Prior empirical research into factors which are influential in determining the extent and nature of corporate social reporting has primarily been concerned with the impact of corporate characteristics (such as size and industry grouping) or general contextual factors (such as the social, political and economic context). Relatively little prior work has examined the internal contextual factors and their impact on reporting despite increasing emphasis in the field of practice on reporting processes and governance structures. In this study interviews were conducted with seven large multinational companies in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors of the UK and Germany in order to identify any internal contextual factors influencing the nature and extent of reporting. The work highlights the lack of explanatory power of the existing social reporting theories. A more inclusive model of corporate social reporting is presented.

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it assesses in detail the extent to which corporate reporting on ethical, social and environmental issues reflects corporate performance in case study company Alpha. This "reporting-performance" portrayal gap is a key measure of the extent to which an organisation is accountable to its stakeholders. Alpha's disclosures concerning its ethical, social and environmental performance for the years 1993 and 1999 were compared with information obtained on Alpha's performance from other sources. Two different pictures of performance emerged leading to the conclusion that, in the case of Alpha, reports do not demonstrate a high level of accountability to key stakeholder groups on ethical, social and environmental issues. Of particular concern is the lack of "completeness" of reporting. Second, the article assesses the potential of recent standards or guidelines developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility (AccountAbility) as well as the industry's own "responsible care" initiative to reduce this "reporting-performance" portrayal gap and improve corporate accountability. The conclusions point to the need for other measures to improve accountability including mandatory reporting guidelines, better developed audit guidelines, a mandatory audit requirement for MNCs and a radical overhaul of corporate governance systems.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present a case for research in ethical, social and environmental (or sustainability) accounting and accountability which engages with those organisations claiming to manage and report their sustainability performance. In addition, the paper reviews the contributions in this special issue. Design/methodology/approach -The paper provides an analysis and critique of the extent of engagement research in the field of sustainability accounting and accountability. It draws on the fields of management, management accounting and critical accounting to present a case for further research engagement with sustainability accounting and accountability practice. Findings -The paper finds that the extant literature in the field of sustainability accounting and reporting, in contrast to the fields of management accounting and management, has largely ignored practice within organisations. The lack of "engaging research" is found to be due to concerns about increasing the breadth of participants in the social accounting agenda and "managerial capture". The paper argues that further research engaging with organisations is needed in order to identify how accounting and management systems might reduce their negative sustainability impacts. The paper argues that such research can benefit from the methodological and theoretical insights of other disciplines.Research limitations/implications -The paper suggests where further contributions might be made by future research endeavours engaging with organisations. Practical implications -Engagement research in sustainability accounting and reporting has the potential to improve theorizing, practice and the sustainability performance of organisations. Originality/value -Drawing on the methods and theories of other disciplines and the papers in the special issue, the paper presents a way forward for researchers engaging with organisations practicing sustainability accounting and reporting.

This article deals with two concerns in achieving greater accountability in social reports: the lack of completeness of reporting, and the lack of credibility of reports. The article focuses, in particular, on the role of social audits in improving the completeness and credibility of reporting, thereby reducing the audit expectations gap. We suggest that this gap arises due to an over-emphasis on the validity of performance data at the expense of addressing completeness and credibility, both of which, we argue, require stakeholder involvement. The article reviews recent guidelines aimed at ensuring that companies produce reports that are complete in all material respects including those produced by the Global Reporting Initiative and the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens, focusing particularly on AccountAbility's AA1000 Standard and AA1000S Assurance Standard. Finally, the article considers the development of a practical approach to social audit following principles increasingly being incorporated into developing assurance guidelines aimed at reducing the audit expectations gap.• Social auditing • Accountability • Audit expectations gap• Social reporting• Assurance guidelines

No abstract