SRJ 11 2015 0172

Social Responsibility Journal
The influence of the institutional context on sustainability reporting. A cross-national analysis

Laura Maria Ferri,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laura Maria Ferri, (2017) "The influence of the institutional context on sustainability reporting. A cross-national analysis",
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 Issue: 1, pp.24-47, https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2015-0172
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2015-0172
Downloaded on: 27 April 2019, At: 03:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 104 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 446 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Universitas Muria Kudus At 03:06 27 April 2019 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2016),"What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review", Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 154-189 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050">https://doi.org/10.1108/
SAMPJ-08-2014-0050</a>
(2017),"Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories", Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 95-110 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2015-0147">https://doi.org/10.1108/
SRJ-10-2015-0147</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:614936 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The influence of the institutional context
on sustainability reporting.
A cross-national analysis
Laura Maria Ferri
Laura Maria Ferri is Abstract

Assistant Professor at the Purpose – This paper intends to compare the sustainability reporting (SR) in three different national
Faculty of Political and and institutional contexts, namely Italy, Brazil and USA, and aims to investigate whether companies
Social Sciences, show a different approach to SR depending on the institutional setting where they operate.
Università Cattolica del Design/methodology/approach – To reach this goal, a sample of 150 reports was content-analyzed
Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. through a methodology based on a coding process which overcomes part of the limitations in previous
works.
Findings – Results observed a relationship between the SR and the characteristics of institutional
contexts, thus suggesting that while there is a general acceptance and use of international SR
standards and initiatives, the content is influenced by and shaped on the characteristics of the national
institutional context. In other words, although a widely diffused base of data and information can be
found in the SR of companies in different contexts, the accent is put on specific issues which reflect the
political, cultural, religious, legal and otherwise defined institutions in the national system.
Originality/value – Using the institutional theory the paper demonstrated that institutional contexts is
one of the drivers of contents of sustainability reports.
Keywords USA, Brazil, Italy, Sustainability reporting, Institutional theory, Social disclosure
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Literature suggests that the institutional context affects the approach of firms to corporate
social responsibility (CSR). However, whereas evidences exist with regards to overall CSR
policies (Campbell, 2007), limited studies have explored whether the institutional context
also determines how CSR is operationalized (Ferri et al., 2014). Acknowledging this gap,
this paper presents a comparative study on sustainability reporting (SR), defined according
to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as the disclosure of information “on an organization’s
impacts on the environment, society, and the economy” (GRI, 2013). In this sense, the
paper is aimed at contributing to the understanding of the institutionalization of SR as a CSR
practice (Perez-Batres et al., 2012; Berthelot et al., 2012). Previous studies have suggested
that some relationships between the institutional context within which companies operate
exist, but evidences are mixed, and further research has been encouraged (Pedersen
et al., 2013; Jensen and Berg, 2012; Weber and Marley, 2012; Kolk, 2008). This acquires
even more importance given the spread towards the use of international reporting
standards which provide common frameworks and key performance indicators to be used
in SR. The understanding of the role of the institutional context would therefore provide
relevant insights on whether this trend would be beneficial to the effectiveness of SR.
Received 23 November 2015
Revised 28 April 2016
Previous studies have suggested that the convergence versus divergence dynamics are
Accepted 23 May 2016 particularly relevant to the understanding of CSR behaviors and that institutional pressures
PAGE 24 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017, pp. 24-47, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 DOI 10.1108/SRJ-11-2015-0172
at global and national level play a different role (Jamali and Neville, 2011). Gathering
suggestions from these studies, this paper seeks to examine the role of the institutional
context in shaping the content of SR so as to advance the knowledge around the
antecedents of SR and lay foundations for the future development of the field in hands
(Amran et al., 2014; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013).
Based on a sample of 150 companies, the study aims to discuss the results of a
comparative analysis among three countries –Italy, Brazil and the USA – which have been
found to be characterized by different institutional contexts (Doh and Guay, 2006; Matten
and Moon, 2008). Extant literature has also evidence that due to these differences firms in
the three countries use different overall CSR policies (Duarte, 2010; Matten and Moon,
2008; Albareda et al., 2007; Gresse, 2007). The paper aspires to offer two main
contributions. First, it examines a large cross-national database, filling the gap in earlier
research which has mainly analyzed SR in single contexts (among others: Goettsche et al.,
2014; Pedersen et al., 2013; Patel and Rayner, 2012; Amran and Haniffa, 2011; Branco and
Rodrigues, 2008; Brammer and Pavelin, 2004) rather than comparing different settings
(among others: Amran et al., 2014; Hahn and Lülfs, 2014; Fifka, 2013; Fifka and Drabble,
2012; Jensen and Berg, 2012; Habisch et al., 2011; Holder-Webb et al., 2009; Maignan and
Ralston, 2002). Second, the paper compares SR in developed and emerging countries,
thus extending extant literature mainly focused on developed countries (among others:
Habisch et al., 2011; Brammer and Pavelin, 2008; Branco and Rodrigues, 2008), whereas
little has only recently been investigated about emerging ones (Crane et al., 2013; Amran
and Haniffa, 2011).
The paper is structured as follows. The next paragraph presents the theoretical
background, taking into consideration the literature development in the field of the
institutional theory and the extant studies on CSR and SR in Italy, the USA and Brazil.
Afterward, the research methodology is described, with reference to the detailed
description of sample, measures and content analysis. Then, results are presented and
discussed afterward, and the last paragraph concludes the paper with final comments,
limitations of the study and future perspectives.
Institutional theory, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting

According to the institutional theory, organizations adopt similar behaviors over time driven
by a variety of pressures in the surrounding environment. The argument is that
organizations look at the characteristics of the environment to conform to the dominant
societal rules, norms and routines (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
The institutional theory has often been used in studies around CSR overall policies to
explain the existence of similar trends in firm behaviors (Bondy et al., 2012). Brammer et al.
(2012) showed that recent studies have challenged the view of CSR as being determined
by managerial decisions and profit maximization purposes in favor of a new perspective
where CSR is “more evidently shaped by legal, customary, religious, or otherwise defined
institutions” (p. 21). In the literature on the relationship between institutional contexts and
CSR, a relevant contribution comes from Matten and Moon (2008). Here, the American
context has been identified as representative of the “explicit” approach to CSR, thus
indicating that the commitment to CSR is the result of the corporate perception of the way
in which these issues combine social and business values. Differently, other institutional
settings tend to have a more “implicit” approach where CSR is considered a response to
stakeholders’ demands based on accepted values, norms and rules. Another main
contribution to the field was proposed by Albareda et al. (2007) who developed an
analytical model to understand the governmental approaches to CSR in 15 European
countries. The model identifies four ideal typologies whose differences can be explained
in terms of the differences in national public policy on CSR and institutional and relational
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 25

support from international agreements, regulations and socioeconomic, political and
cultural contexts.
More recently, the debate investigated the differences between developed and emerging
countries and findings suggest that a CSR divide exists due to the different rules, norms
and routines and responsibilities expected from companies (Amran and Haniffa, 2011;
Barkemeyer, 2011), even though a certain homogenization exists (Sobczak and Coelho,
2010). While organizations in developed areas have to adopt an active approach to
CSR-related practices, companies in emerging countries predominantly apply practices to
react to local needs (Sobczak and Coelho, 2010).
An interesting contribution to the understanding of the CSR behavior in developing
countries is offered by Jamali and Neville (2011). In their work, the authors observed a CSR
cross-vergence trend, which combines both convergence and divergence, thus resulting
in a complex hybridized CSR expressions. More specifically, their findings “make clear that
the CSR behaviour of firms in developing countries is not just a response to global
institutional pressures, but also to national institutional pressures” (p. 616). Hence, the
converge is driven by global institutional pressures, while divergence is catalyzed by
differences in national business systems.
Drawing on these, the institutional theory has been applied here to the reporting behavior
of companies, though this area is still under-investigated and mixed results exist. Among
the most relevant contributions, Pedersen et al. (2013) analyzed the institutional pressures
for SR and concluded that new regulations have an impact on SR. Again, Jensen and Berg
(2012) found that the determinants of the choice between traditional SR and integrated
report can be explained in terms of the institutional conditions under which companies
operate. Another suggestion comes from the work by Fifka and Drabble (2012) who
inferred that the “overall impact of the cultural and socio-economic environment on reporting
practices is mixed, whereas the influence of company characteristics is only marginal”
(p. 20). Michelon (2011) highlighted that European companies disclose more than those in
the USA, and Habisch et al. (2011) found that Europeans also report on a wider spectrum
of CSR issues before several groups of stakeholders.
Before this backdrop, the results of the analysis will be discussed against the characteristics of
the institutional characteristics of the national contexts represented in the sample and briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
The national business system and corporate social responsibility in Italy

With a gross domestic product (GDP) of US$1.980bn, Italy is the eighth-largest economy
in the world. The Italian system is based on the concept of the welfare state, where the
government is largely engaged in the promotion of services to guarantee the well-being of
citizens (Albareda et al., 2007). In this sense, private initiatives in both profit and non-profit
sectors are acknowledged to have a complementary role in economic and social growth
(Habisch et al., 2011; Perrini, 2006). The Italian government has promoted a series of
centralized and decentralized initiatives to foster corporate culture and awareness of
social, environmental and sustainability issues. For instance, in 2004, the National Ministry
of Welfare launched the CSR-Social Commitment to disseminate a common culture of
responsibility within the industrial system (Perrini, 2006) and to decentralize the promotion
of CSR to regional governments to pressure firms’ commitment.
These interventions are both business-driven and society-driven, thus highlighting the
relevance of the competitiveness as well as the societal support dimension (Albareda et al.,
2006). In line with this consideration, studies have shown that Italian firms engage in CSR
activities in search of legitimacy and consensus from networks of local stakeholders
(Del Baldo, 2012).
PAGE 26 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

The abovementioned work by Albareda et al. (2007) identifies the Italian CSR approach as
the “Agora model”. This model describes those countries where CSR is promoted through
governmental actions and policies based on the widespread involvement of political,
societal and corporate representatives. Moreover, the Italian context is characterized by a
high level of labor union membership and by the nationally and regionally based
negotiations of the labor contract (Checchi and Lucifora, 2002), which affect the Italian
labor market and HR policies (Habisch et al., 2011). The past decade has seen a shift in the
relationships among government, trade unions and firms for the definition of the labor
conditions, which promote a wider collaboration and a decentralized bargaining activity
(Maino and Mallone, 2012) in line with the broad involvement which characterizes the Italian
model suggested by Albareda et al. (2007).
Due to the Agora Model and the role of trade unions, Italian companies are under
institutional pressures to improve the social and environmental standards along their value
chain. While the government holds the responsibility to provide basic services for citizens
and to promote the solutions of general societal problems, firms are expected to do their
best to improve their operations to promote positive impacts – or at least to avoid negative
ones – on their direct stakeholders (Secchi, 2006). Institutional pressure fosters the
isomorphism mechanism, which results in a general perception of engagement in social
issues as being mandatory to properly operate within the Italian social context (Habisch
et al., 2011). Consequently, SR becomes the way to demonstrate both compliance with the
regulatory system and alignment with social requests within the national context (Dunfee,
2008) and to prove commitment to the larger base of stakeholders (Habisch et al., 2011).
For the sake of the national comparison presented in the following paragraphs, the
abovementioned considerations are also in line with the work of Michelon (2011), who
found that European companies generally disclose more than US companies.
The national business system and corporate social responsibility in the USA
The USA is the world’s largest economy, with a GDP of US$15.880bn in 2012 (International
Monetary Fund, 2012). In contrast to the Italian context, the American economic system is
characterized by a limited intervention of the government in the economy, and government
economic activities that rarely deviate from free market principles (Habisch et al., 2011).
The lack of national systems for social welfare has been a powerful driver of the diffusion
of CSR practices in the USA, as this lack leaves space for corporate initiatives. This
approach has been identified as “explicit CSR” (Matten and Moon, 2008). Hence, American
companies tend to focus on these activities, which combine the response to societal needs
with the creation of corporate profitability (Buehler and Shetty, 1974). Accordingly, most
CSR initiatives are expected to be defined by an instrumental approach (Donaldson and
Preston, 1995) and thus to aim at increasing financial performance or intangible resources
(Surroca et al., 2010). In this sense, US firms conceive of CSR as a practice to encourage
stakeholder commitment and deliver higher value to shareholders (Barnett, 2007).
This approach is also pushed by the role shareholders play in US companies, due to the
importance of stock markets in the national business system (Habisch et al., 2011; Maignan
and Ralston, 2002). Accordingly, companies tend to focus their CSR commitment to
respond to shareholders’ needs and concerns by realizing CSR initiatives which fit the
strategic objectives of firms (Lewis and Mackenzie, 2000).
An earlier study by Maignan and Ralston (2002) found that US companies tend to focus on
community issues rather than considering the social and environmental impacts
determined by operational processes. As the authors suggest, these results are in line with
the historical role of business activity in community development, a role that has often
pushed US companies to engage in philanthropic rather than production-related CSR
activities. However, corporate behavior is mainly driven by strategy (Matten and Moon,

2008) rather than the willingness to respond to a significant number of stakeholders needs
(Habisch et al., 2011).
SR in the USA supports the “explicit” approach, which demonstrates the relevance of CSR
commitment to corporate strategy by highlighting the contribution of social and
environmental initiatives to financial and social performance (Maignan and Ralston, 2002).
The national business system and corporate social responsibility in Brazil

In 2012, Brazil was the seventh-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of US$2,425bn
(International Monetary Fund, 2012). The active participation of the government in
economic activities has played an important part in the economic development of Brazil.
Although the concept of CSR was first introduced by the Association of Christian
Entrepreneurs in 1961 (Colares Oliveira et al., 2009), it is since the 1980s that the Brazilian
government has promoted initiatives to support social programs and encourage civil
participation, focusing on the most critical social and environmental problems within the
country (da Motta and Ouverney, 2015; Damiano-Teixeira and Pompermayer, 2007;
Gresse, 2007; Vivarta and Canela, 2006). A key step on environmental issues was taken in
1981 when the Brazilian Government promulgated the Brazilian National Policy on natural
environment (Lei 6.938/1981, Política Nacional de Meio Ambiente Brasileira). This law was
then followed by the Resolution n. 001/86 published by the Conselho Nacional do Meio
Ambiente (CONAMA), which defined the responsibilities, criteria and general directives for
the Assessment of Environmental Impact (Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental – AIA), Thus,
environment became a fundamental pillar for the societal development and was pushed
forward as a matter of interest for all public and private actors, as demonstrated also by the
definition of the law n. 9,605/98 on environmental crimes (Hayashi and de Almeida, 2015;
Abreu, 2009). However, according to Abreu et al. (2015a), in contrast to the increase in
regulatory pressures on environmental issues, Brazilian actors tend to show more concern
with social inequalities (education, health and poverty) than with environmental impacts
(Mattar, 2008).
Business and civic organizations have also developed a number of actions and programs
aimed at promoting a higher involvement of business in national interests (Gresse, 2007).
Extant works relate the rapid growth in the Brazilian private sector’s commitment to CSR to
the growing pressures to support institutional and governmental interventions in favor of
societal advancement (Abreu et al., 2010; Boudon, 2002). This societal role of Brazilian
companies is underlined also by Amcham-SP (the American Chamber of Commerce for
Brazil), which proposed that responsible companies should contribute to the
implementation of public policies and act as agents of social development: “Conhecer os
programas governamentais é um passo fundamental nesse processo, a partir do qual a
empresa pode identificar oportunidades de inserção, por meio da disponibilização de
recursos, da capacitação de agentes e da mobilização de outras organizações e demais
stakeholders, entra outras inicaitivas. Ao atuar alinhada às políticas públicas, a empresa
pode contribuir para o fortalecimento do papel do Estado [. . .] na busca de soluções
efetivas para os problemas sociais existentes”[1] (de Melo Rico, 2004, p. 80). The
commitment to societal issues was not traditionally part of the corporate culture, and the
social intervention was mainly made through single and standalone philanthropic actions
(de Melo Rico, 2004; Rico, 2002). Starting from the 1990s, however, companies have
invested in the social area either directly or through donations to third parties (Duarte, 2010;
IPEA, 2003) and have included social and environmental activities into their daily business
management (Bianchi et al., 2013; Ashley, 2005). This impetus can be mainly related to the
growing debate over the environmental and social conditions at the institutional level
(Souza and Ribeiro, 2013).
More recently, according to Gresse (2007), “Brazil has been experimenting with a new
formula to combat poverty and to develop equal and democratic structures while at the

same time pursuing advances in its economy”, suggesting that the country is moving
toward the integration of the efforts of different factors for the solution of societal problems
that still exist.
However, the discourse on CSR in Brazil is still under construction, as the Brazilian society
is now becoming more pro-active and conscious about irresponsible practices and more
attentive to opportunities for sustainable development (Abreu et al., 2015b, 2010; Bandeira
and Lopez-Parra, 2009; Ashley, 2005).
Nowadays, growing pressures are put to the recognition of a new role of companies within
society, with increased focus on local communities and the environment (Jamali and
Mirshak, 2007; Coutinho and Macedo-Soares, 2002). Firms are increasingly expected to
contribute to solutions for social problems that are important to the population’s quality of
life, issues such as reducing economic inequalities, sustainable urban development,
preserving the natural environment and increasing the educational level (Muller and Kolk,
2009; Porto and Milanez, 2009; Griesse, 2007; Logsdon et al., 2006; Kraisornsuthasinee
and Swierczek, 2006;de Melo Rico, 2004).
Starting from these considerations from both Brazilian and international literature, it is
possible to expect that SR explains the positive effects that the business activity generates
over societal problems and the stakeholders’ quality of life, as well as environmental
protection, rather than demonstrating compliance to institutional requirements and seeking

broad stakeholder recognition and consensus.
Methodology
Sampling and data collection
Data were collected from a sample of 150 companies, divided in three national sub-groups
including the 50 biggest listed companies for capitalization in each of the three considered
countries at December 31, 2009. Following earlier studies on institutional theory, we
focused on large companies because they are traditionally considered as highly
representative of the institutional context (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008; Habisch et al.,
2011; Reverte, 2009) and more subject to institutional pressures than small and medium
enterprises (Purushothaman et al., 2000; Xueming and Bhattacharya, 2006).
Data were gathered from the 2010 SR published by the identified companies. Because SR
is a voluntarily practice, some of the analyzed companies did not publish a SR in 2010, but
they decided to report social or environmental information in a section of their annual report
(Jensen and Berg, 2012; Llena et al., 2007). For this reason, when the SR was not available,
we analyzed the annual report. Among the 150 companies in the sample, 89 published a
SR and 61 have annual reports. The distribution of the sample by type and industry is
reported in Table I.
Measures and analysis

Once reports were downloaded, the type and amount of information provided in the reports
were analyzed through a content analysis methodology (Krippendorff, 2004). This
methodology allows the researchers to codify the contents of written documents into
categories and to transform text into quantitative scales (Weber, 1988). We relied on
codification of contents because it overcomes the potential overestimation related to
content analysis based on word counting, and it has been extensively replicated in studies
on SR (among others: Holder-Webb, 2007; Deegan and Rankin, 1996).
To overcome the limits of those studies only focused on the presence or absence of
information (Haniffa and Cooke, 2005), a coding scale to represent a conceptual
analysis was adopted. Following Holder-Webb et al. (2009), the coverage of a given
topic within the document was evaluated using a seven-point Likert scale (0 ⫽ No

Table I Sampling
Institutional contexts
Description Total Italy Brazil USA
Final sample 150 50 50 50

Companies with annual report 61 30 19 12
Companies with sustainability report 89 20 31 38
Companies by industry
Basic Materials 23 10 4 9
Energy, Oil and Gas 26 9 12 5
Financials and Real Estate 37 12 18 7
Manufacturing 18 4 9 5
Services 16 9 2 5
Technology 30 6 5 19
Number of employees
Mean 75,804 22,008 29,188 170,508
SD 193,361 37,937 42,891 303,222
mention; 1 ⫽ Mentioned, but only in reference to another document or statement; 2 ⫽

Brief mention with little or no detail; 3 ⫽ Discussion with some detail but not extensive
detail; 4 ⫽ Detailed discussion; 5 ⫽ Discussion that comprises over 50 per cent of

the document text; and 6 ⫽ Document completely dedicated to discussion). This scale
allows coding for both the existence (codes of zero versus non-zero) and the relative
degree of dedication to the issue considered (1-6). According to Branco and Rodrigues
(2008), 36 items were ranked, and these items were grouped into five macro-areas:
environmental disclosure (ten items), human resource disclosure (nine items), customer
disclosure (five items), community disclosure (five items) and supplier disclosure (eight
items).
The coding process was run by three researchers independently with more than ten
years of experience on SR. Following Milne and Adler’s (1999) suggestions, the three
reviewers run a learning cycle of analysis on 20 reports before starting the coding
process. Of the 36 variables, 27 had inter-rater correlations of 100 per cent and others
showed correlation exceeding 0.70, which were greater than the acceptable cut-off
(Neuendorf, 2002).
After the scoring phase, an index for each macro-area was calculated as the mean of the
scores of the related items. In accordance with Branco and Rodrigues (2008), we excluded
the items that none of the companies operating in the same industry had reported on. This
is consistent with the general principle of materiality, derived from financial reporting, which
asks firms to focus on considering the relevant aspects and indicators that reflect the
social, environmental and economic impact of the organization or those that impact on
stakeholder decisions (Chia-Wei et al., 2013).
Descriptive statistics of the overall collected scores and differences by industries are
reported in Table II. At a more general level, the results do not reveal industry-related
effects in any of the countries considered, with the only exception being supplier-related
issues for Brazilian companies.
Differences among Italy, the USA and Brazil were tested through a set of both parametric
(ANOVAs) and non-parametric (Kruskal–Wallis) tests. The significance of influence of
adoption of international guidelines from the GRI as an antecedent of ratings was also
tested, and the relationship with the disclosure index was not significant (p ⬍ 0.05). Before
starting these tests, we used z-scores to identify univariate outliers for each variable. As the
standard score ranges from ⫺2.5 to ⫹2.5, we did not identify any outliers for the univariate
variables we used (Sincich, 1995).

Table II Differences in SR by industry
Energy Financials
Basic oil and and real
materials gas estateManufacture Services
Technology Univariate analysis
Industry M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD ANOVAKruskal–Wallis
Brazil
Environmental 2.16 1.15 2.48 1.33 2.49 1.21 2.05 0.78 1.73 1.41 2.22 1.26 F ⫽ 0.49 ␹2 ⫽ 2.53
Human resource 1.76 0.88 1.56 1.05 1.69 1.12 1.83 1.08 1.72 1.00 1.22 0.90 F ⫽ 0.29 ␹2 ⫽ 1.63
Customer 1.46 1.20 2.09 1.20 2.07 1.34 1.75 1.24 2.29 1.39 2.23 1.11 F ⫽ 0.54 ␹2 ⫽ 2.61
Community 1.68 1.00 1.91 0.81 1.65 0.70 2.35 1.15 1.93 1.36 1.87 1.12 F ⫽ 0.37 ␹2 ⫽ 1.65
Supplier 0.97 0.83 1.81 1.02 1.51 1.20 0.32 0.41 1.05 1.08 1.10 0.98 F ⫽ 1.64** ␹2 ⫽ 7.01**
Sustainability 1.66 0.84 1.98 0.77 1.92 0.95 1.66 0.60 1.70 1.09 1.70 0.72 F ⫽ 0.23 ␹2 ⫽ 1.07
Italia
Environmental 1.95 1.56 2.82 0.95 1.48 1.26 1.48 1.47 2.05 1.48 2.20 0.95 F ⫽ 1.99 ␹2 ⫽ 9.52
Human resource 2.14 0.79 2.56 0.75 2.23 1.16 1.88 0.95 2.28 1.65 2.69 0.47 F ⫽ 0.72 ␹2 ⫽ 2.94
Customer 1.45 0.91 1.82 0.99 2.19 1.58 1.56 1.08 1.30 1.84 2.00 1.03 F ⫽ 0.51 ␹2 ⫽2.87
Community 0.95 1.17 2.13 1.03 2.28 1.29 1.27 1.37 1.00 1.41 2.44 0.77 F ⫽ 1.86 ␹2 ⫽ 7.74
Supplier 0.79 0.88 1.44 0.83 1.00 0.87 0.70 0.96 0.79 1.11 1.37 0.82 F ⫽ 1.01 ␹2 ⫽ 4.38
USA
Environmental 1.68 1.26 2.30 1.44 2.31 0.82 1.44 1.20 2.52 0.36 1.59 1.20 F ⫽ 1.10 ␹2 ⫽ 5.18
Human resource 1.68 1.39 2.53 0.60 2.35 0.73 1.38 1.39 2.13 0.72 1.50 1.08 F ⫽ 1.40 ␹2 ⫽ 5.48
Customer 1.04 1.08 1.60 1.16 1.57 1.07 1.08 1.10 2.08 0.66 0.96 1.01 F ⫽ 1.31 ␹2 ⫽ 5.94
Community 1.67 1.41 2.76 1.27 2.46 1.11 1.64 1.44 2.88 0.76 1.94 1.46 F ⫽ 1.05 ␹2 ⫽ 5.15
Supplier 0.67 0.97 0.63 0.81 0.92 0.67 0.69 1.07 1.63 0.70 0.63 0.79 F ⫽ 1.27 ␹2 ⫽ 6.77
Total
Environmental 2.10 1.22 2.67 1.11 1.89 1.32 1.65 1.29 1.79 1.35 2.21 1.08 F ⫽ 1.55 ␹2 ⫽ 9.10
Human resource 1.87 0.85 2.13 1.01 2.01 1.16 1.86 0.94 1.82 1.06 1.89 1.04 F ⫽ 0.23 ␹2 ⫽ 5.98
Customer 1.46 1.09 1.93 1.07 2.14 1.47 1.62 1.08 2.11 1.43 2.13 1.03 F ⫽ 0.84 ␹2 ⫽ 9.17
Community 1.47 1.06 2.04 0.93 2.03 1.12 1.60 1.36 1.76 1.35 2.13 0.98 F ⫽ 0.85 ␹2 ⫽ 5.00
Supplier 0.92 0.82 1.60 0.91 1.20 1.02 0.58 0.83 1.00 1.04 1.22 0.88 F ⫽ 2.18* ␹2 ⫽ 10.86*
Notes: *Significant at the 0.10 level; **significant at the 0.05 level
Results
Table III presents means and standard deviations, together with ANOVAs, Kruskal–Wallis
tests and the total explained variance. In addition, 42 multivariate ordinary least squares
(OLS) regressions were run to investigate the robustness of significant differences in codes
and to verify fixed effects. The adjusted R2 and the level of significance of the variable
“institutional context” in the 36 regressions are presented in Table III, while details on OLS
process, and results are available in Appendix 1.
Differences among institutional contexts emerge. Indeed, the analysis showed that the
social and environmental topics emphasized in the documents vary in the three national
contexts, thus suggesting that the national context has an impact on reporting.
Starting with the Italy, the analysis found significant results regarding the human resources
area. Italian companies are the most engaged in reporting about their employee
relationships, with particular focus on employee health and safety (3.36), training (3.24),
profiles (2.86) and industrial relations (2.16).
Moving to Brazil, the scoring concerning “Environment” shows that significant differences
exist compared with the other two contexts especially with regards to environmental
policies (3.44), the conservation of energy in the conduct of business operations (3.20) and
the energy efficiency of products (2.62). On the subject of human resources, Brazilian
companies demonstrate greater attention to employee morale (2.52), whereas the other

Table III Differences in SR by country

Institutional contexts Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Total Italy Brazil USA Country
PAGE 32 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

Item M SD M SD M SD M SD ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis R2 sig
Environmental
Environmental policy 3.01 1.63 2.24 1.33 3.44 1.69 3.34 1.59 F ⫽ 9.72** ␹2 ⫽ 18.83*** 0.18 ***
Environmental management. systems
2
and audit 2.04 1.74 1.64 1.37 1.42 1.69 3.06 1.68 F ⫽ 15.72** ␹ ⫽ 0.52 0.03
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Pollution from business operations 2.26 1.76 2.38 1.79 2.50 1.54 1.90 1.90 F ⫽ 1.64 ␹2 ⫽ 0.01 0.03
Pollution arising from use of product 1.59 1.66 1.80 1.47 2.06 1.66 0.90 1.64 F ⫽ 7.30** ␹2 ⫽ 0.96 0.04
Discussion of specific environmental
law and regulations 1.03 1.31 1.52 1.18 1.14 1.48 0.44 1.01 F ⫽ 9.73** ␹2 ⫽ 2.47 0.04
Prevention or repair of damage to the
2
environment 2.28 1.57 2.36 1.59 1.98 1.48 2.50 1.63 F ⫽ 1.47 ␹ ⫽ 1.92 0.05
Conservation of natural resources
and recycling activities 2.60 1.64 2.50 1.72 2.62 1.66 2.68 1.57 F ⫽ 0.15 ␹2 ⫽ 0.17 0.02
Sustainability 1.36 1.64 1.18 1.60 1.20 1.51 1.70 1.79 F ⫽ 1.62 ␹2 ⫽ 0.03 0.05
Conservation of energy in the
conduct of business operations 2.38 1.82 2.22 1.68 3.20 1.68 1.72 1.82 F ⫽ 9.50** ␹2 ⫽ 10.26*** 0.12 ***
Energy efficiency of products 1.49 1.68 1.50 1.37 2.62 1.71 0.34 1.06 F ⫽ 32.77** ␹2 ⫽ 14.26*** 0.16 ***
Environmental disclosure index 1.91 1.04 1.93 0.96 2.22 0.98 1.86 1.10 F ⫽ 1.21 ␹2 ⫽ 0.68 0.05
Human resource
Employee health and safety 2.71 1.74 3.36 1.44 2.34 1.99 2.44 1.59 F ⫽ 5.54** ␹2 ⫽ 5.92** 0.11 **
Employment of minorities or woman 1.99 1.72 2.10 1.68 2.12 1.71 1.74 1.77 F ⫽ 0.77** ␹2 ⫽ 0.01 0.01
Employee training 2.83 1.63 3.24 1.53 2.40 1.68 2.84 1.61 F ⫽ 3.42** ␹2 ⫽ 6.48** 0.09 ***
Employee assistance/benefit 2.15 1.57 2.20 1.41 2.02 1.66 2.22 1.64 F ⫽ 0.24 ␹2 ⫽ 0.05 0.01
Employee remuneration 1.67 1.54 1.94 1.39 0.98 1.32 2.10 1.67 F ⫽ 8.53** ␹2 ⫽ 10.82*** 0.13 ***
Employee profiles 1.82 1.48 2.86 1.23 1.78 1.20 0.82 1.27 F ⫽ 34.18** ␹2 ⫽ 19.69*** 0.17 ***
Employee share purchase schemes 0.99 1.25 1.30 1.33 0.22 0.68 1.46 1.25 F ⫽ 18.03** ␹2 ⫽ 21.06*** 0.24 ***
Employee morale 1.80 1.55 1.42 1.33 2.52 1.66 1.46 1.42 F ⫽ 8.97** ␹2 ⫽ 12.19*** 0.13 ***
Industrial relations 1.23 1.53 2.16 1.52 0.36 0.78 1.16 1.60 F ⫽ 22.39** ␹2 ⫽ 34.62*** 0.36 ***
Human resource disclosure index 2.00 1.22 2.29 1.30 1.64 1.21 1.80 1.14 F ⫽ 5.53** ␹2 ⫽ 10.97*** 0.11 **
(continued)
Table III
Institutional contexts Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Total Italy Brazil USA Country
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis R2 sig
Customer
Product safety 1.79 1.69 2.06 1.45 2.52 1.69 0.80 1.44 F ⫽ 16.88** ␹2 ⫽ 3.16* 0.03
Product quality 2.48 1.54 2.64 1.37 2.90 1.43 1.90 1.64 F ⫽ 6.10** ␹2 ⫽ 1.42 0.02
Disclosing of consumer safety
practices 1.61 1.65 1.48 1.47 2.40 1.68 0.94 1.48 F ⫽ 11.40** ␹2 ⫽ 8.73*** 0.10 ***
Consumer complaints/satisfaction 1.69 1.81 2.18 1.87 0.72 1.33 2.16 1.82 F ⫽ 12.26** ␹2 ⫽ 16.64*** 0.23 ***
Provision for disabled, aged and
difficult-to-reach consumers 0.94 1.48 1.00 1.47 1.38 1.71 0.44 1.07 F ⫽ 5.37** ␹2 ⫽ 1.39 0.03
Customer disclosure 1.70 1.22 1.87 1.25 1.98 1.23 1.25 1.05 F ⫽ 5.63** ␹2 ⫽ 0.16 0.03
Community
Charitable donations and activities 2.75 1.51 2.38 1.50 2.76 1.53 3.10 1.43 F ⫽ 2.93* ␹2 ⫽ 1.92 0.06
Support for education 2.55 1.61 2.10 1.39 2.92 1.63 2.62 1.71 F ⫽ 3.44** ␹2 ⫽ 7.99*** 0.09 ***
Support for arts and culture 1.75 1.70 2.02 1.57 1.02 1.45 2.20 1.84 F ⫽ 7.62** ␹2 ⫽ 10.44*** 0.14 ***
Support for public health 1.81 1.76 1.78 1.50 2.36 1.98 1.28 1.61 F ⫽ 4.99** ␹2 ⫽ 2.53 0.06
Support for sport or recreating
projects 0.93 1.34 1.32 1.28 0.12 0.48 1.34 1.65 F ⫽ 15.92** ␹2 ⫽ 29.15*** 0.34 ***
Community disclosure index 1.95 1.19 1.92 1.25 1.84 0.97 2.83 1.34 F ⫽ 0.67 ␹2 ⫽ 0.99 0.05
Supplier
Suppliers’ profiles 2.75 1.51 2.38 1.50 2.76 1.53 3.10 1.43 F ⫽ 8.54** ␹2 ⫽ 4.01** 0.12 **
Respect of contract clauses and anti-
2
corruption policies 2.55 1.61 2.10 1.39 2.92 1.63 2.62 1.71 F ⫽ 0.25 ␹ ⫽ 0.00 0.01
Codes of conduct and (inter)national
standards and initiatives 1.75 1.70 2.02 1.57 1.02 1.45 2.20 1.84 F ⫽ 2.10 ␹2 ⫽ 0.5 0.02
Controls and monitoring of suppliers’
compliance 1.81 1.76 1.78 1.50 2.36 1.98 1.28 1.62 F ⫽ 1.40 ␹2 ⫽ 0.14 0.04
Health and safety in suppliers’ plants 0.93 1.36 1.32 1.28 0.12 0.48 1.34 1.65 F ⫽ 14.97** ␹2 ⫽ 0.85 0.02
Product/Service quality and safety
control 1.95 1.20 1.92 1.26 1.84 0.97 2.11 1.34 F ⫽ 2.91* ␹2 ⫽ 0.01 0.04
Support to supplier development 2.75 1.51 2.38 1.50 2.76 1.53 3.10 1.43 F ⫽ 2.65* ␹2 ⫽ 4.40** 0.15 ***
Supplier disclosure index 2.55 1.61 2.10 1.39 2.92 1.63 2.62 1.71 F ⫽ 2.95* ␹2 ⫽ 0.72 0.03
Mean of total disclosure 1.74 0.93 1.84 1.01 1.80 0.85 1.59 0.94 F ⫽ 1.07 ␹2 ⫽ 0.22 0.03
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Notes: *Significant at the 0.10 level; **significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level; aDetails on multivariate ordinary latent square regressions analysis are available in Appendix 1
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

PAGE 33
issues are less considered. Similarly, they report more on consumer safety practices (2.40)
than Italian and US companies, whereas the other issues regarding consumers do not
differ. Another area of interest for Brazilian companies is education (2.92), with the highest
mean score.
Eventually, American companies disclose more about remuneration (2.10) and share
purchase schemes (1.46). On community, American companies account mainly on arts
and culture (2.20) and sports and recreational activities (1.34). The analysis also shows that
American companies provide more information on suppliers’ profiles (3.10) and
development (3.10).
Discussion
Findings confirm that companies in the three considered institutional contexts show
significant differences in SR. Based on previous literature, this result suggests that
notwithstanding the global converge toward international standards of reporting (i.e. GRI),
SR is still affected by the institutional context wherein a company operates. Hence, the
study supports the suggestion by Jamali and Neville (2011) who found that firms in
developing countries are susceptible to local isomorphism, although to some extent they
also consider global institutional pressures. To a closer look, the study extends this
observation also to developed countries, as the Italian and American companies show a
different pattern of CSR behavior which is influenced by the characteristics of the national
institutional setting.
Results seem therefore to be in favor of a divergent dynamic, but this should not drive to
look for radical and profound differences in SR. Rather, it suggests that companies tend to
build their SR on a broad and common base of information usually derived from
international initiatives, but they tend to pay higher attention to and stress more those
aspects which are object of local institutional pressures.
More in details, results pointed out that Italian and American companies emphasize the
information focused on topics related to specific stakeholders. Differently, Brazilian
accentuate those contents which demonstrate their contributions to widespread societal
issues. Environmental conservation and education are two of the most critical societal
issues in Brazil (Muller and Kolk, 2009). This result is in line with extant literature on
emerging countries, which relates CSR commitment to the focal role companies are
acknowledged in societal advancement (Abreu et al., 2010).
A more analytical examination of findings identifies some specific patterns of behavior in
the SR of companies in the considered countries.
The greater amount of attention Italian companies give to report about human resources
issues accords with the important role labor unions have historically had in the Italian
context as confirmed by the number of union members in Italy which is the highest in
Europe (Checchi and Lucifora, 2002). Moreover, unions’ role has changed over the years
from an antagonist to a privileged interlocutor of business, thus promoting the engagement
of a broader base of social actors into the dialogue around economic and labor conditions
(Del Conte, 2007). The disclosure of a wider base of information about employees’ living
and working conditions is driven by institutional pressures which support a more decisive
role in industrial relationships. This result is in accordance with Albareda et al. (2007), who
suggested that the engagement of Italian firms to CSR activities is fostered by institutional
interventions and consensus from society.
Moving to Brazil, the approach to SR is again aligned with the institutional setting. Indeed,
the results of the analysis have underlined that the Brazilian SR focuses on energy
conservation, employee morale, consumer safety and support for education. Therefore,
evidence shows that Brazilian companies tend to give evidence of the positive impact that
their operations have on societal progress. Although this is more easily understood as far

as employee morale and consumer safety are concerned, the commitment to energy
savings also responds to societal needs. Indeed, according to the US Energy Information
Administration, Brazil is “the ninth largest energy consumer in the world and the third largest
in the Western Hemisphere, behind the USA and Canada. Total primary energy
consumption in Brazil has increased by close to a third in the last decade due to sustained
economic growth”. The increase in energy usage is strictly linked to the rapid process of
industrial and societal development (Geller et al., 2004). Similarly, high scores on education
are related to societal needs. In the words of the World Bank, education is globally
considered “the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and inequality and for laying
a foundation for sustained economic growth” (www.databank.worldwide.org). Moreover,
according to UNESCO, “as of 2006, about 14 million Brazilian youth, adults, and elderly
people had little or no reading and writing skills” (www.unesco.org), thus calling for
coordinated initiatives to tackle the problem. The Brazilian Ministério da Educação has
engaged in a wide-reaching educational program to reduce illiteracy in the country since
2003 (Programa Brasil Alfabetizado – PBA), stressing the relevance of the topic for the
societal development of the country (www.portal.mec.gov.br/). Hence, it is reasonable to
attribute corporate disclosure of their support of the educational system to the recognition
of the importance of this issue in the institutional contexts (Damiano-Teixeira and
Pompermayer, 2007).
Finally, the US approach emerged as more distinguished than the previous two institutional
contexts because of its higher effort to provide data on supplier-related issues. The US
context is characterized by a general freedom from governmental interventions, which
leaves space for corporate initiatives (Habisch et al., 2011; Matten and Moon, 2008).
Hence, US companies tend to adopt a strategic approach and to respond to those social
and environmental issues more directly related to corporate performance. Considering the
results of the present study, the link to previous studies and to the institutional context is
less evident than the other two countries. However, the past few decades have been
characterized by various scandals involving American MNCs due to deceitful practices
toward suppliers in distant countries (among others: Nike and human rights; Mattel and
lead paint on toys, GAP and sweatshop, Wal-Mart and labor conditions, Levi Strauss and
workers’ exploitation). Hence, companies increasingly acknowledged that the capability to
integrate CSR issues along supply chains contributes to protecting a competitive
advantage. The importance of a sustainable supply chain in the US context is further
confirmed by the development of a new criterion called “Supply Chain Management” by
SAM for the 2012 assessment of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.
Conclusions and limitations

This study has investigated the role of institutional settings in affecting SR through the
in-depth analysis of 150 reports, equally distributed among listed companies in Italy, the
USA and Brazil. Results observed a relationship between the SR and the characteristics of
institutional contexts, thus suggesting that while there is a general acceptance and use of
international SR standards and initiatives, the content is influenced by and shaped on the
characteristics of the national institutional context. In other words, although a widely
diffused base of data and information can be found in the SR of companies in different
contexts, the accent is put on specific issues which reflect the political, cultural, religious,
legal and otherwise defined institutions in the national system.
The generalizability of the results of the research was reduced by some limitations in the
research design. First, the sample is limited to 150 companies and the analysis only
covered one year time. This limitation was determined by the method of content-analysis
and multiple researchers’ coding adopted which are highly time-consuming. Future
research could extend the perimeter of the study, both enlarging the countries considered
and extending the period. Thus, the generalizability of results would be more reliable and

more precise statistical analysis would be possible to explore potential influences between
the different issues. Second, the study is based on the content analysis of the reports,
which did not allow more in-depth consideration over the antecedent decision-making
process on the choice of the issues to report on and the reasons behind it. Further
development could consider to combine different research methods in a quali-quantitative
study. In this sense, for example, interviews with the managers of the considered
companies as well as representatives of international SR initiatives could offer interesting
insights on the convergence versus divergence dynamics. Another relevant limitation is the
exclusion of small- and medium-sized enterprises from the sample, which raises concerns
about the possibility that the SR in small- and medium-sized enterprises could be subject
to different institutional pressures than larger ones. The abovementioned limitation could
suggest possible further research on institutional context and SR, proposing the
opportunity to extend the multinational analysis into new geographical areas and the
opportunity to develop new studies which rely on a larger sample that could include small-
and medium-sized enterprises as well.
The research has some important theoretical implications. At the research level, the area of
operation and the characteristics of the institutional context have emerged as relevant
variables in the studies about SR to avoid bias or misinterpretation of data. Moreover,
researches on SR in the context of MNC would benefit from the cross-country comparison,
which may help further explore the combination of convergence versus divergence trends
and may make differences in the behavior of the branches in different national institutional
contexts (Jamali and Neville, 2011; Chapple and Moon, 2005).
From the managerial side, the present study helps managers identify the informational
needs of the various stakeholders in different institutional contexts, thus suggesting that
managers could improve the efficacy of SR by giving more relevance to those issues which
are more aligned to the characteristics of the institutional and national business systems.
This capability is crucial for the effectiveness of the SR, and it strengthens the institutional
and relational networks of the organization. In addition, the present results suggest that
when performing the benchmark toward, for instance, competitors and best-in-class,
managers had better draw the frame of the institutional contexts to identify its relevant
characteristics which will allow making a better and more reliable evaluation.
Note
1. Knowing the governmental programs is a fundamental step in this process, from which a company
can identify opportunities, through the provision of resources, the training of agents and the
mobilization of other organizations and stakeholders, among others. By acting in line with public
policies, the company can contribute to strengthening the role of the State [. . .] in the search for
effective solutions to existing societal problems (translation by the author).
References
Abreu, M.C.S. (2009), “How to define an environmental policy to improve corporate sustainability in
developing countries”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 542-556.
Abreu, M.C.S.D., Cunha, L.T.D. and Barlow, C.Y. (2015a), “Institutional dynamics and organizations
affecting the adoption of sustainable development in the United Kingdom and Brazil”, Business Ethics:
A European Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 73-90.
Abreu, M.C.S.D., Silva Meireles, F.R.D. and Cunha, L.T.D. (2015b), “Diferentes percepções sobre a
responsabilidade social corporativa em empresas líderes do Brasil e da Índia”, Internext, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 18-29.
Abreu, M.C.S.D., Barlow, C.Y., Silva Filho, J.C.L. and Soares, F.A. (2010), “Structural reform and
environmental proactivity: the case of Brazilian companies”, RAM Revista de Administração
Mackenzie, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 154-177.
Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M. and Ysa, T. (2007), “Public policies on corporate social responsibility: the
role of governments in Europe”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 391-407.

Albareda, L., Tencati, A., Lozano, J.M. and Perrini, F. (2006), “The governments role in promoting
corporate responsibility: a comparative analysis of Italy and UK From the relational state perspective”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 386-400.
Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2011), “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a

developing country”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 141-156.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic
corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217-235.
Ashley, P. (2005), Ética e responsabilidade social nos negócios, Editora Saraiva, Rio de Janeiro.
Bandeira, M.L. and Lopez-Parra, F. (2009), “Brazil: CSR under construction”, in Idowu, S.O. and
Leal Filho, W. (Eds), Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, Berlin.
Barkemeyer, R. (2011), “Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and

developing countries: constituting a CSR divide?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 257-281.
Barnett, M.L. (2007), “Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate
social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 794-816.
Berthelot, S., Coulmont, M. and Serret, V. (2012), “Do investors value sustainability reports? A
Canadian Study”, Corporate Social Responsibility and environmental management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 355-363.
Bianchi, M., Domingues Faé, M., Gelatti, R. and Leão da Rocha, J. (2013), “A responsabilidade Social
como parte integrante da cultura organizacional em empresas socialmente responsáveis: análise de
conteúdo entre a prática e o discurso”, Estratégia & Negócios, Florianópolis, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 160-191.
Bondy, K., Moon, J. and Matten, D. (2012), “An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
multi-national corporations (MNCs): form and implications”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111 No. 2,
pp. 281-299.
Boudon, A. (2002), “Social S.A. que dá [Social works]”, Conjuntura Econômica, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 31-35.
Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2004), “Voluntary social disclosures by large UK companies”, Business
Ethics A European Review, Vol. 13 Nos 2/3, pp. 86-99.
Brammer, S.J. and Pavelin, S. (2008), “Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental
disclosure”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 120-136.
Brammer, S.J., Jackson, G. and Matten, D. (2012), “Corporate Social Responsibility and institutional
theory: new perspectives on private governance”, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Branco, B.C. and Rodrigues, L.L. (2008), “Factor influencing social responsibility disclosure by
Portuguese companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8, pp. 685-701.
Buehler, V.M. and Shetty, Y.K. (1974), “Motivations for corporate social action”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 767-771.
Campbell, D.J. (2007), “Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 946-967.
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia a seven-country
study of CSR web site reporting”, Business & Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-441.
Checchi, D. and Lucifora, C. (2002), “Unions and labour market institutions in Europe”, Economic
Policy, Vol. 17 No. 35, pp. 361-408.
Chia-Wei, H., Wen-Hao, L. and Wei-Chung, C. (2013), “Materiality analysis model in sustainability
reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation Original Research Article”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 57 No. 15, pp. 142-151.
Clarke, J. and Gibson-Sweet, M. (1999), “The use of corporate social disclosures in the management
of reputation and legitimacy: a cross sectoral analysis of UK top 100 companies”, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Colares Oliveira, M., Martins Mendes De Luca, M., Rodrigues Ponte, V.M. and Pontes Junior, J.E.
(2009), “Disclosure of social information by Brazilian companies according to United Nations
indicators of corporate social responsibility”, Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, Vol. 20 No. 51,
pp. 116-132.
Coutinho, R.B.G. and Macedo-Soares, T.D.L.V.A. (2002), “Gestão estratégica com responsabilidade
social: arcabouço analítico para auxiliar sua implementação em empresas no Brasil”, Revista de
Administração Contemporânea, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 75-96, available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-
65552002000300005
Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility in a global context”, in
Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J. (Eds), Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in
a Global Context, Routledge, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 3-26.
da Motta, R.S. and Ouverney, I.R. (2015), “Infraestrutura e sustentabilidade ambiental no Brasil/
Infrastructure and environmental sustainability in Brazil”, Revista de Direito da Cidade, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 760-775.
Damiano-Teixeira, K.M. and Pompermayer, M.M. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility: profile and
diagnosis of 797 programs developed in Brazil”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 112 No. 3,
pp. 343-367.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?
An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental
Protection Authority”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 50-67.
de Melo Rico, E. (2004), “A responsabilidade social empresarial e o Estado: uma aliança para o
desenvolvimento sustentável”, São Paulo em Perspectiva, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 73-82.
Del Baldo, M. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the
experience of some spirited businesses”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1-36.
Del Conte, M. (2007), “Decentralizing industrial relations and the role of labor unions and employee
representatives”, in Blanpain, R. (Ed.), Decentralizing Industrial Relations and the Role of Labor Unions
and Employee Representatives, Kluwer Law International, London.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-160.
Doh, J.P. and Guay, T.R. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in
Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 47-73.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence, and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Duarte, F. (2010), “Working with corporate social responsibility in Brazilian companies: the role of
managers’ values in the maintenance of CSR cultures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 3,
pp. 355-368.
Dunfee, T.W. (2008), “Stakeholder theory: managing corporate social responsibility in a multiple actor
context”, in Crane, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and McWilliams, A. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, NY/Oxford.
Ferri, L.M., Oelze, N., Habisch, A. and Molteni, M. (2014), “Implementation of responsible procurement
management: an institutional perspective”, Business strategy and Environment, Vol. 25 No. 4,
doi: 10.1002/bse.1870.
Fifka, M.S. (2013), “Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective
– a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-35.
Fifka, M.S. and Drabble, M. (2012), “Focus and standardization of sustainability reporting – a
comparative study of the United Kingdom and Finland”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 455-474.

Geller, H., Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A. and Tolmasquim, M. (2004), “Policies for advancing energy
efficiency and renewable energy use in Brazil”, Energy Policy, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1437-1450.
Goettsche, M., Steindl, T. and Gietl, S. (2014), “Do customers affect the value relevance of
sustainability reporting? Empirical evidence on stakeholder interdependence”, Business Strategy and
Environment, Vol. 25 No. 3, doi: 10.1002/bse.1856.
Gresse, M. (2007), “The geographic, political, and economic context for corporate social responsibility
in Brazil”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
GRI (2013), “G4 sustainability reporting guidelines”, Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosure,
Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
Griesse, M. (2007), “The geographic, political, and economic context for corporate social responsibility
in Brazil”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M. and Shwarz, C. (2011), “Different talks with different folks: a
comparative survey of stakeholder dialogue in Germany, Italy, and the US”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 381-404.
Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013), “Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,
theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 59,
pp. 5-21.
Hahn, R. and Lülfs, R. (2014), “Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting:
a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 123 No. 3,
pp. 401-420.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Haniffa, R.M. and Cooke, T.M. (2005), “The impact of culture and governance on corporate social
reporting”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 391-430.
Hayashi, C. and de Almeida, L.H. (2015), “A gestão ambiental e sustentabilidade no Brasil”, Periódico
Eletrônico Fórum Ambiental da Alta Paulista, Vol. 11 No. 7.
Holder-Webb, L. (2007), “The question of disclosure: providing a tool for evaluating management’s
discussion and analysis”, Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 301-314.
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J.R., Nath, L. and Wood, D. (2009), “The supply of corporate social
responsibility disclosures among US firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 497-527.
International Monetary Fund (2012), World Economic Outlook Database, International Monetary Fund,
Washington, DC.
IPEA – Instituto De Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (2003), Bondade ou interesse? Como e por que as
Empresas Atuam no Social, IPEA, Brasília.
Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility: theory and practice in a developing
country context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 243-262.
Jamali, D. and Neville, B. (2011), “Convergence versus divergence os CSR in developing countries:
and embedded multi-layered institutional lens”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 599-621,
doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0830-0.
Jensen, J.C. and Berg, N. (2012), “Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated
reporting: an institutionalist approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 299-316.
Kolk, A. (2008), “Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals’

reporting practices”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Kolk, A., Walhain, S. and Van de Wateringen, S. (2001), “Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global
250: exploring the influence of nationality and sector”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Kraisornsuthasinee, S. and Swierczek, F. (2006), “Interpretations of CSR in Thai companies”, Journal

of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 22, pp. 53-65.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis, Sage Publications, Sage, CA.

Leuz, C., Nanda, D. and Wysocki, P.D. (2003), “Investor protection and earnings management: an
international comparison”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 505-527.
Lewis, A. and Mackenzie, C. (2000), “Support for investor activism among UK ethical investors”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 215-222.
Llena, F., Moneva, J.M. and Hernandez, B. (2007), “Environmental disclosures and compulsory
accounting standards: the case of Spanish annual reports”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 50-63.
Logsdon, J., Thomas, D. and van Buren, H. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in large Mexican
firms”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 21, pp. 51-60.
Maignan, I. and Ralston, D. (2002), “Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US insights from
businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 497-514.
Maino, F. and Mallone, G. (2012), “Secondo Welfare e imprese: nesso e prospettive”, La Rivista delle
Politiche Sociali, Vol. 3, pp. 195-207.
Mattar, H. (2008), Pesquisa 2006/2007: Responsabilidade Social das Empresas – Percepção do

Consumidor Brasileiro, Instituto AKATU, São Paulo.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 404-424.
Michelon, G. (2011), “Sustainability disclosure and reputation: a comparative study”, Corporate

Reputation Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 79-96.
Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures
content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237-256.
Muller, A. and Kolk, A. (2009), “CSR performance in emerging markets evidence from Mexico”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 325-337.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Patel, T. and Rayner, S. (2012), “A transactional culture analysis of corporate sustainability reporting
practices: six examples from India”, Business & Society, Vol. 202 No. 6, 0007650312445132.
Pedersen, E., Neergaard, P., Pedersen, J.T. and Gwozdz, W. (2013), “Conformance and deviance:
company responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility reporting”, Business
strategy and Environment, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 357-373.
Perez-Batres, A.P.L.A., Miller, V.V., Pisani, M.J., Henriques, I. and Renau-Sepulveda, G.A.J.A. (2012),
“Why do firms engage in national sustainability programs and transparent sustainability reporting?”,
Management International Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Perrini, F. (2006), “SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and implications from an Italian perspective”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 305-316.
Porto, M.F. and Milanez, B. (2009), “Eixos de desenvolvimento econômico e geração de conflitos
socioambientais no Brasil: desafios para a sustentabilidade e a justiça ambiental”, Ciência & Saúde
Coletiva, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1983-1994.
Purushothaman, M., Tower, G., Hancock, P. and Taplin, R. (2000), “Determinants of corporate social
reporting practices of listed Singapore companies”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, p. 101.
Reverte, C. (2009), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish

listed firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 351-366.
Rico, E.M. (2002), “Gestão Social e Exclusão: o paradoxo do desenvolvimento econômico, viável,
social e ambientalmente sustentável”, Cadernos de Serviços Social, Faculdade de Serviços Social,
PUC-Campinas, Vol. 11 Nos 20/21, pp. 7-27.
Rousseeuw, P.J. and Van Zomeren, B.C. (1990), “Unmasking multivariate outliers and leverage
points”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85 No. 411, pp. 633-639.
Secchi, D. (2006), “The Italian experience in social reporting: an empirical analysis”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 135-149.

Sincich, T.L. (1995), Business Statistics by Example, 5th ed., Pearson, New Jersey.
Sobczak, A. and Coelho, M.L. (2010), “The impact and interplay of national and global CSR
discourses: insights from France and Brazil”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 445-455.
Souza, M.D. and Ribeiro, H.C.M. (2013), “Sustentabilidade ambiental: uma meta-análise da produção
brasileira em periódicos de administração”, Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 368-396.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. and Waddock, S. (2010), “Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the
role of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 463-490.
Vivarta, V. and Canela, G. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in Brazil”, Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 95-107.
Wanderley, L.S.O., Lucian, R., Farache, F. and de Sousa Filho, J.M. (2008), “CSR information
disclosure on the web: a context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and
industry sector”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 369-378.
Weber, J. and Marley, K.A. (2012), “In search of stakeholder salience: exploring corporate social and
sustainability reports”, Business & Society, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 626-649.
Weber, R. (1988), Basic Content Analysis: Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in
the Social Sciences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA and London.
Xueming, L. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction,
and market value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Further reading
Adams, C. and Harte, G. (1998), “The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British banks’
and retail companies’ corporate annual reports”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 781-812.
Alon, I., Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Li, S. and Schneider, A. (2010), “Usage of public corporate
communications of social responsibility in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)”, International Journal
of Emerging Markets, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Arya, B. and Zhang, G. (2009), “Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements:
evidence from an emerging economy”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1089-1112.
Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J.R., Nath, L. and Wood, D. (2007), “The association between disclosure,
distress and failure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 301-304.
Locke, R.M. and Romis, M. (2007), “Improving work conditions in a global supply chain”, MIT Sloan
Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 54-62.
Nyquist, S. (2003), “The legislation of environmental disclosures in three Nordic countries – a

comparison”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-25.
Powell, W. and Di Maggio, P. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Visser, W. (2008), “CSR in developing countries”, in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and
Siegel, D.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 473-499.
Corresponding author
Laura Maria Ferri can be contacted at: laura.ferri@unicatt.it
Appendix 1
To test the sensitivity of impact of countries on reporting scores, we run an OLS regression
for each of the 36 items and the mean scores for each area, as per the following formula:
Disclosure rank index/item ⫽ ␣ ⫹ ␤1Country ⫹ ␤2 Industry ⫹ ␤3 Profitability
⫹ ␤4 Firm size ⫹ ␧


Table AI OLS regression on environmental disclosure items
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Conservation of Conservation of
Environmental Pollution from Pollution arising Discussion of Prevention or repair natural resources energy in the
Environmental management systems business from use specific environmental of damage to the and recycling conduct of business Energy efficiency
Variables policy and audit operations of product law and regulations environment activities Sustainability operations of products
Constant 6.59*** 1.20 2.46*** 2.13*** ⫺0.01 1.54 2.49*** 1.13 4.91 4.46
Institutional
contexts ⫺1.34*** 0.25 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.32 0.37 0.18 ⫺0.14 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.99*** ⫺1.12***
Industry ⫺0.06 ⫺0.05 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 ⫺0.02 0.00 0.01
Profitability ⫺0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 ⫺0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01
Size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.16
F-score 5.18*** 0.70 0.70 0.95 0.97 1.31 0.53 1.09 3.12** 4.25***
Notes: **Significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level
As far as the independent variables are concerned, “Institutional contexts” refers to a

category variable for the three countries included in the sample, while “Industry”,
“Profitability” and “Firm size” were used as control variables based on previous studies
(Clarke and Gibson-Sweet, 1999; Kolk et al., 2001; Wanderley et al., 2008). The industry
was measured using a categorical variable based on six macro-industries (basic material;
energy, oil and gas; financials and real estate; manufacturing; services; technology).
“Profitability” was included because good economic performance can significantly affect
the level of sustainability disclosure by firms (Leuz et al., 2003); it was measured using the
return on assets achieved in the same reporting year (2010). “Firm size” was calculated as
the natural logarithm of the total corporate workforce at the date of report publication.
Following Rousseeuw and Van Zomeren (1990), we identified outliers in two multivariate
outliers which have a Mahalanobis D2 of less than 0.001 that were excluded from our
multivariate analysis, and we excluded them from the analysis. The multicollinearity test
was performed for each regression, and every variance inflation factor ranged between 1.0
and 2.0, thus indicating that multicollinearity was not a significant issue in the analyses (Hair
et al., 1998).
The following Tables AI-AVI show details of 42 models of OLS regressions we used to test
the relevance of a country using the different disclosure items and indexes.


VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017
Table AII OLS regression on human resource disclosure items
Employee health Employment of Employee Employee assistance Employee Employee Employee share Employee Industrial
Variables and safety minorities or woman training benefit remuneration profiles purchase schemes morale relations
Constant 0.45 2.41*** 0.42 2.08** ⫺0.28 ⫺0.04 ⫺2.08*** 4.70*** ⫺2.85***
Institutional contexts 0.90** ⫺0.09 0.80*** 0.11 0.72*** 0.96*** 1.07*** ⫺1.16*** 1.63***
Industry 0.01 0.01 0.02 ⫺0.03 0.02 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.01 0.02 0.02
Profitability ⫺0.03 ⫺0.02 0.00 0.00 ⫺0.04* ⫺0.02 0.02 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.03
Size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00
R2 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.17 0.24 0.13 0.36
F-score 2.84** 0.13 2.33* 0.15 3.52** 4.82*** 7.20*** 3.39** 13.25***
Notes: *Significant at the 0.10 level; **significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level
Table AIII OLS regression on consumer disclosure items
Disclosing of Consumer Provision for disabled,
Product Product consumer safety complaints/ aged and difficult-to-
Variables safety quality practices satisfaction reach consumers
Constant 3.71*** 3.96*** 4.08*** ⫺1.57 2.60***

Institutional contexts ⫺0.56 ⫺0.40 ⫺0.96*** 1.11*** ⫺0.51
Industry 0.00 ⫺0.01 0.05 0.06 ⫺0.00
Profitability ⫺0.01 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.08* ⫺0.04
Size ⫺0.00 ⫺0.00 ⫺0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.23 0.03
F-score 0.69 0.57 2.42** 6.91*** 0.75
Table AIV OLS regression on community disclosure items

Charitable Support for
donations and Support for Support for Support for sport or recreating
Variables activities education arts and culture public health projects
Constant 3.76*** 4.64*** ⫺0.77 3.65*** ⫺2.34***

Institutional contexts ⫺0.58 ⫺0.94*** 0.81*** ⫺0.74 1.17***

Industry 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04
Profitability ⫺0.05 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.02
Size 0.00 0.00 ⫺0.00 0.00 ⫺0.00*
R2 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.34
F-score 1.52 2.25** 3.80*** 1.51 11.57***


Table AV OLS regression on supplier disclosure items
VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Respect of contract Codes of conduct
Suppliers’ clauses and anti- and (inter)national Controls and monitoring Health and safety Product/Service quality Support to supplier
Variables profiles corruption policies standards and initiatives of suppliers’ compliance in suppliers’ plants and safety control development
Constant 2.66*** 1.52** 1.88** 1.31 0.26 1.56** 0.78

Institutional
context ⫺0.53** ⫺0.12 ⫺0.33 ⫺0.17 0.14 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.33***
Industry 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 ⫺0.00 0.04
Profitability ⫺0.01 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.00 0.01 0.01 ⫺0.04 0.03
Size ⫺0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.15
F-score 2.90*** 0.13 0.49 1.08 0.40 1.05 4.20***
Notes: **Significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level
Table AVI OLS regression on SR indexes
Community Supplier
Environmental Human resource Customer disclosure disclosure Sustainability
Variables disclosure index disclosure index disclosure index index index disclosure index
Constant 2.69*** 0.53 2.56 1.79*** 1.43 1.76*

Institutional
context ⫺0.33 0.54** ⫺0.26 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.21 ⫺0.04
Industry 0.00 0.06** 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01
Profitability 0.00 ⫺0.17** ⫺0.03 ⫺0.04* ⫺0.00 0.14
Size 0.00* – ⫺0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03
F-score 1.23 2.86** 0.75 1.30 0.75 0.58
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

SRJ 11 2015 0172

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

SRJ 11 2015 0172

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Responsibility Journal

The influence of the institutional context on sustainability reporting. A cross-national analysis

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Laura Maria Ferri is Abstract

Institutional theory, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 25

The national business system and corporate social responsibility in Italy

PAGE 26 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 27

The national business system and corporate social responsibility in Brazil

PAGE 28 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

protection, rather than demonstrating compliance to institutional requirements and seeking

Measures and analysis

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 29

Final sample 150 50 50 50

mention; 1 ⫽ Mentioned, but only in reference to another document or statement; 2 ⫽

detail; 4 ⫽ Detailed discussion; 5 ⫽ Discussion that comprises over 50 per cent of

PAGE 30 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 31

Table III Differences in SR by country

PAGE 32 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

PAGE 34 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Conclusions and limitations

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 35

PAGE 36 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Amran, A. and Haniffa, R. (2011), “Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: a case of a

Barkemeyer, R. (2011), “Corporate perceptions of sustainability challenges in developed and

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 37

PAGE 38 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Kolk, A. (2008), “Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals’

Kraisornsuthasinee, S. and Swierczek, F. (2006), “Interpretations of CSR in Thai companies”, Journal

Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis, Sage Publications, Sage, CA.

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 39

Mattar, H. (2008), Pesquisa 2006/2007: Responsabilidade Social das Empresas – Percepção do

Michelon, G. (2011), “Sustainability disclosure and reputation: a comparative study”, Corporate

Reverte, C. (2009), “Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish

PAGE 40 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Nyquist, S. (2003), “The legislation of environmental disclosures in three Nordic countries – a

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 41

PAGE 42 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Notes: **Significant at the 0.05 level; ***significant at the 0.01 level

As far as the independent variables are concerned, “Institutional contexts” refers to a

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 43

PAGE 44 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

Constant 3.71*** 3.96*** 4.08*** ⫺1.57 2.60***

Table AIV OLS regression on community disclosure items

Constant 3.76*** 4.64*** ⫺0.77 3.65*** ⫺2.34***

Institutional contexts ⫺0.58 ⫺0.94*** 0.81*** ⫺0.74 1.17***

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 45

PAGE 46 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017

Constant 2.66*** 1.52** 1.88** 1.31 0.26 1.56** 0.78

Constant 2.69*** 0.53 2.56 1.79*** 1.43 1.76*

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2017 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL PAGE 47

You might also like

Notes: Significant at the 0.05 level; *significant at the 0.01 level

Constant 3.71* 3.96* 4.08* ⫺1.57 2.60*

Constant 3.76* 4.64* ⫺0.77 3.65* ⫺2.34*

Institutional contexts ⫺0.58 ⫺0.94* 0.81* ⫺0.74 1.17***

Constant 2.66* 1.52 1.88 1.31 0.26 1.56 0.78

Constant 2.69* 0.53 2.56 1.79* 1.43 1.76*