PurposeThis study aims to explain how sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement processes serve as vehicles of dialogic accounting, a form of critical accounting that creates opportunities for stakeholders to express their opinions, and the influence of dialogic interactions on the content of sustainability reports. Design/methodology/approachContent analysis is used to investigate reports published by 299 companies that have adopted Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. This article studies how organizations engage stakeholders, the categories of stakeholders that are being addressed, the methods used to support stakeholder engagement, and other features of the stakeholder engagement process. Companies that disclose stakeholder perceptions, the difficulties met in engaging stakeholders, and actions aimed at creating opportunities for different groups of stakeholders to interact were subjects of discussion in a series of semi-structured interviews that focus on dialogic accounting. FindingsCompanies often commit themselves to two-way dialogue with their stakeholders, but fully developed frameworks for dialogic accounting are rare. However, signs of dialogic accounting emerged in our analysis, thus confirming that sustainability reporting can become a platform for dialogic accounting systems if stakeholder engagement is effective. Originality/valueOur findings contribute to the accounting literature by discussing if and how sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement can serve as vehicles of dialogic accounting. This is accomplished via a research design that is based on in-depth interviews and content analysis of various sustainability reports.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to extend existing knowledge on the determinants of sustainability report (SR) assurance practices. Four different theories – stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory – are used to formulate several hypotheses regarding the main factors that can influence a company’s decision to assure its SRs. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 417 listed organizations based in different European countries over five years, the effects of stakeholder commitment, country orientation toward sustainability, firm environmental performance and business ethics controversies on the decision to assure SRs are assessed. Findings The results show that a company’s decision to assure its SRs is motivated by the need to maintain good relations with its stakeholders (which is in line with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory), as well as by the willingness to signal their sustainability performance (which is in line with signaling theory) and to gain legitimacy. On the contrary, business ethics controversies do not seem to be relevant to a company’s assurance practices. Originality/value This paper provides new insights into the influence that social, environmental and institutional factors have on assurance strategies. New factors that previous research does not investigate – environmental performance, business ethics controversies and corporate governance – are tested. Factors that are already investigated in the literature are considered from an original perspective of introducing alternative measures (e.g. for the scope of national sustainability policies).
PurposeThis study contributes to the literature on hypocrisy in corporate social responsibility by investigating how organizations adapt their nonfinancial disclosure after a social, environmental or governance scandal.Design/methodology/approachThe present research employs content analysis of nonfinancial disclosures by 11 organizations during a 3-year timespan to investigate how they responded to major scandals in terms of social, environmental and sustainability reporting and a content analysis of independent counter accounts to detect the presence of views that contrast with the corporate disclosure and suggest hypocritical behaviors.FindingsFour patterns in the adaptation of reporting – genuine, allusive, evasive, indifferent – emerge from information collected on scandals and socially responsible actions. The type of scandal and cultural factors can influence the response to a scandal, as environmental and social scandal can attract more scrutiny than financial scandals. Companies exposed to environmental and social scandals are more likely to disclose information about the scandal and receive more coverage by external parties in the form of counter accounts.Originality/valueUsing a theoretical framework based on legitimacy theory and organizational hypocrisy, the present research contributes to the investigation of the adaptation of reporting when a scandal occurs and during its aftermath.
PurposeThis article lays out some conceptual considerations of how dynamic accountability and risk reporting practices could be tailored during and after a global pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual paper seeks to foster the debate on the crucial role of risk reporting considering the impact and uncertainty caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and stakeholder information needs in this context. The authors draw upon neo-Durkheimian institutional and legitimacy theories and elements of the accounting and risk management literature to discuss the challenges that the pandemic poses to risk recognition and assessment and the subsequent disclosure decision of risk information.FindingsRisk reporting has its roots in risk recognition and assessment. To live up to their accountability in these times of uncertainty, organisations need to address their stakeholders' new and changing information needs. Ad hoc disclosures and linking risk management and reporting to their business models (BM) would improve the risk recognition and assessment practices and the meaningfulness of the disclosed information. Hence, we provide some examples and discuss potential avenues to address these challenges and adapt risk reporting accordingly.Originality/valueThis conceptual paper contributes to the risk reporting and accountability research fields. Previous studies on communication during a crisis have focused on sustainability reporting. Thus, this study contributes to that literature by considering the role of risk reporting in times of an unexpected large-scale global crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and by highlighting possibilities for moving risk reporting towards becoming more accountability based.
PurposeThis study aims to investigate how stakeholders perceive the company's nonfinancial disclosure after a scandal has occurred. More specifically, the authors examine whether and how sustainability reporting practices in the aftermath of a scandal can influence the perceptions of stakeholders in terms of hypocrisy and legitimacy.Design/methodology/approachThe present research represents a companion paper to another study in this issue that investigates the adaptation of companies' reporting behaviors after a scandal. The results of the initial qualitative study informed the subsequent quantitative study developed in this article. The authors build on the evidence of the main paper and perform a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment to examine how stakeholders perceive the actions of companies that aim to restore their eroded legitimacy through social, environmental and sustainability (SES) reporting.FindingsThe results suggest that when companies take responsibility and develop remedial, socially responsible corporate activities are perceived as less hypocritical and more legitimate. Moreover, we show an interaction effect between taking responsibility and developing remedial socially responsible actions on hypocrisy and legitimacy perception.Originality/valueThe present research takes advantage of an experimental design to investigate the effects of the adaptation of SES reporting from the perspective of stakeholders. The study provides insightful theoretical and practical implications for managers regarding how to handle a reputational loss and avoid perceptions of hypocrisy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.