Why are more and more companies voluntarily issuing costly, potentially exposing standalone sustainability reports on environmentally and socially problematic issues?Using legitimacy theory, this study analyses ways companies seek to strategically enhance legitimacy by leaning towards either 'representative' reporting of both favourable and unfavourable information especially in an industry's highest impact domains, or 'greenwashing' (including whitewashing non-environmental issues), which downplays unfavourables and high-impact domains and highlights favourable but less relevant points. Content analysis compared Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) reports from 2011 to 2019 by Australian financial services companies (107 reports) and mining and metals companies (122). Specifically, to critique reporting quality in fine grain, it disaggregated results into levels (from omission to full quantitative treatment) of disclosure of good/bad/neutral news indicators and violation-related/ non-violation-related ones and identified highest impact domains. Neither industry's reporting was very representative. Relatively though, mining and metals leant towards representation: fuller disclosure on environmental aspects (its highest impact domain), including unfavourables: bad and violation-related indicators. Financial services companies only led in disclosing neutral social indicators, not bad or violation-related ones, so leant towards greenwashing. Results also suggest that after the GRI clarifying materiality principle in 2016, financial services disclosure quality dropped further by de-emphasising environmental without lifting social disclosures, while mining and metals' stayed unchanged. The results confirm and better specify widely indicated reporting weaknesses, contributing to content analysis methodology and legitimacy theory. This arms guideline setters, investors and other stakeholders to better evaluate/design reports and might encourage firms to voluntarily improve disclosures.

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to commentate on the roles of sustainability reporting during the COVID-19 pandemic. It evaluates the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) framework, designed as a guide for best-practice in sustainability reporting, for its applicability to cover COVID-19 issues and, more generally, issues arising in crisis conditions. Design/methodology/approach The GRI’s COVID-19 communications and the GRI framework are reviewed using three common theories of reporting, namely, institutional, stakeholder and legitimacy theory. For each theory, the authors contrast expectations under business-as-usual conditions against crisis conditions to identify gaps and avenues to guide COVID-19 responses. Findings This commentary opines the GRI framework risks perpetuating incremental change towards the “new normal”, rather than motivating the urgent responses needed in a crisis. The GRI can play a significant normative role to guide immediate and short-term best practice in COVID-19 reporting. Findings motivate the need to report for vulnerable rather than powerful stakeholders and to recognise and celebrate proactive change. Originality/value This paper commentates on the suitability of a major sustainability reporting framework and its role in improving responses to the current COVID-19 crisis. Findings propose challenges to the GRI and GRI framework to motivate urgent responses and communication for the pandemic.

This study examines the relationship between sustainability reporting and four factors named as industry, size, ownership type and organisation perspective through the lenses of multiple theories (institutional theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and theory of planned behaviour). We surveyed 240 Australian and New Zealand companies and asked them about the status of their sustainability reporting as well as their perceptions regarding the importance of sustainability indicators. We used the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators to develop the survey. From an ownership perspective, the results show that companies belonging to the public sector report more sustainability information compared with the private sector. However, from an industry perspective, there were no statistically significant differences between environmentally sensitive and non-environmentally sensitive industries in terms of the content of their sustainability reporting. The results further show that the size of a company does not influence the content of sustainability reporting, but larger firms tend to provide more details in their reports. The results also show a positive relationship between sustainability reporting and organisation perspective (in terms of the level of importance of the GRI indicators). This study contributes to the sustainability literature and reporting theories. Moreover, the results have several implications for managers and promoters of the GRI for improving the adoption of the GRI guidelines and increasing the level of sustainability reporting to amplify the company’s image. The results also allow for effective government policy development through understanding what motivates companies to disclose environmental and social-related activities.

Purpose This paper aims to evaluate the outcome effectiveness of the global reporting initiatives (GRI) transitions by understanding how companies have responded to the changes from G3.1 to G4 and finally to the GRI Standards. Design/methodology/approach A quality disclosure score is developed that incorporates assessments of both the quality of disclosures and the materiality of Australian companies. To analyse materiality, survey data were collected from 187 companies. Disclosure scores are based on a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 12 mining and metals companies and 12 financial services companies that used the GRI Standards from 2011 to 2019 (a total of 213 reports). Findings The study found that the GRI transitions have not led to companies improving the quality of their disclosures on areas considered important for them to achieve their social and environmental goals. Instead, the companies tended to use a greenwashing strategy, where the quality of disclosure of material issues declined or fluctuated over time. Practical implications From a practical perspective, the disclosure score developed in this paper enables managers of companies to recognize a threshold of completeness and to summarize the areas that are not materially relevant to their business. Social implications The results are potentially helpful for investors, shareholders and other stakeholders, enabling them to better understand sustainability reports. Originality/value This study contributes to the body of research in sustainability reporting by providing evidence on the outcome effectiveness of the latest updates in the GRI framework.