention to be transparent, accountable, and
committed to sustainability (e.g., Haniffa and Cooke, 2005; Kent
and Monem, 2008). From our sample, only Ertuna and Tukel
(2010) and Kent and Monem (2008) discuss the mentioned committees with mixed results, whereas the inuence of non-executive
directors is examined by Brammer and Pavelin (2006), Ertuna and
Tukel (2010), Haniffa and Cooke (2005), and Prado-Lorenzo et al.
(2009a). This leaves room for further investigations. Finally, only
two papers (Chen and Bouvain, 2009; Fortanier et al., 2011)
investigate whether adherence to global standards such as the GRI,
the UN Global Compact, ISO 14001 or others may increase the
comparability of sustainability reports by overcoming otherwise
existent variations in reporting practice.
Table 4 provides a brief overview of possible future research
streams regarding regulation and governance and posits related
research questions.
5.2.2. Research regarding reporting quality and stakeholder
perception
Few studies specically examine reporting quality which is a
central issue for providing a true and fair view of a companys
Table 4
Overview of research gaps on regulation and governance.
General topic
Exemplary research questions
Initial research links
Remarks and possible anchors
Voluntary vs. mandatory

reporting
Does legal pressure increase comparability

and/or quality of reporting? Can global
standards and soft law overcome the
drawbacks of voluntary disclosure?
Can sustainability reporting better be
explained by institutional pressure
than by legitimacy aspects?
Governance issues at
company and country
level
Is the (non)disclosure of sustainability

information inuenced by the selfinterest of managers (or directors,
owners etc.) and/or by internal
governance structures?
E.g., Brown et al., 2009b;

Chen and Bouvain, 2009;
Dubbink et al., 2008;
Fortanier et al., 2011;
Hess, 2007; Hess, 2008;
Hess and Dunfee, 2007;
Laufer, 2003; Levy
et al., 2010
E.g., Brammer and
Pavelin, 2006; Ertuna
and Tukel, 2010;
Fonseca, 2010; Haniffa
and Cooke, 2005; Kent
and Monem, 2008;
Prado-Lorenzo
et al., 2009a
Institutional theory, e.g., normative isomorphism

through standard-setters, mimetic isomorphism
through industry trends, coercive isomorphism;
decoupling theory
E.g., despite the absence of legitimacy threats or
stakeholder demands, sustainability reporting
might be adopted/improved due to mimetic/
coercive pressures
Agency theory; discussion of benets and drawbacks
of sustainability reporting for directors, governance
entities etc.; absence of certain governance structures
(e.g., sustainability councils) might imply
sustainability reporting to be decoupled from actual
operations
Explicit/implicit CSR; differences in regulatory regimes
and/or stakeholder governance; potential differences
in reporting due to differences in stakeholder
engagement
Are there differences in sustainability

reporting due to differing governance
structures and stakeholder regimes,
e.g., in the US (explicit CSR) vs. Europe
(implicit CSR)?
Does sustainability reporting (practice
and guidelines) improve stakeholder
accountability and does stakeholder
integration improve credibility and
accountability?
Habermas theory of communicative action;

accountability theory
12
sustainability performance. Although sustainability-related

reporting is not simply about concealing negative activities and
issues, several scholars note that voluntary disclosure allows
companies to use sustainability reporting as an impression management tool to improve a companys reputation (e.g., Castell and
Lozano, 2011; Coupland, 2006; Hanson and White, 2003;
Hooghiemstra, 2000; Ihlen, 2009; La Cour and Kromann, 2011;
Livesey and Kearins, 2002). In line with this, Holder-Webb et al.
(2009) note that most of the information voluntarily disclosed in
sustainability reports sheds a positive light on the respective company. Consequentially, many reports are criticized for their selflaudatory, selective, and strategic character (e.g., Archel et al.,
2008; Criado-Jimnez et al., 2008). According to the GRI guidelines, the quality of sustainability reporting and the materiality of a
certain aspect to be reported depend on a balanced reection of
both positive and negative aspects of a companys performance
(GRI, 2011b). Against this background it is striking that only a single
paper in the literature at hand (Criado-Jimnez et al., 2008) investigates the disclosure of negative incidents. To ll this gap,
future research could apply content analysis on sustainability reports in order to examine differences in the disclosure of negative
incidents (see recently, Hahn and Llfs, 2013). Furthermore, researchers might engage in more exploratory and conrmatory
methods such as interviews, surveys, or experimental studies (see
recently, Reimsbach and Hahn, 2013) in order to explore stakeholders perceptions of negative disclosure and its impact on
corporate reputation, legitimacy, share price, reporting quality, and
so on.
To enhance the reporting quality, Laufer (2003) emphasizes the
necessity of independent assurance and appropriate stakeholder
engagement. Both aspects have only recently received increasing
scholarly attention. This is not surprising since assurance on sustainability reporting is a relatively new eld for professionals and
scholars (Smith et al., 2011; KPMG, 2011). A few papers conceptually or empirically discuss operational difculties of assurance on
sustainability reporting (Dando and Swift, 2003; ODwyer, 2011;
Wallage, 2000). Furthermore, Park and Brorson (2005) examine
the typical process, drivers, and obstacles of such assurance
whereas Simnett et al. (2009), Chen and Bouvain (2009), and Kolk
and Perego (2010) identify factors determining the demand for
assurance. Only two studies analyze the contribution of assurance
to the perception of the respective reports using experimental
designs. Both nd that perceived credibility increases when a
sustainability report is assured and when assurance is provided by
professional accountants (Hodge et al., 2009; Pugrath et al., 2011).
With regard to the quality of assurance (thus indirectly to the
quality of reporting), Smith et al. (2011) conceptually discuss how
managerial inuence on the assurance process might impede
credibility and accountability. Additionally, Fonseca (2010) and
Manetti and Becatti (2009) evaluate assurance statements and note
problems stemming from a low level of stakeholder involvement.
Thomson and Bebbington (2005: 517) explicitly underline that the
quality of reporting . is intimately linked to the quality of stakeholder engagement. It is noticeable that there are only isolated
endeavors addressing this issue. From a conceptual perspective,
Reynolds and Yuthas (2008) conclude that current reporting and
accountability standards enhance transparency but fall short of
engaging stakeholders in discourse, whereas Hess (2008) criticizes
corporations for limiting stakeholder engagement to a mere management of legitimacy risks. Empirical research also indicates that
companies hardly ever involve stakeholders in decision making on
the content of reports (Manetti, 2011; Perrini, 2006), which might
compromise the materiality and relevance of disclosed information. One reason might be that businesses are simply not aware of
how to deal with certain stakeholders (e.g., Onkila, 2011), so
Habisch et al. (2011) identify a gap between literature and practice
about the importance of stakeholder dialogs with regard to sustainability reporting.
Research on stakeholder pressure and legitimacy aspects as
determinants of sustainability reporting is remarkably scarce. In an
early conceptual study, Lewis and Unerman (1999) propose that
varying moral values result in different legitimation strategies and
correspondingly in different reporting patterns in order to fulll
distinctive stakeholder expectations. In line with this, Buhr (2002)
and Husillos-Carqus et al. (2011) infer from interview data that
reporting is initiated following insufcient communication with
Table 5
Overview of research gaps on reporting quality and stakeholder perception.
General topic
Exemplary research questions
Initial research links
Remarks and possible anchors
Reporting quality
Does the quality of sustainability reporting

inuence different aspects of competitive
advantage?
Does sustainability reporting convey a
true and fair view of corporate
sustainability performance?
Does the reporting of negative aspects
inuence stakeholder perception? Do
stakeholders perceive sustainability
reporting as a proper indicator for a
companys reliability and predictability?
Does integrated reporting change the
uptake of information by certain
stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Is sustainability reporting oriented
towards the informational needs of
certain stakeholders (e.g., investors)?
Does stakeholder engagement inuence
reporting patterns (and quality)?
Does assurance inuence (perceived)
reporting quality?
Does assurance inuence information
asymmetries and/or transaction costs?
Archel et al., 2008; Clarkson et al., 2011;

Criado-Jimnez et al., 2008; Hahn and Llfs, 2013;
Laufer, 2003; and other studies mentioned
in Tables 1e3
Resource-based view; socio-political

theories (stakeholder/legitimacy);
voluntary disclosure theory
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory
Criado-Jimnez et al., 2008; Habisch et al.,

2011; Hess, 2008; Manetti, 2011; Onkila,
2011; Perrini, 2006; Reimsbach and Hahn, 2013;
Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008; Thomson and
Bebbington, 2005
Signaling theory; legitimacy theory;

resource-based view; stakeholder theory
Stakeholder engagement
and perception
External assurance
Information processing theory;

proximity compatibility principle
Resource dependence theory;
stakeholder theory
Laufer, 2003; Smith et al., 2011; Dando and

Swift, 2003; ODwyer, 2011; Wallage, 2000;
Parker, 2005; Simnett et al., 2009; Chen and
Bouvain, 2009; Kolk and Perego, 2010;
Hodge et al., 2009; Pugrath et al., 2011;
Fonseca, 2010;
Agency theory; transaction cost

theory; signaling theory
stakeholders and a resulting legitimacy crisis or corporate scandals.

Golob and Bartlett (2007) nd in a study covering Australia and
Slovenia that the content of sustainability reporting is inuenced
either by shareholder or stakeholder traditions. Furthermore,
Sinclair-Desgagn and Gozlan (2003) estimate in one of the few
models in our review that stakeholder pressure can inuence the
quality of information (see also the conceptual paper of Utama,
2011). Despite consistently arguing for a positive association between stakeholder pressure and sustainability reporting, there is a
signicant lack of empirical research. Interestingly, the few existing
studies applied methods which were otherwise rather scarce.
Closely linked to these issues is the question of stakeholder
perception of sustainability reporting. The limited number of
studies (Belal and Roberts, 2010; De Villiers and Van Staden, 2011;
Johansen, 2010) impedes a proper evaluation of the contribution of
sustainability reporting to corporate accountability. When looking
at investors as a specic stakeholder group, Dhaliwal et al. (2011)
argue for the importance of sustainability reporting in reducing
information asymmetry between managers and investors to increase rm value and decrease cost of capital. The few empirical
papers on this aspect consistently conrm this assumption
(Cormier and Magnan, 2007; Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Moneva and
Cuellar, 2009; Schadewitz and Niskala, 2010). Willis (2003)
conceptually illustrates the benets of the GRI for socially responsible investments by contributing to comparability between companies and facilitating comprehension of past performance and
future prospects. Van den Brink and Van der Woerd (2004) evaluate
the GRI guidelines on their applicability for benchmarking purposes of rating agencies. In contrast, two other papers discuss
limitations of sustainability reporting towards socially responsible
investments with regard to the already mentioned strategic, selective, and self-laudatory nature of such reports (Fayers, 1999;
Laufer, 2003).
Table 5 provides a brief overview of possible future research
streams regarding reporting quality and stakeholder perception
and posits related research questions.
6. Conclusions
This paper provided a review of literature on contemporary
sustainability reporting from 1999 to 2011 and contributed to
literature by giving a broad overview of the results on the (internal
and external) determinants of sustainability reporting. Already the
descriptive analysis revealed noteworthy aspects. First, current
literature often still seems far from considering truly complete
sustainability reporting on all three dimensions of sustainability.
While we noticed a shift in focus from isolated social or environmental reports to a sustainability focus on the DBL or recently even
on the TBL, the latter is still in its infancy so that there are plenty of
opportunities for future research studying true sustainability
reporting beyond compartmentalization and isolated approaches.
Future studies might, for example, look into the content and quality
of integrated reports in order to evaluate whether they contribute
to a more concise and balanced understanding of corporate performance compared to stand-alone sustainability reports. Second,
we noted a strong growth in empirical research (especially document analysis) which coincides with the growth in published sustainability reports. Our discussion of ndings, inconsistencies, and
gaps in the 178 articles mainly focused on internal and external
determinants of sustainability reporting and their impact on the
adoption, extent, and quality of reporting since we noted a distinct
research focus on these issues.
Although researchers analyze the effects of a multitude of determinants, only few variables (most notably companys size,
visibility, and sector-afliation) receive sufcient attention and
13
are associated with consistent results to draw clear conclusions.

Research on most determinants tends to come to inconsistent
ndings. A closer look at the journals reveals that these inconsistent ndings do not seem to be inuenced by different management disciplines but are spread across different journal
segments (i.e., accounting-related journals, sustainability-related
journals, journals from other disciplines, or general management
journals). One can recognize a lack of research on certain determinants such as managerial attitudes and culture. Furthermore,
the quality of sustainability reporting has been largely neglected.
This is not surprising because, other than the extent of reports or
the time of adoption, reporting quality in itself is already difcult
to evaluate and thus to study. Nevertheless, it is important to turn
to such more sophisticated issues to allow for meaningful conclusions, for example, regarding a true and fair view in sustainability reporting. When looking at the quality of sustainability
reporting in connection to another so far scarcely explored area,
namely stakeholder perceptions, research might investigate
whether the trend towards integrated reporting actually satises
stakeholders informational needs and contributes to their
empowerment. This would also imply a shift from the dominance
of content analysis of published documents towards more
exploratory and conrmatory methodological approaches such as
interviews, surveys, and experimental studies. Overall, the above
mentioned gaps suggest that there are signicant opportunities
for future researchers to contribute to the eld of sustainability
reporting. This literature review helps to pave the way for upcoming studies by also discussing potential theoretical anchors
(especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional
theory) which are so far often missing or only rudimentary
existing in extant research.8
References
Acerete, B., Llena, F., Moneva, J.M., 2011. Environmental disclosure in
nancial statements: an analysis of Spanish toll motorway concessionaires. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
16, 377e383.*
Adams, S., Simnett, R., 2011. Integrated reporting: an opportunity for Australias
not-for-prot sector. Australian Accounting Review 21, 292e301.*
Aerts, W., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2006. Intra-industry imitation in corporate
environmental reporting: an international perspective. Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy 25, 299e331.*
Alciatore, M., Dee, C.C., Easton, P., 2004. Changes in environmental regulation and
reporting: the case of the petroleum industry from 1989 to 1998. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy 23, 295e304.*
Amran, A., Haniffa, R., 2011. Evidence in development of sustainability reporting:
case of a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment 20,
141e156.*
Archel, P., Fernndez, M., Larrinage-Gonzlez, C., 2008. The organizational and
operational boundaries of triple bottom line reporting: a survey. Environmental
Management 41, 106e117.*
Ashforth, B.E., Gibbs, B.W., 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation.
Organization Science 1, 177e194.
Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 12,
639e662.*
Belal, A.R., Cooper, S., 2011. The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting
in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22, 654e667.
Belal, A.R., Roberts, R.W., 2010. Stakeholders perceptions of corporate social
reporting in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics 97, 311e324.*
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2003. Environmental disclosure research:
review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Research 22, 1e44.
Borga, F., Citterio, A., Noci, G., Pizzurno, E., 2009. Sustainability report in small
enterprises: case studies in Italian furniture companies. Business Strategy and
the Environment 18, 162e176.*
Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK
companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 33, 1168e1188.*
Brewerton, P., Millward, L., 2001. Organizational Research Methods. A Guide for
Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London.
All 178 papers included in the literature review are marked with a *.
14
Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., Levy, D.L., 2009b. Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRIs sustainability reporting. Journal of
Cleaner Production 17, 571e580.*
Bubna-Litic, K., 2008. Environmental reporting as a communications tool: a question of enforcement? Journal of Environmental Law 20, 69e85.*
Buchholz, R.A., Rosenthal, S.B., 2005. Toward a contemporary conceptual framework
for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 58, 137e148.
Buhr, N., 2002. A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13, 17e38.*
Buhr, N., Freedman, M., 2001. Culture, institutional factors and differences in
environmental disclosure between Canada and the United States. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12, 293e322.*
Burritt, R.L., Schaltegger, S., 2010. Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or
trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23, 829e846.
Campbell, D., Craven, B., Shrives, P., 2003. Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE
sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 16, 558e581.
Castell, I., Lozano, J.M., 2011. Searching for new forms of legitimacy through
corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics 100, 11e29.*
Chen, S., Bouvain, P., 2009. Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of
corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany.
Journal of Business Ethics 87, 299e317.*
Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D., Vasvari, F.P., 2008. Revisiting the relation
between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an
empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 303e327.*
Clarkson, P.M., Overell, M.B., Chapple, L., 2011. Environmental reporting and its
relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus: A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies 47, 27e60.*
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., 2010. Signaling theory: a review
and assessment. Journal of Management 37, 39e67.
Cormier, D., Gordon, I.M., Magnan, M., 2004. Corporate environmental disclosure:
contrasting managements perceptions with reality. Journal of Business Ethics
49, 143e165.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2003. Environmental reporting management: a
continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
22, 43e62.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2004. The impact of the web on information and
communication modes: the case of corporate environmental disclosure. IJTM
27, 393e416.*
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., 2007. The revisited contribution of environmental
reporting to investors valuation of a rms earnings: an international
perspective. Ecological Economics 62, 613e626.*
Coupland, C., 2006. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in web-based
reports: currency in the banking sector? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17,
865e881.*
Criado-Jimnez, I., Fernndez-Chulin, M., Husillos-Carqus, F.J., LarrinageGonzlez, C., 2008. Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in
nancial statements: the case of Spain (2001e2003). Journal of Business Ethics
79, 245e262.*
Da Silva Monteiro, S.M., Aibar-Guzmn, B., 2010. Determinants of environmental
disclosure in the annual reports of large companies operating in Portugal.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17, 185e204.*
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is dened: an analysis of 37
denitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15,
1e13.
Dando, N., Swift, T., 2003. Transparency and assurance: minding the credibility gap.
Daub, C.-H., 2007. Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative
methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 75e85.*
De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C.J., 2006. Can less environmental disclosure have a
legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31, 763e781.*
De Villiers, C., Van Staden, C.J., 2011. Shareholder requirements for compulsory
environmental information in annual reports and on websites. Australian Accounting Review 21, 317e326.*
Deegan, C., 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures e a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 15, 282e311.
Deegan, C., Soltys, S., 2007. Social accounting research: an Australasian perspective.
Accounting Forum 31, 73e89.
Dhaliwal, D.S., Li, O.Z., Tsang, A., Yang, Y.G., 2011. Voluntary nonnancial disclosure
and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility
reporting. The Accounting Review 86, 59e100.*
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational elds. American Sociological
Review 48, 147e160.
Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J., 1975. Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. The Pacic Sociological Review 18, 122e136.
Dubbink, W., Graaand, J., Van Liedekerke, L., 2008. CSR, transparency and the role
of intermediate organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 82, 391e406.*
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2010. GRI sustainability reporting guidelines
for public and third sector organizations. Public Management Review 12,
531e548.*
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130e141.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone, Oxford.
Elsevier, 2012. ScienceDirect. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ (accessed 05.07.12.).
Ertuna, B., Tukel, A., 2010. Traditional versus international inuences: CSR disclosures in Turkey. EJIM 4, 273.*
European Commission, 2011. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011e14 for Corporate Social
Responsibility, Brussels.
European Commission, 2013. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
and of the Council Amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC as
Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large
Companies and Groups. COM(2013) 207 Final. European Commission,
Strasbourg.
Fassin, Y., 2008. SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Business Ethics: A European Review 17, 364e378.*
Fayers, C., 1999. Environment and investment: the role of personal investment
choice in creating sustainability. Sustainable Development 7, 64e76.*
Fifka, M.S., 2012. The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting in global comparison. Journal of Betriebswirtsch 62, 45e84.
Fifka, M.S., 2013. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in
comparative perspective: a review of the empirical literature and a metaanalysis. Business Strategy and the Environment 22, 1e35.
Fink, A., 2010. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from the Internet to Paper,
third ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Fonseca, A., 2010. How credible are mining corporations sustainability reports? A
critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 17, 355e370.*
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2011. Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and
global CSR standards. Management International Review 51, 665e696.*
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Boston.
Frost, G.R., 2007. The introduction of mandatory environmental reporting guidelines: Australian evidence. Abacus 43, 190e216.*
Gallo, P.J., Jones Christensen, L., 2011. Firm size matters: an empirical investigation
of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors.
Business & Society 50, 315e349.*
Gamerschlag, R., Mller, K., Verbeeten, F., 2011. Determinants of voluntary CSR
disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science 5,
233e262.*
Garca-Snchez, I.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting: segmentation and characterization of Spanish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 187e198.*
Golob, U., Bartlett, J.L., 2007. Communicating about corporate social responsibility: a
comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations
Review 33, 1e9.*
GRI, 2011a. A New Phase: the Growth of a New Phase: the Growth of Sustainability
Reporting. Amsterdam.
GRI, 2011b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Version 3.1. Amsterdam.
Groves, C., Frater, L., Lee, R., Stokes, E., 2011. Is there room at the bottom for CSR?
Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 525e552.*
Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2008. GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector
organizations. Public Money & Management 28, 361e366.*
Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., Schwartz, C., 2011. Different talks with different
folks: a comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S.
Haddock, J., 2005. Consumer inuence on internet-based corporate communication of
environmental activities: the UK food sector. British Food Journal 107, 792e805.*
Haddock, J., Fraser, I., 2008. Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: differences between close-to-market and business-to-business
companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
15, 140e155.*
Hahn, R., 2011. Integrating corporate responsibility and sustainable development: a
normative-conceptual approach to holistic management thinking. Journal of
Global Responsibility 2, 8e22.
Hahn, R., Llfs, R., 2013. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability
reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of
Business Ethics (in press).
Haniffa, R., Cooke, T.E., 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate
social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24, 391e430.
Hanson, D., White, R., 2003. Rhetorics of environmental routinisation in one
Australian companys annual reports. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38,
477e493.*
Herzig, C., Schaltegger, S., 2006. Corporate sustainability reporting: an overview. In:
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 301e324.
Hess, D., 2007. Social reporting and new governance regulation: the prospects of
achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics
Quarterly 17, 453e476.*
Hess, D., 2008. The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance
regulation: disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly 18,
447e482.*
Hess, D., Dunfee, T.W., 2007. The Kasky-Nike threat to corporate social reporting:
implementing a standard of optimal truthful disclosure as a solution. Business
Ethics Quarterly 17, 5e32.*

Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., Stewart, J., 2009. Assurance of sustainability reports:
impact on report users condence and perceptions of information credibility.
Australian Accounting Review 19, 178e194.*
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J.R., Nath, L., Wood, D., 2009. The supply of corporate
social responsibility disclosures among U.S. rms. Journal of Business Ethics 84,
497e527.*
Hooghiemstra, R., 2000. Corporate communication and impression management:
new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal
of Business Ethics 27, 55e68.*
Husillos-Carqus, F.J., Gonzalez, C.L., Alvarez Gil, M.J., 2011. The emergence of triple
bottom line reporting in Spain. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad: Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting 40, 195e219.*
Ihlen, O., 2009. Business and climate change: the climate response of the worlds 30
largest corporations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and
Culture 3, 244e262.*
Integrated Reporting Committee of South Africa, 2011. Framework for Integrated
Reporting and the Integrated Report: Discussion Paper, n/a.
International Organization for Standardization, 2010. ISO 26000-Guidance on Social
Responsibility, Geneva.
Johansen, T.R., 2010. Employees, non-nancial reports and institutional arrangements:
a study of accounts in the workplace. European Accounting Review 19, 97e130.*
Kent, P., Monem, R., 2008. What drives TBL reporting: good governance or threat to
legitimacy? Australian Accounting Review 18, 297e309.*
Kolk, A., 2010. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World
Business 45, 367e374.*
Kolk, A., Perego, P., 2010. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance
statements: an international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 147e215.*
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., Run, C., 2013. Reviewing a Decade of Research on the
Base/Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) Concept. Business & Society.
KPMG, 2011. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting
2011, n.p.
La Cour, A., Kromann, J., 2011. Euphemisms and hypocrisy in corporate philanthropy. Business Ethics: A European Review 20, 267e279.*
Lamberton, G., 2005. Sustainability accountingda brief history and conceptual
framework. Accounting Forum 29, 7e26.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K., Litz, R.A., 2008. Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory
that moves us. Journal of Management 34, 1152e1189.
Laufer, W.S., 2003. Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of
Business Ethics 43, 253e261.*
Lee, T.M., Hutchison, P.D., 2005. The decision to disclose environmental information: a research review and agenda. Advances in Accounting 21, 83e111.
Levy, D.L., Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., 2010. The contested politics of corporate
governance: the case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business & Society 49,
88e115.*
Lewis, L., Unerman, J., 1999. Ethical relativism: a reason for differences in corporate
social reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 10, 521e547.*
Lewis, S., 2011. Lessons on corporate sustainability disclosure from deepwater
horizon. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health
Policy 21, 197e214.*
Livesey, S.M., Kearins, K., 2002. Transparent and caring corporations? A study of
sustainability reports by the body shop and royal Dutch/Shell. Organization &
Environment 15, 233e258.*
Lozano, R., 2006. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities
(GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 963e972.*
Lozano, R., 2013. Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of
European companies. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 99e107.*
Manetti, G., 2011. The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 18, 110e122.*
Manetti, G., Becatti, L., 2009. Assurance services for sustainability reports: standards
and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics 87, 289e298.*
Marshall, S., Vaiman, V., Napier, N., Taylor, S., Halsberger, A., Andersen, T., 2010. The
end of a Period: sustainability and the questioning attitude. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 9, 477e487.
Mayring, P., 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, eleventh
ed. Beltz, Weinheim, Germany.
Meyer, J.M., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340e363.
Moneva, J.M., Cuellar, B., 2009. The value relevance of nancial and non-nancial
environmental reporting. Environmental and Resource Economics 44, 441e456.*
Morhardt Emil, J., 2010. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting
on the internet. Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 436e452.*
Mussari, R., Monfardini, P., 2010. Practices of social reporting in public sector and
non-prot organizations. Public Management Review 12, 487e492.*
Nikolaeva, R., Bicho, M., 2011. The role of institutional and reputational factors in
the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39, 136e157.*
ODwyer, B., 2011. The case of sustainability assurance: constructing a new assurance service. Contemporary Accounting Research 28, 1230e1266.*
Onkila, T., 2011. Multiple forms of stakeholder interaction in environmental management: business arguments regarding differences in stakeholder relationships. Business Strategy and the Environment 20, 379e393.*
15
Owen, D., 2008. Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reection on the current
state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21, 240e267.
Papaspyropoulos, K.G., Blioumis, V., Christodoulou, A.S., 2010. Environmental
reporting in Greece: the Athens stock exchange. African Journal of Business
Parker, L.D., 2005. Social and environmental accountability research: a view from
the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 18,
842e860.
Park, J., Brorson, T., 2005. Experiences of and views on third-party assurance of
corporate environmental and sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 1095e1106.*
Parsa, S., Kouhy, R., 2008. Social reporting by companies listed on the alternative
investment market. Journal of Business Ethics 79, 345e360.*
Perrini, F., 2006. The practitioners perspective on non-nancial reporting. California Management Review 48, 73e103.*
Pugrath, G., Roebuck, P.J., Simnett, R., 2011. Impact of assurance and assurers
professional afliation on nancial analysts assessment of credibility of
corporate social responsibility information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory 30, 239e254.*
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G., Podsakoff, N.P., 2005. The inuence
of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal
26, 473e488.
Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., Garca-Snchez, I.M., 2009a. Stakeholder
engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership
structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16, 94e107.*
Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., Rodrguez-Domnguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., GarcaSnchez, I.M., 2009b. Factors inuencing the disclosure of greenhouse gas
emissions in companies world-wide. Management Decision 47, 1133e1157.*
Rahaman, A.S., Lawrence, S., Roper, J., 2004. Social and environmental reporting at
the VRA: Institutionalised legitimacy or legitimation crisis? Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 15, 35e56.*
Reimsbach, D., Hahn, R., 2013. The effects of negative incidents in sustainability
reporting on investors judgments e an experimental study of third-party
versus self-disclosure in the realm of sustainable development. Business
Strategy and the Environment, Early View. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1816.
Reynolds, M.A., Yuthas, K., 2008. Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility
reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 78, 47e64.*
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for Business Students,
sixth ed. Pearson, New York.
Schadewitz, H., Niskala, M., 2010. Communication via responsibility reporting and
its effect on rm value in Finland. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17, 96e106.*
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., 2006. Sustainability accounting and
reporting: development, linkages and reection. An introduction. In:
Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L. (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1e33.
Seuring, S., Mller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
1699e1710.
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F., 2009. Assurance on sustainability reports:
an international comparison. The Accounting Review 84, 937e967.*
Sinclair-Desgagn, B., Gozlan, E., 2003. A theory of environmental risk disclosure.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 377e393.*
Smith, J., Haniffa, R., Fairbrass, J., 2011. A conceptual framework for investigating
capture in corporate sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business
Ethics 99, 425e439.*
Sotorro, L.L., Snchez, J.L.F., 2010. Corporate social reporting for different audiences:
the case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 17, 272e283.*
Spence, C., Husillos-Carqus, F.J., Correa-Ruiz, C., 2010. Cargo cult science and the
death of politics: a critical review of social and environmental accounting
research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21, 76e89.*
Spence, M., 1973. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87,
355e374.
Stanny, E., Ely, K., 2008. Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects of
climate change. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 338e348.*
Stechemesser, K., Guenther, E., 2012. Carbon accounting: a systematic literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production 36, 17e38.
Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review 20, 571e610.
Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., Collin, S.-O., 2009. What explains the extent
and content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites:
a study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16,
352e364.*
Thomson Reuters, 2012. Social Sciences Citation Index: Master Journal List. http://
ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PCSS
(accessed
05.07.12.).
Thomson, I., Bebbington, J., 2005. Social and environmental reporting in the UK: A
pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16, 507e533.*
Utama, S., 2011. An evaluation of support infrastructures for corporate responsibility reporting in Indonesia. Asian Bus Manage 10, 405e424.*
16
Van den Brink, T.W.M., Van der Woerd, F., 2004. Industry specic sustainability
benchmarks: an ECSF pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social
responsible investments. Journal of Business Ethics 55, 187e203.*
Vormedal, I., Ruud, A., 2009. Sustainability reporting in Norway: an assessment of
performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, 207e222.*
Wallage, P., 2000. Assurance on sustainability reporting: an auditors view. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19, 53e65.*
Willis, C.A.A., 2003. The role of the Global Reporting Initiatives sustainability
reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business
Ethics 43, 233e237.*
Further reading
Arena, M., Azzone, G., 2010. Process based approach to select key sustainability
indicators for steel companies. Iron and Steel 37, 437e444.*
Arimura, T.H., Hibiki, A., Katayama, H., 2008. Is a voluntary approach an effective
environmental policy instrument? Journal of Environmental Economics and
Brown, H.S., De Jong, M., Lessidrenska, T., 2009. The rise of the Global Reporting
Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics 18,
182e200.*
Brown, J., Parry, T., Moon, J., 2009. Corporate responsibility reporting in UK construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability 162, 193e205.*
Castilla Polo, F., Gallardo Vzquez, D., 2008. Social information within the intellectual capital report. Journal of International Management 14, 353e363.*
Chalmers, J., Archer, G., 2011. Development of a sustainability reporting scheme for
biofuels: a UK case study. Energy Policy 39, 5682e5689.*
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility: standard
adoption and practices in Italian companies. International Journal of Production
Economics 113, 88e106.*
Cooper, S.M., Owen, D.L., 2007. Corporate social reporting and stakeholder
accountability: the missing link. Accounting, Organizations and Society 32,
649e667.*
Cowan, D.M., Dopart, P., Ferracini, T., Sahmel, J., Merryman, K., Gaffney, S.,
Paustenbach, D.J., 2010. A cross-sectional analysis of reported corporate environmental sustainability practices. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
58, 524e538.*
Cowper-Smith, A., De Grosbois, D., 2011. The adoption of corporate social responsibility practices in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19,
59e77.*
Crespy, C.T., Miller, V.V., 2011. Sustainability reporting: a comparative study of NGOs
and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18,
275e284.*
Davidson, K.M., 2011. Reporting systems for sustainability: what are they
measuring? Social Indicators Research 100, 351e365.*
Dingwerth, K., Eichinger, M., 2010. Tamed transparency: how information disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative fails to empower. Global Environmental Politics 10, 74e96.*
Dong, S., Burritt, R.L., 2010. Cross-sectional benchmarking of social and environmental reporting practice in the Australian oil and gas industry. Sustainable
Development 18, 108e118.*
Dragomir, V.D., Anghel Ilcu, E.R., 2011. Comparative perspectives on environmental
accounting elements in France and the United Kingdom. African Journal of
Business Management 5, 11265e11282.*
Dragomir, V.D., Anghel Ilcu, E.R., 2011. Social responsibility practices regarding facilities granted to employees and consumer protection in selected European
companies. Amteatru Economic 13, 86e103.*
Erkko, S., Melanen, M., Mickwitz, P., 2005. Eco-efciency in the Finnish EMAS reports: a buzz word? Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 799e813.*
Etzion, D., Ferraro, F., 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science 21, 1092e1107.*
Fleischman, R.K., Schuele, K., 2006. Green accounting: a primer. Journal of Accounting Education 24, 35e66.*
Gallego-Alvarez, I., 2008. Analysis of social information as a measure of the ethical
behavior of Spanish rms. Management Decision 46, 580e599.*
Gao, Y., 2011. CSR in an emerging country: a content analysis of CSR reports of listed
companies. Baltic Journal of Management 6, 263e291.*
Gibson, K., ODonovan, G., 2007. Corporate governance and environmental reporting: an Australian study. Corporate Governance 15, 944e956.*
Gond, J.-P., Herrbach, O., 2006. Social reporting as an organisational learning tool? A
theoretical framework. Journal of Business Ethics 65, 359e371.*
Haque, S., Deegan, C., 2010. Corporate climate change-related governance practices
and related disclosures: evidence from Australia. Australian Accounting Review
20, 317e333.*
Hartman, L.P., Rubin, R.S., Dhanda, K.K., 2007. The communication of corporate
social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corporations. Journal of Business Ethics 74, 373e389.*
Hou, J., Reber, B.H., 2011. Dimensions of disclosures: corporate social responsibility
(CSR) reporting by media companies. Public Relations Review 37, 166e168.*
Hu, A.H., Chen, L.-T., Hsu, C.-W., Ao, J.-G., 2011. An evaluation framework for scoring
corporate sustainability reports in Taiwan. Environmental Engineering Science
28, 843e858.*
Islam, M.A., McPhail, K., 2011. Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: the
emergence of corporate reporting on the ILOs human rights standards within
the global garment manufacturing and retail industry. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 22, 790e810.*
Johnson, B.R., Connolly, E., Carter, T.S., 2011. Corporate social responsibility: the role
of fortune 100 companies in domestic and international natural disasters.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., 2007. Sustainable development and the UKs major
retailers. Geography 92, 41e47.*
Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., Eastwood, I., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: a
case study of the UKs leading food retailers. British Food Journal 107, 423e435.*
Jose, A., Lee, S.-M., 2007. Environmental reporting of global corporations: a content
analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 72, 307e321.*
Kaenzig, J., Friot, D., Saad, M., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2011. Using life cycle approaches to enhance the value of corporate environmental disclosures. Business
Strategy and the Environment 20, 38e54.*
Kawashita, F., Taniyama, Y., Hwi, S.Y., Fujisaki, T., Kameda, T., Mori, K., 2005. Occupational safety and health aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
Japanese companies listed on the Tokyo stock exchange (TSE) rst section.
Journal of Occupational Health 47, 533e539.*
Knox, S., Maklan, S., French, P., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: exploring
stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies. Journal of Business Ethics 61, 7e28.*
Kolk, A., Lenfant, F., 2010. MNC reporting on CSR and conict in central Africa.
Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2010. The integration of corporate governance in corporate social
responsibility disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Martinuzzi, A., 2006. Empirical ndings on
businessesociety relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics 63, 89e105.*
Krajnc, D., Glavi
c, P., 2005. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable
development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 43, 189e208.*
Kristensen, K., Westlund, A., 2003. Valid and reliable measurements for sustainable
non-nancial reporting. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14,
161e170.*
Lenzen, M., Dey, C.J., Murray, S.A., 2004. Historical accountability and cumulative
impacts: the treatment of time in corporate sustainability reporting. Ecological
Economics 51, 237e250.*
Lungu, C.I., Caraiani, C., Dascalu, C., 2009. Reporting green information from environmental management perspective. Journal of Environmental Protection and
Ecology 10, 524e539.*
Lungu, C.I., Caraiani, C., Dascalu, C., 2011. Research on corporate social responsibility
reporting. Amteatru Economic 13, 117e131.*
Maali, B., Casson, P., Napier, C., 2006. Social reporting by Islamic banks. Abacus 42,
266e289.*
Magness, V., 2003. Economic values and corporate nancial statements. Environmental Management 32, 1e11.*
Mak, B.L.M., Chan, W.W.H., Wong, K., Zheng, C., 2007. Comparative studies of
standalone environmental reports: European and Asian airlines. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12, 45e52.*
Marcuccio, M., Steccolini, I., 2005. Social and environmental reporting in local authorities. Public Management Review 7, 155e176.*
McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., Van Engelen, J., 2008. Sustainability quotients and the
social footprint. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15, 223e234.*
Meyskens, M., Paul, K., 2010. The evolution of corporate social reporting practices in
Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics 91, 211e227.*
Mikkil, M., Toppinen, A., 2008. Corporate responsibility reporting by large pulp
and paper companies. Forest Policy and Economics 10, 500e506.*
Mio, C., 2010. Corporate social reporting in Italian multi-utility companies: an
empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17, 247e271.*
Mitchell, C.G., Hill, T., 2009. Corporate social and environmental reporting and the
impact of internal environmental policy in South Africa. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16, 48e60.*
Moneva, J.M., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Muoz-Torres, M.J., 2007. The corporate stakeholder
commitment and social and nancial performance. Industrial Management &
Data Systems 107, 84e102.*
Morhardt Emil, J., 2001. Scoring corporate environmental reports for comprehensiveness: a comparison of three systems. Environmental Management 27, 881e892.*
Mudd, G.M., 2008. Sustainability reporting and water resources: a preliminary
assessment of embodied water and sustainable mining. Mine Water Environ 27,
136e144.*
OConnor, M., Spangenberg, J.H., 2008. A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a
representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and
performance issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1399e1415.*
Perez, F., Sanchez, L.E., 2009. Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in
the mining sector. Environmental Management 43, 949e961.*
Pollach, I., Scharl, A., Weichselbraun, A., 2009. Web content mining for comparing
corporate and third-party online reporting: a case study on solid waste management. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, 137e148.*
Quaak, L., Aalbers, T., Goedee, J., 2007. Transparency of corporate social responsibility in Dutch breweries. Journal of Business Ethics 76, 293e308.*
Raiborn, C.A., Butler, J.B., Massoud, M.F., 2011. Environmental reporting: toward
enhanced information quality. Business Horizons 54, 425e433.*

Rodriguez Bolivar, M.P., 2009. Evaluating corporate environmental reporting on the
internet: the utility and resource industries in Spain. Business & Society 48,
179e205.*
Roth, A., Kaberger, T., 2002. Making transport systems sustainable. Journal of
Sardinha, I.D., Reijnders, L., Antunes, P., 2011. Using corporate social responsibility
benchmarking framework to identify and assess corporate social responsibility
trends of real estate companies owning and developing shopping centres.
Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1486e1493.*
Scholtens, B., 2011. Corporate social responsibility in the international insurance
industry. Sustainable Development 19, 143e156.*
Shauki, E., 2011. Perceptions on corporate social responsibility: a study in capturing
public condence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18, 200e208.*
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F., 2009. Development of an evaluation
methodology for triple bottom line reports using international standards on
reporting. Environmental Management 44, 298e311.*
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F., 2010. Assessing non-nancial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from
Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 426e438.*
Spence, C., 2009. Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Business Strategy and the Environment 18, 254e265.*
Steurer, R., Konrad, A., 2009. Business-society relations in Central-Eastern and
Western Europe: how those who lead in sustainability reporting bridge the gap
17
in corporate (social) responsibility. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25,

23e36.*
Stray, S., 2008. Environmental reporting: the U.K. water and energy industries: a
research note. Journal of Business Ethics 80, 697e710.*
Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y., Lehman, G., 2007. Environmental reporting in a developing
country: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Kirchoff, J.F.N., 2010. Corporate social responsibility reports:
a thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 46, 19e44.*
Tiong, P.N.C., Anantharaman, R.N., 2011. An examination of the sustainability disclosures of ANZ, NAB and WESTPAC. Jassa: The Finisia Journal of Applied
Finance, 12e16.*
Tsang, S., Welford, R., Brown, M., 2009. Reporting on community investment.
Vuontisjrvi, T., 2006. Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: an analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business
Ethics 69, 331e354.*
Wenhao, C., Kaufman, K., 2011. Corporate social responsibility in Fortune magazines top 50 companies: state of action and salient trends. African Journal of
Business Management 5, 11636e11651.*
Wiedmann, T.O., Lenzen, M., Barrett, J.R., 2009. Companies on the scale: comparing
and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 13, 361e383.*

Determinants of Sustainability Reporting A Review of Results, Trends

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinants of Sustainability Reporting A Review of Results, Trends

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,

corporate information and control processes (Herzig and

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

academic interest as well. Nevertheless, the literature is still limited

Corporate Social Responsibility

(Corporate Responsibility, Corporate

Triple Bottom Line

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

Accounting related to Sustainability (CSR)

Reporting related to Sustainability (CSR)

Three sustainability dimensions

Specialized sustainability, CSR,

(financial, ecological, and social at

Two sustainability dimensions

One sustainability dimension

accounting methods which aim at the creation of high quality data

one-dimensional reporting (e.g., Environment Reports, Financial

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

2.2. Selecting research questions, databases, and search terms

to Seuring and Mller (2008), we applied the generic process model

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

literature review. Furthermore, selecting the Web of Knowledge

Fig. 2. Distribution of literature over time and sustainability dimensions.

either cover only one dimension of sustainability (environmental or

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

Fig. 3. Distribution according to research methods.

approaches, such as interviews, surveys, and experimental studies

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 ()

Positive inuence widely acknowledged

Positive inuence widely acknowledged

Positive inuence acknowledged

No signicant inuence found but

No signicant inuence found but research

Indifferent results; research still scarce

Indifferent results; research still scarce

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

greenhouse gas emissions. Only few empirical papers investigate

4.1.3. Ownership structure

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

Determinant Dependent Authors

Brammer and Pavelin, 2006 (U)

Haddock and Fraser, 2008 ()

more likely to engage in reporting activities (Haddock, 2005) while

information (Brown et al., 2009b). Despite this legal pressure, only a

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

reporting. However, we can cautiously note that research tends to

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17

gaps in literature by especially discussing issues of regulation and

Exemplary research questions

Initial research links

Remarks and possible anchors

Voluntary vs. mandatory

Does legal pressure increase comparability

Is the (non)disclosure of sustainability

E.g., Brown et al., 2009b;

Institutional theory, e.g., normative isomorphism

Are there differences in sustainability

Habermas theory of communicative action;

R. Hahn, M. Khnen / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e17