Since the end of the 1990s, sustainability reporting has become an increasingly relevant topic in business and academia. However, literature is still limited in quantity and no major reviews of the latest developments have thus far been presented. This paper provides a review of 178 articles dating from 1999 to 2011 from journals related to business, management, and accounting. Our aim is to identify what determinants of sustainability reporting are examined in the literature and to identify (in)consistencies, gaps, and opportunities for future research. We specifically illuminate factors influencing the adoption, the extent, and the quality of reporting. Based on our findings we provide an otherwise often missing link to theory (especially legitimacy, stakeholder, signaling, and institutional theory). Finally, possible future research themes are discussed by illuminating gaps and underexposed themes in the area of regulation and governance as well as reporting quality and stakeholder perception.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2330264_code1468472.pdf?abstractid=2290524&mirid=4

Determinants of Sustainability Reporting: A Review of Results, Trends, Theory, and Opportunities in an Expanding Field of Research

Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research

For four decades, reporting on corporate responsibility by businesses has been the subject of empirical research. In the 1970s and 1980s, studies mostly originated from Anglo-Saxon and Western European countries. During the last two decades research on responsibility reporting was increasingly undertaken in emerging and developing countries as well – always following the reporting practices of the respective businesses. Consequentially, a very large number of studies exist today. Many of these have empirically investigated the determinants of responsibility reporting and examined whether internal factors like size and industry or external factors like stakeholder pressures have an impact on disclosure. Thus, the purpose of the following paper is twofold. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the existing literature in order to facilitate further research. Overall, 186 studies have been examined for the determinants which they considered and have been grouped according to their geographical origin. This provides for an analysis of whether academics from different regions have taken different approaches to the empirical examination of responsibility reporting and if their results differed. The findings show that scholars across regions have taken different paths in empirical research, but indications for a variation in the impact of specific determinants on reporting are weak. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis

The concept of sustainable and responsible (SR) investments expresses that every investment should be based on the SR investor’s code of ethics. To a large extent the allocation of SR investments to more sustainable companies and ethical practices is based on the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) scores provided by rating agencies. However, a thorough investigation of ESG scores is a neglected topic in the literature. This paper uses Thomson Reuters ASSET4 ESG ratings to analyze the influence of firm size, a company’s available resources for providing ESG data, and the availability of a company’s ESG data on the company’s sustainability performance. We find a significant positive correlation between the stated variables, which can be explained by organizational legitimacy. The results raise the question of whether the way the ESG score measures corporate sustainability gives an advantage to larger firms with more resources while not providing SR investors with the information needed to make decisions based on their beliefs. Due to our results, SR investors and scholars should reopen the discussion about: what sustainability rating agencies measure with ESG scores, what exactly needs to be measured, and if the sustainable finance community can reach their self-imposed objectives with this measurement.

The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review

The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: what is the point?

In this paper, we fi rst analyzed the responsibility reporting literature with an emphasis on the linkage between responsibility reporting and a fi rm’s performance and valuation. Based on the literature review, we developed a research question: How does communication via responsibility reporting affect fi rm value? We analyzed the market valuation of listed Finnish fi rms through a conventional valuation model combined with responsibility reporting. The starting point for our valuation was the Ohlson model. We expanded upon the conventional valuation by studying whether communication via responsibility reporting is related to fi rm valuation. Our research question is linked to the broader academic question of whether earnings worth as an information source has been erased over the last few years. In addition, we contribute to the literature that tries to understand the link between corporate social responsibility and fi rm performance/share performance. Specifi cally, we focused on responsibility reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and especially on whether the existence of these reports provides a further explanation for fi rm value. Our sample was a population type that covered all listed Finnish fi rms that have adopted GRI. No other responsibility reporting practice was used by listed fi rms in their responsibility reporting communication during the years 2002–2005. The other necessary information for valuation models was obtained from Thomson Financial Services (commercial database). The applied model supported the conclusion that communication via GRI responsibility reporting is an important explanatory factor for a fi rm’s market value. The result indicates that responsibility reporting is a part of a fi rm’s communication tools in order to decrease information asymmetry between managers and investors. In other words, GRI responsibility reporting is called for in order to produce a more precise market valuation of a fi rm. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Communication via responsibility reporting and its effect on firm value in Finland

In this paper, we have first analyzed the responsibility reporting literature with an emphasis on the linkage between reporting and firm performance and firm valuation. Based on the literature review, we have developed a research question: How does the communication via responsibility reporting affect firm value? The market valuation of listed Finnish firms through a conventional valuation model combined with responsibility reporting is analyzed. The starting point for our valuation was the Ohlson model. We expanded upon the conventional valuation by studying whether communication via responsibility reporting is related to firm valuation. Our research question is linked to the broader academic question of whether earnings worth as an information source has been erased over the last few years. In addition to that, we contribute to the literature that tries to understand the link between corporate social responsibility and firm performance/share performance. Specifically, we focused on responsibility reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and especially on whether the existence of those reports provides a further explanation for firm value. Our sample was a population type that covered all listed Finnish firms that have adopted GRI. No other responsibility reporting practice was used by listed firms in their responsibility reporting communication during the years 2002–2005. The other necessary information for valuation models was obtained from Thomson Financial Services (commercial database). The applied model supported the conclusion that communication via GRI responsibility reporting is an important explanatory factor for firms’ market value. The result indicates that responsibility reporting is a part of a firm’s communication tools in order to decrease information asymmetry between managers and investors. In other words, GRI responsibility reporting is called for in order to produce a more precise market valuation of a firm.

Mikael Niskala

Papers

Communication via responsibility reporting and its effect on firm value in Finland

Communication via Responsibility Reporting and Its Effect on Firm Value in Finland