Sustainable reports are the basic tool used to reflect and communicate stakeholder dialogue. Therefore, sustainability reporting has become a key element for strategic management. Companies' strategies are defined and developed by their boards of directors. This study explores the relationship between sustainability reporting and the existence of at least three women on the board of directors. Our results show that in countries with a higher proportion of boards of directors with at least three women, the levels of CSR reporting are higher. We also find that countries with higher gender equality have more companies with boards of directors with at least three women. We control for other variables that affect differences among countries and differences in CSR reporting as found in previous studies: cultural differences, law enforcement, GDP, industry and regulation. Our paper contributes to the literature by studying the relationship between board gender composition and CSR reporting. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

The purpose of this paper is to study what are the characteristics that make firms less or more prone to greenwashing. We collect data from sustainability disclosures of the S&P top 100 companies, to investigate the determinants of greenwashing. We use content analysis to measure the level of reporting of the companies. We define the “greenwashing” variable as the difference between what the company says it does in terms of commitment to sustainability, and what the company actually does as evaluated by external parties (Bloomberg ESG scores). Our results show that companies in environmentally sensitive industries greenwash less than their counterparts in other industries, as well as companies following the GRI guidelines. Companies that issue a sustainability report and assure it greenwash less than those that do not do it. Contrary to our intuition, companies in industries with close proximity and high visibility greenwash more than their counterparts. A limitation of the paper is the inclusion in the sample of data from one country. Our findings have implications for policy-makers, particularly in Europe, where some European states have already regulated on green issues reporting and lately on blue issues. It might be interesting to consider both the industry effect and the relevance of reporting mechanisms when developing regulation and policies in order to improve the quality of sustainability reporting. We contribute to literature by proposing a new quantitative measure to assess greenwashing practices, to better understand the effect of industry and reporting mechanisms on greenwashing.

No abstract

Purpose This paper uses institutional theory to analyze the structure of the sustainability assurance market (SAM) at a global level. The purpose of this paper is to determine if regional differences affect industry specialization in this market. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 3,657 sustainability reports (SRs) with assurance statements, the authors study the global and regional specialization of assurers by breaking down the sample into three main regions. The authors approach industry specialization using previous methodologies applied to the financial audit market, and explain differences statistically significant among regions. Findings The authors find different industry specialists depending on the geographical region in which the audit firm is located. The Europe, Middle Eastern and Africa region has the highest number of industry specialists and the Asia-Pacific region the lowest. Notwithstanding the global participation of Big 4 firms, assurance specialization depends on the country where the company is located. Research limitations/implications The paper reveals the need to include regional differences in the analysis of the SAM at the international level. Practical implications The study shows an in-depth study of the SAM that may be useful for assurers, to decide strategic actions in industries and countries and for regulators, to control the risk of monopolistic/oligopolistic markets. Originality/value The study presents a novel approach to the analysis of the assurance market for SRs, by studying it from the supply point of view. The analysis provides a measure of specialization that may help understand the structure of the SAM.

No abstract

Abstract:The assurance of sustainability reports faces significant challenges that arise from the characteristics of sustainability information and the regulatory context in which it is developed. This recently growing service has favoured the creation of a rapidly evolving market, a complex professional field in its early stages of development and study. The aim of this paper is to analyse whether the use of international standards or the profile of the provider performing the service affects assurance process and quality. To this end, we applied a novel methodology for this field: a survey through written questionnaires. The use of a primary information source allows us to gain insight into the topic, beyond other visible aspects often used in previous literature (e.g., assurance statement contents). We tested our hypotheses on a sample of Spanish accounting and consulting firms. Our results show that neither the use of international standards nor the provider's professional background has any effect on assurance process and assurance quality. However, the way the professional perceives the developed service does have an impact on quality.

Purpose This paper aims to analyse the impact of the European Union (EU) Directive on the quality of sustainability reporting under the institutional theory lens. Specifically, the authors evaluate what kind of institutional pressure has the highest impact on the quality of corporate disclosure on sustainability issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors build a quality index based on the content analysis of sustainability information disclosed, before and after the transposition of the Directive, by Italian and Spanish companies belonging to different industries. The authors use an OLS regression model to analyse the effect of coercive, normative and mimetic forces on the quality of the sustainability reports. Findings The results highlight that normative and mimetic mechanisms positively affect the quality of sustainability reporting, whereas there is no evidence regarding coercive mechanisms, indicating that the new requirements do not provide a significant contribution to the development of better reporting practices, at least in the two analysed countries. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the few studies assessing the quality of sustainability reporting through an analysis involving the period before and after the implementation of the EU Directive. It enriches the literature on institutional theory by analysing how the different dimensions of isomorphism affect the quality of information disclosed by companies according to the EU requirements. It contributes to a better understanding of the impact of the non-financial information Directive, and the results of this paper can be relevant for regulators, practitioners and academia, especially in view of the adoption of the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive proposal.

No abstract