PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe the state of sustainability reporting in Canada's higher education sector, while understanding who is reporting on sustainability performance, how is information being reported, and what is being reported.Design/methodology/approachA framework with ten categories and 56 indicators based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines and campus sustainability assessment tools was developed to analyse the contents of a cross‐sectional sample of sustainability reports published by Canada's largest 25 universities (by student enrolment). Each author analysed two to three reports. Evidences were checked for accuracy by a different author and finally discussed in a focus group.FindingsThe analysis has shown that sustainability reporting is an uncommon and diverse practice at Canadian universities. Primarily under the coordination of sustainability offices or students, seven universities published sustainability reports in the analyzed period (2006‐2008). While all reports shared a non‐integrated indicators framework, a variety of approaches were used in the selection of indicators. Reports generally had limited scopes emphasizing eco‐efficiency. The potential value of current documents as a tool to inform sustainability‐oriented decisions is limited.Practical implicationsFindings are particularly relevant to university administrators and sustainability offices planning to publish or enhance sustainability reports. The paper also explores the challenges of applying the GRI guidelines to the higher education sector.Originality/valueMost descriptive studies on sustainability reporting have addressed large multinational corporations. This paper is one of the first to address the incipient practices of higher education institutions.

Member companies of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) have committed to publish externally assured sustainability reports. This paper evaluates the quality of assurance provided to those companies by analyzing the extent to which a sample of their assurance statements met minimum recommended contents. It also seeks to understand the implications of the recently launched ICMM Assurance Procedure. Nine out of the sixteen companies hired assurance in the period analyzed. Their statements mirrored several quality problems highlighted in previous studies. The extensive scope limitations and diversity of verifi cation criteria employed by assurors indicate that mining companies had signifi cant control over the practice. The Assurance Procedure might bring more consistency and breadth to the verifi cation process. The extent to which it will contribute to increased trust in reported information will depend on several factors, including how assurors may interpret the procedure's requirements. Directions for further research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

While materiality analysis is often regarded as essential to sustainability reporting, there is a shortage of empirical studies about its transparency in published reports. This study had a three‐fold objective: (a) identify stakeholders and respective techniques of engagement in the materiality analysis; (b) quantify disclosures of materiality‐related indicators; and (c) explore the influence of assurance, standard, and headquarters' location in the transparency of materiality analysis. Based on a quantitative content analysis of 140 GRI‐based sustainability reports, this study found that, overall, organizations did not disclose comprehensive and detailed information about their approaches to identifying material topics. About 22% of the evaluated indicators were not fully disclosed in the sample. Non‐parametric tests suggested that third‐party assurance, type of GRI standard, and location of headquarters are unlikely to affect the rates of transparency. The study calls for further standardization and methodological development of materiality analysis in sustainability reporting.

No abstract