Guest editorial

Purpose Since the Brundtland report’s call for sustainability, planetary conditions have deteriorated. This paper suggests that corporate hypocrisy is a major barrier toward the adoption of sustainability and offers a typology of business behavior that can move closer toward the adoption of true and strong sustainability. Design/methodology/approach This article uses a normative lens to build upon prior literature and anecdotal evidence from the field to present a typology of business archetypes that represent a variety of responses toward sustainability. Findings The authors propose five typologies of business behavior that represent responses toward sustainability: business-as-usual, hypocritical pretender, hypocritical co-opter, responsible enterprise and purposeful enterprise. The first three typologies represent existing hypocritical approaches using weak sustainability. The last two typologies decrease corporate hypocrisy; improve alignment of talk, decisions and action; and help an organization adopt true and strong sustainability. Research limitations/implications This is a normative paper that critiques existing literature and practices in corporate sustainability and proposes new directions. It necessitates further research in the form of case studies and empirical cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. It implies assessing firm impact in non-traditional ways and will call for the development of new measures and indicators of firm performance from a social and environmental perspective. Practical implications The typology can provide practitioners and researchers with one possible solution to eliminate or decrease corporate hypocrisy in relation to sustainability, reporting and communications. Social implications Planetary conditions have worsened, and business activity continues to contribute to deteriorating conditions. This research attempts to help businesses move away from hypocritical and destructive practices and to adopt true and strong sustainability practices for a flourishing planet. Furthermore, the authors articulate policy and practice recommendations in this context. Originality/value After decades of failure to make progress in achieving planetary sustainability, this research offers a model for practitioners and researchers to use in defining the actions necessary to achieve the elusive concept of sustainability.

Section: Sustainability Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Organized Hypocrisymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explorations in organized hypocrisy and a proposed direction for a sustainable future

Farias,

Landrum,

Farias

et al. 2023

“…Notably, Adams and Mueller (2022, p. 1323) comment that the Foundation “incorrectly assumed that all investors have the same ‘perspective’on these matters or shared the perspective of the IFRS Foundation Trustees”. Abhayawansa et al (2022) identified differences in the demand for higher frequency or real-time reporting between types of investor groups. Stratification by types of investor groups was also reported by Muniandy et al (2016) and Sherman et al (1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global investor responses to the International Sustainability Standards Board draft sustainability and climate-change standards: sites of dissonance or consensus

Millar,

Slack

2024

Purpose This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). Design/methodology/approach A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB. Findings There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion. Practical and Social implications The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

“…In addition, this piece acts as an introduction to the SAMPJ special issue – “The Future of GRI”, which aims “to contribute to the literature on the historic and future role of GRI in responding to stakeholder demand for enhanced ESG information” and “the contributions GRI has made to the sustainability reporting space and the practice of sustainability reporting” (Luque-Vílchez et al , 2021). The analysis of how GRI is dealing with materiality, comparability and assurance is pivotal to informing GRI on how to develop future policies, particularly considering the current complex and evolving standard-setting process (Abhayawansa et al , 2022; De Villiers et al , 2022; Giner and Luque-Vílchez, 2022). The pieces included in this special issue can be classified along three main lines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI

Luque‐Vílchez

Cordazzo

Rimmel

et al. 2023

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance. Findings The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards. Practical implications In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects. Social implications The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future. Originality/value This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.