The information contained in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports is a controversial issue, and it has generated an important debate among academics regarding company disclosure strategies. Environmental matters are especially relevant given their impact on sustainable development. The present study has two objectives. The first is to determine which Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) environmental indicators are reported less frequently. The second is to predict the evolution of these indicators in light of the institutional pressures that companies try to resist. Specifically, the study of the environmental dimension of the GRI focusses on an analysis of the following: materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, effluents and waste, products and services, compliance, transport, environmental assessment, and environmental grievance mechanisms. A content analysis of CSR reports from some of the world's largest companies reveals that the indicators least disclosed by companies relate to the environmental aspects of biodiversity. The dissemination of environmental indicators is influenced by normative, mimetic, and (to a lesser extent) coercive pressures. In addition, we observe that mimetic institutional pressures under a national and industrial vision influence the dissemination of environmental information. In terms of cultural dimensions, companies located in long-term, feminine, and collectivist countries tend to disseminate environmental information accordingly.

The complexity of the business world and current business models has motivated an increasing number of companies to disclose corporate information through sustainability reports. This reporting and stakeholders engagement may bring shared value to business and society in general although working towards sustainable development goals. This work adopts a new analytical approach by determining the global reporting initiative indicators related to labour practices and decent work, human rights, society, and product responsibility that are reported less frequently by companies. The final

Great efforts focus on early detection of autism spectrum disorder, although some scientists and policy-makers have questioned early universal screening. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the different screening tools. Several electronic databases were used to identify published studies. A Bayesian model was used to estimate the screening accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61–0.81), and the specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.97–0.99). Subgroup analyses to remove heterogeneity indicated sensitivity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.69–0.84), and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99; SD ≤ 0.01). Level 1 screening tools for ASD showed consistent statistically significant results and therefore are adequate to detect autism at 14–36 months. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10803-018-03865-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract